Paradox Interactive just did this with Stellaris. They developed a Machine empire DLC and wanted to do an AI voice over for the machine empire. What they did was create two inhouse-only voice models based on voice actors that knew what they were signing up for, and those voice actors got royalties every time the model was used to create voice lines.
And that would make sense in that the data was used for two models which was used to make exact likenesses of their voices. But what if millions of people's voices were combined to make generic male and female voice models that could create multiple standardized variances of those voices, but didn't sound directly like anyone in particular? Well then it would be transformative creations and not imitative creations. Demanding that every single person get paid is like demanding every single artist that another artist drew inspiration from also gets paid, simply because they looked at and learned from their style.
That happened much earlier for text to speech stuff. It was also a lot more work since it seems like they had to manually chop up the sounds in ways that can then be reassembled and still have it sound reasonably good.
That's cool. Do you know if they made a model from scratch, or trained an existing base model? From what I understood you need an enormous base dataset to do this stuff.
@@avalerionbass I think you are equivocating AI art with human made art. A person might be inspired by other people's work. AI art is derivative and actively copies human artists. The human actually worked to make their inspired work their own. The AI doesn't. If a person copies somebody's style, to the point most would agree it is no unique, that is already known as copyright infringement. Training AI and making it profitable for free off the work of others is wrong.
It goes really hard. The problem is that when you start thinking like that then everything will look similar and at the end yo don;t do anything and just waste your life.
@@Kytrion start thinking in that way only fools. Normal people are just thinking about looking other jobs where they can't be replaced by something like AI and can be sure about their future.
It’s like fast food - sure, you can eat McDonalds, it’s not the worst you could eat, it fills your stomach with warm stuff that gives you energy, while taking the time to cook something good by yourself is just worlds better. But i don’t always have my stove with me, and i don’t always have the time, and if the only alternative is eating nothing, a limp burger is still the better option.
As anyone who has ever worked with the general public: The average person is *very* dumb and kinda shit. AI generated content reflects that because it can only generate the average of its training data. Currently, the only way to improve an AI model is by feeding it more data, preferably curated data that isn't shit. All that is fine if you want *really* average results. Therein lies the problem: What if you *need* better than average results? You'll need a human to make it. However, humans take time to get good. If all the jobs that need mediocre content evaporate because of AI, there's less opportunity for mediocre people to develop into excellent people. To make matters worse: The people that process doesn't weed out are going to be reliant on AI to help generate content, which means it's going to be even harder for them to get good since you don't really LEARN anything from AI. So TLDR: Best case scenario, the AI industry collapses upon itself as it realizes it won't give them the results they are looking for. Worst case scenario, they just screwed over a generation of future professionals because they prevented them from ever learning the skills they need to BE professionals.
@@DaremKurosaki TLDR: No major advancements of technology have EVER just magically gone away. You also can't just bully people into not using it. Artists hated Photoshop when it first came out because they thought it was "cheating." Now digital art is one of the most used forms of artistic media. Hell, artists even especially hated photography when it first came out, saying "All you're doing is just pressing a button!" Now it's also one of the most used forms of artistic media. The times change, technology changes, jobs become obsolete. You either move with it or get left behind. You CANNOT stop it.
I deal with the "oh AI is gonna take your job" everytime I say to someone that I'm studying translation. And I'm like "do you want all your subtitles to be generated by Google? No you don't"
this is especially true for translating ideas. For example, a lot of the translaters for Harry Potter kept the "Hogwarts" play on words by changing the name to something that makes sense in the laguage and culture they were translating to, and that is just one example of many
@@LARAUJO_0 No. Knowing a language and translation are two very different skillsets. There's more to translation than just "equivalent words". You may know what something means in a certain language but actually being able to communicate that in another language, with all the different meanings and double meanings, takes training and a deep understanding of both the language and the culture of both languages
@@LARAUJO_0 a good example of what happens when you only know the two languages but not actual translation (which is also what google translate does): ya ever seen those silly, poorly translated warning or danger signs?
I graduated college after forever at like 38 with a cs degree and the market for new devs collapsed and I kinda just gave up on the dream and relaxed into being a stay at home dad (i'm lucky enough to be able to do that). Then I found Thor, and Prime and have since had the fire reignited to build stuff and get good at engineering/programming regardless of ever getting a job or not.. and this kinda message is exactly why. Thanks Thor.
I wish for you, that you get a job and good mentor. I was in the same situation. Now I feel powerful. It grows with every day I am working and learning and practicing the skills
The idea that humans, a species that cannot reliably operate vehicles in a 2D plane would have flying car, is and has been wild to me since I was a teenager.
Except we already do have flying cars. We've had them since the 1940s actually. They're just really complicated, require very extensive training to operate, and are way, *way* too expensive for any average person to own. They're called helicopters.
@@610Blackhawk If you left out the last sentence you'd be correct. We already have flying cars, and I mean literally cars with foldable wings that can fly. They're just really expensive, need a pilot's license and probably can't legally take off on any public road.
Adding on to this; we couldn't even give copyrights to a monkey that took a selfie in 2014, or even the human owner of the camera. It was considered public domain and that was entirely based on pre-existing law. If a monkey doesn't get those rights, I highly doubt a computer or AI software would either, no matter what human owns the computer or who prompted the AI.
@@Loki-qo2kbFor US law, you have to substancially change it and even then. Most lisences from assets transfer up to the whole work. There have been whole albums pulled from shelves because of samples who's lisences changed (ex: that one elctroswing song that was used on YT as outro music for years, that later caused a mass copystrike issue)
I think the caveat here would be to prompt the image then recreate it yourself from scratch, or at least keep the idea of what the AI created for you, and then copyright it as your own. Because how can they then prove it wasn't your original art/idea?
There's a photographer who trains an AI model based on only his photographs to make new photographs and honestly that's a great way to use AI to make art.
@@Nvideogames not necessarily, We can have morally good AI, but it also shouldn't be the top result, if you search for an image it's generally not because you're looking for an AI image, if you wanna do that, you pull up an AI image generator
"Public domain" as a term is often used by people who confuse it with "publicly accessible".The books in a library are publicly accessible. But that doesn't mean I can start printing copies of books just because they're on the shelf. Generally speaking: if a work is less than 100 years old it is VERY unlikely for it to be public domain. Lord of the Rings will not become public domain until 2044 for example in the US (this does vary by region).
Copyright is a cancer that grinds down progress almost as hard as patenting. It ain't like it's stopping anyone from copying or morphing the books. I know that from experience, if I was too poor to own a book, I went to the library and copied it all. Why? Fuq money xD
@@lexmortis5722 Copyright is meant to protect small creatives from their works being massively produced, distributed and possibly sold without permission. Nobody cares if you paid a librarian $20 to use a B&W copier rather than checking it out for free.
@@lexmortis5722 Thank you! "The right to copy" is such a bullshit concept. You can have property rights to materials that something is made of. If someone takes it away from you then you don't have it and can't use it anymore and if it's done without your consent it's theft. You can't have property right to forms or ideas. If someone copies your idea or form you still have it and can use it, therefore there was no theft or stealing. The whole "Dark Ages" lasted that long because of government enforced guilds, patents and copyrights that stifled any innovation and this damn world is going back to it.
@@lexmortis5722 Tell me you don't care about artists--including small artists--without telling me you don't care about artists. Being "too poor" isn't an excuse. Art is a luxury, not something you're entitled to, and the people who create it have the right to be compensated for it and be protected from others stealing their ideas. Also like...sure the publishing house that sells the book you copied might not get hurt by what you did, but the author who won't make royalties from their book until the advance that publishing house paid them gets paid off with book sales absolutely will.
@@lexmortis5722 "copyright is a cancer" You know that copyright is in the Constitution right? "that grinds down progress" "The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” it literally PROMOTES progress
what i’m concerned about that eventually artists might not be able to get a job without having to sign away their art to be used for AI generation, even if they’re heavily against that
I think you’re right. That sounds exactly like what companies already do whenever you make something for them, because they can “use your art for transformative and marketing purposes”, which every client I’ve ever made something has in the contract. It’s standard practice. And usually it’s fine that they slap the logo you made on a bus or a billboard. But when they start using your art so that they won’t have to pay you again, that’s when stuff gets messed up.
@@asluckdespairs The fact that they managed to just weasel in a "We own everything you have ever and will ever make on our software, for the rest of time without exception" clause into their terms of service is insane.
that's pretty much what it was like with the music industry back in the day. you generally couldn't make it big if you weren't signed to a label. but now, the freedom of being signed has gotten so bad in comparison to the freedom of being unsigned that the chances of making it big have flipped. so, eventually the freedom of signing to an ai generator service is going to peel in comparison to the freedom of not doing so, at which point unsigned artists will be better off
@@Legowest77 reminds me of when in the matrix a martial artist was paid to act in it, however he rejected it bc he wouldnt be able to his the moves her learned and created i think
What's funny is that companies are fighting VERY hard against having to actually pay or get permission from artists because they won't be profitable anymore if they do, and will completely crash. Which I'm very excited for, hold them accountable.
@@coreymartin9630 You're right! I'm excited for its slow downfall, if nothing else so we can stop wasting ridiculous amounts of energy to generate a smudged image of a guy for hackneyed ads for shit nobody buys.
@@coreymartin9630 There's also this thing called the "efficient compute frontier" AI is struggling with, there's a video about it on YT if you wanna check it out for yourself too, but TL:DR AI is hitting a limit, there's an efficiency threshold no model has been able to pass yet and it seems to be the major thing holding AI back from becoming both better and more efficient at the same time, to make it better all you can do is put more power into it
@@coreymartin9630 For now, this is the infancy of image generation, the cost will be scaled back MASSIVELY here soon. They literally JUST started making custom chips, and keep in mind that chips get faster every year. If you compare the price to performance ratio of a chip today to a chip 15 years ago, the difference is insane. So the same image gen you see today will cost a fraction of that 5-10 years from now. Also, Nvidia has a monopoly, so whenever that gets challenged it's going to drop prices, but by that time custom chips will probably be the main thing used for AI.
Also keep in mind the solar and nuclear fission power plants that are being made primarily to power AI server farms, once they get the ROI on those projects the power it cost them to run the AI is going to be far lower than buying power at a premium off the grid
As an artist working in American animation, while I do agree with Thor's conclusion, I think his argument lacks a lot of nuance (which may just be for the purposes of this video). Even if art training data becomes opt-in and has royalty compensation, how does anyone new break in? What happens to junior roles that will be outsourced to AI prompting? Eventually the avenue for new talent gets blocked off in the same way he said we will have a generation of people who don't know how to code. It's also easy to say the people who invest in themselves will adapt but that's way easier said than done. What if they can't adapt fast enough? Or find a new market for themselves? Or even a new discipline before their finances run out? A lot of artists are ALREADY being hurt financially by this tech. Yes pay them for their work if they agree to let it be used, but that's still not the end all be all solution that will keep artists afloat.
The other big part is the same thing is also happening across alot of game dev right now generally. Layoff 10-25% of your staff and expect AI to take care of the workload you've dumped on your remaining workers. I feel the same as Thor on the long term effects of what this crap will result in...but the problem is laid off people needing to survive long enough for these employers to figure it out...
@@JustinGreene0224 And that is where we STILL fall agonizingly behind. As long as a technology needs public adoption to advance, people need to be allowed to survive during the transitionary period or it will just never happen. There is a lot of good that can be done by this tech but it is not here yet and it isn't being given a chance to come into form yet because peoples' livelihoods are at stake. And that is an asinine and backwards way to run a society.
What you're describing is something that has become the norm in all fields of work. Corporations do not want to spend money to train new workers. They want to hire experienced workers that will do a perfect job from day 1 and they expect to pay the lowest possible salary for that work. This isn't an issue caused by Generative AI, it's an issue with how human resources have changed over time. We went from being able to learn on the job to having to acquire a college education to get a job to magically needing to have work experience from birth to get a job.
Yeah I think this is an underrated problem. You need to do the boring part before you can do the fancy part. Same reason why despite everything, most software engineers still learn some logic circuitry and assembly in college, even if it's 'obsolete', or why art school typically starts you with pen and paper even though you might only ever work digitally later on.
Adapt or don't, the world will keep spinning without you like it always has done. This is the reason why you avoid stagnation, because if you are not constantly self improving, then you are letting yourself get complacent.
Trucking was another job that was 3-5 years away of disappearing due to automation and getting driverless cars. But we are now 3-5 years later and it is still not here. I would say the jobs that are much more in danger of being replaced are the data entry jobs. The jobs where people take a set of data and plug it into spreadsheets, like HR, payroll, and accounting. Now I don't think all those jobs are going to disappear, but rather that software gets so good that they can have less people working those jobs. So demand will reduce and if supply remains the same, it means wages will drop.
Per US Copyright Law, no matter what source is used for training the model, the art it makes is public domain. It's that way because it is "machine generated".
No it's not. Just because a work is not protected by copyright does not mean it can be freely used. There may be other legal restrictions or terms of use set by the developer of the AI or the platform on which the artworks were created.
That's not really what was said. The case was yet another backdoor by animal rights people to try and get a court to grant rights to a completely machine process so they could then use that to built towards giving animals the rights of humans. To be eligible for a copyright it requires some human inspiration which can be anything from refinements by prompts to inpainting to using a base image as the seed for the generative work. If you didn't know you can convert stick man figures into full images. If you want to claim that any and all AI image are public domain you are risking penalties under copyright law if a judge agrees that their was even a slight spark of human creativity in the process. Which doesn't even get into the aspect that a character might be protected by a copyright even if an image of them is not. Now for a machine running without any human input that's randomly generating everything from true noise that wouldn't be something you could copyright, like you can't copyright security camera video of unscripted and unedited events. But if you want to take legal advice from a news report that likely excluded a lot of the case and it's background and just start using images... well don't forget if someone makes a claim to offer them a license fee right away because that sets a point in time where future legal fees are unlikely to be awarded after. Which is to say if I say that's my copyright work don't use it, you turn around and say I'll give you $100 for it. If I reject your offer and push my claim and then go on to win in court if I asked the court to grant me my legal fees the court would be extremely unlikely to award me fees incurred after you made that offer and might even require me to pay your fees from that point.
The last ruling about AI and copyright was from Judge Beryl A. Howell and she stated that AI as an entity can't hold copyright and you can't transfer the copyright to a human. That said, the ruling about how much human input to the machine to consider authorship is yet to be clarified and stand open. A quote of judge Howell: "We are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put AI in their toolbox to be used in the generation of new visual and other artistic works". So, technically, you can claim copyright on AI generated images, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will refuse it.
Music is scary because how copyright works right now is based on western music theory - which is just math - so there is a limit to the amount of combinations of copyrights. If people viewed music more like art - in that ALL details matter, it would be different. But we're going toward the point where society may say that composition doesn't matter and everything is in essence "a cover song".
You can only copyright holistic creations, you can't copyright things like chords, chord progressions, or style. Same applies with art. Using similar compositional elements isn't stealing as long as the holistic piece is derivative enough from the original, which is based purely on personal opinion of where that line is.
@@avalerionbass theoretically. In practise it's all about what "expert" witnesses can convince a laymen jury of. The US justice system is fucked, especially for copyright.
@@avalerionbass there have been plenty of cases found in favour of plaintiffs, only because the songs shared a similar melody. so while copyright is indeed supposed to be holistic, in practice it isn't.
@@zwe1l1nkehaende And that's the line I side with you on. It's just a cash grab for greedy lawyers. Some no name band that made a single song in the 70's in Jamaica and a modern pop artist made a similar sounding song by coincidence. I forget who that was, but it was a real case a few years ago.
I grew up learning art, it's always been a struggle, but it's worthwhile to me. AI hasn't changed what I do or want to do, its just made it more annoying. On top of people stealing your art, not seeing it, etc. In addition, AI will steal your art, other art, and make it harder to find real art to inspire you. Just another layer of annoyance, but we get through it. I hope the laws come in quicker. So then all the art forms require permission for their stuff to be used, and maybe even get some royalties. AI art made of ethically sourced content that pays the artist, while still less than actual art, will actual be the tool it's supposed to be.
Sending this off to a few worried buddies of mine. I used to worry about AI art but stopped when I realized that the people who use it are typically the kind who were never trying to pay an artist for their work anyway.
Most people that use it are actually people who have never created art before, either through time, inherent skill, access to resources, or even personal disabilities. They're they equivalent of kids learning how to draw with crayons the first time. Their posts of "Hey look at this awesome thing I made! I've never been able to make art before!" is met with "You're a horrible person, the scum of the earth, and you should unalive yourself." Who's really the bad people here?
@@avalerionbass Good try with trying to guilt trip me for something I never said lol. What I said is that people who use it typically wouldn't be trying to pay an artist anyway. As a person who also has disabilities this will never not be a funny take.
@@BlinkingTwin Well first off I never tried to guilt trip or claim that you said anything. What you did do was imply that people who use AI art are negative in the context of " the kind who were never trying to pay an artist for their work anyway." The consistent and immediate take that people like you have is that just because you hate the technology, that also gives you a right to hate and vilify the people that use it, which is exactly what you're implying. Just let people make things they wanna make and don't accost people because you feel morally righteous on the subject, while everyone else just wants to make pretty pictures on the screen.
@@avalerionbass My brother in christ you gave me a sob story about how people are saying that people who use AI art are horrible people then literally said "whose really the bad people here?" when it wasn't even remotely relevant to what I said. That's exactly what you were doing. Also what I said is not rocket science: If you're using AI art in place of commissioning an artist the reason is generally because you either do not want to or want to but can't, which means that artists who work by commission don't really have all that much to worry about. People who want to pay for art from artists and can will keep on doing so for the reasons Thor mentioned. As I said on my first comment I don't worry about AI art anymore. I havent for well over a year lol. If you want to assume my neutrality on the subject means I'm "vilifying" people then sure. Live your life. But youre not going to make me feel bad so you might as well stop crying about things I never said or did
There is a core misunderstanding in the comments about Public Domain. The whole *point* of copyright is to provide a time-limited monopoly over the work, after which it becomes fair game for derivative works. When that compromise was struck, modern concepts such as Creative Commons did not exist. Thus the expected outcomes was further copyrighted works based on that public domain. Because of that, works derived from public domain, even if they pass through AI, shouldn't be limited to public domain status. However, the US copyright office has ruled that AI generated content *can't* be copyrighted for a very different reason. The copyright office requires a *human* author of the work and refuses AI works, even AI works modified after by a human, so that remains up in the air.
In my opinion the way US courts look at it is bizarre. It treats AI as a separate actor with a will of its own. It's like saying "well, I didn't shoot them, my gun did!" while they held the gun and squeezed the trigger. A human had to do quite a few things for the AI to do anything. Without the human pressing the right buttons none of it would've happened. The case of the monkey taking a photo is a bit different, because animals pretty clearly do a have a will of their own. AI though, at least so far, does not. I wonder if this will eventually be used for some company to get away from liability "because the AI did the bad thing, not the human operator".
I love that world governments gave AI a free pass, but if somebody generated art that plagiarised an artist, that artist is only allowed to sue whoever generated it. Talk about double standards.
@@Aerroon It's because any given AI model cannot be held accountable. It doesn't enjoy the rights of a civilian, which is also true of animals. It doesn't have a demonstrable personhood.
2:58 the true reason is, I think, to get money from sponsors, because if researcher says it will take 20 years, nobody will support that work, but if they say it will take 1-3 years - now they get all the attention, even if it takes longer.
The issue is that it’s not based off of public domain. They’re just using massive databases that’re massive siterips of places like twitter, tumblr, facebook, (insert social media site here), etc…
i kind of get the idea of this comment but while also being cheap, plastic is easily one of the most innovative things humanity has ever created lmao AI will be like that too one day, but as it stands it's not doing much of value besides harmlessly pissing some people off (yes it is harmless, literally no one has lost money or their jobs from it and anyone who says otherwise is lying to themselves and everybody else)
While I was at uni, I managed to rediscover an interest in art, and I wanted to apply that interest in the next group project and then I got fully replaced by midjourney and didn't get any grade, and now I'm back in a slump of not wanting to draw anything So I may be biased when it comes to this topic
@@Loki-qo2kbThat's a bit of a dickish thing to say. Of course it's an "artist pov". They're an artist, and it's their pov. They aren't less of an artist for wanting their art to be useful for stuff. Even if they just wanted to sell art for money, that'd still be fine. Get off your high horse.
Thanks for the encouragement! I started software dev in university the same year that generative AI started making a splash which was pretty scary. I've kept pushing and I'm much more skilled because of it.
I use AI art for my dungeons & dragons and pathfinder games. I paid for the art pack from an artist who provided a bunch of training data, and I use that to generate new images.
3-5 years is roughly the time a modest experiment goes from idea to publishing. Then it has to actually succeed, then do well. Though even then, AI still is annoying. College professors are now (justifiably) paranoid that everything getting turned in is fake. But it's a pain in the ass to prove it's real after you spent all the time writing stupid papers.
Parallel to this for my field, cnc routers and laser cutters. I do all of my work via hand tools and your standard woodworking tools, scroll saw, table saw, miter saw, carvers, lathe etc. Not once did I swap over or think that I will lose my business because of these new computerized machines. People love that my intricate work is not done with a laser cutting but with a scroll saw. They love that it is handcrafted and made by someone who is passionate about woodworking and the products I make. Every year so far I have been reaching more people and making more money. Haven't had an issue keeping up. Like Thor said, invest in you and you will be in infinitely better places than you are right now. Push forward and knock it out of the park!
AI currently is also having a lot of struggle that is not mentionned. "Oh AI can make 4k video" What they don't say it was made in 720p and upscalled cause it took too long for higer rez and add on top that it is not consistent
@@8is That is from smart people that are "selling" the prowess of AI but atm it is a big empty void. Adam conover interviewed multiple people involved and it is mainly a storm of "who can master the new tech" to appeal investors. As it already happened with the metaverse that would be the next big thing, nft that would revolutionize the internet market, bitcoin that would ruined the economy and 1 of the big guy in AI is basicaly saying "AI WILL RUN THE WORLD AND RUIN EVERYONE LIVELYHOOD"
@@phelpsfilchat AI artists exist now and some of them are very good at using current AI. I'm sure AI will only continue to get better and better making it more accessible to more people, but we'll see how far it goes.
So far AI has been useful in niche cases: "Write a class that fits the structure of this database/file" -> boom, done, easy "Write a function that returns all odd values from a given array" -> 15 syntax error (yes this can be done with a one liner) Same with Art. Tried making an image for my DnD character sheet. You can type RED EYES in as many combinations and variations as you want. That Tiefling will have green eyes. Cause Algo - the god of algorithms - is a dick.
I'm not an artist, but AI art is something kind of weird to me, but I have friends who do art and they're wprried about it. Thank you for your insight, somehow makes me feel a bit less worried because you have more knowledge in tech than me lol
I think the question for most people is not should I invest in myself or not. It's should I invest in myself with art/coding etc. vs should I invest in some other skill that is less likely to be taken over by AI.
Not "taken over by" but more "supplemented with." There is still skill and knowledge required to use the technologies effectively and accurately. There are also limitations to it currently that can be circumvented by manual edits and reiterations. That kind of attitude is just a Doomers point of view. If you don't move with the technology, you will get taken over by it and left behind. That's just how human progress works.
It doesn't matter: Like Thor said, if you're entering an industry with AI in it, you adapting to a advanced high paced ecosystem and the problems you examine will make you more capable and better informed, if you're not, you carry on as usual. You can go be a plumber or whatever. Ny the time robot plumbers come out, you'll know all about plumbing and how to lead your own company or automate plumbing problems. Its literally all. the. same.
You have the right of it and I have been saying this for a while. AI art makes it easier for small projects to have nice looking art, but a real artist is always preferable because they work with can make exactly what you need and you don't have to waste huge ammounts of time going through 80 billion renditions to get something "good enough"
Thor I have recently been laid off and have been watching your content more and more because the way you encourage others to lift themselves up is inspiring. I have felt pretty down everytime an application gets rejected, but watching your streams helps me to get back up and try again. I hope I can get back at it and if I do it will be all thanks to you.
Dang, I went through a tough period until recently of being unemployed and job hunting. I hope things turn around for your job hunting soon and I'm rooting for you!
no, Ray Kurzweil has been very consistent in his singularity predictions for decades. He is predicting 2029 as AI achieving human level intelligence, and 2045 as the time we merge with the machines to produce super human intelligence.
Thank you... AI is just a tool like all tools. This tool is a little more advanced but so was digital art programs and digital drawing tablets when they came out. So was the camera when it came out. Once the dust settles and everything subsides AI art is just going to be a new form of art, it's not going to replace artists, it's not going to ruin the idea of being a creative... it's just going to exist... like all technology before it.
@@nobody8717 Comparing search engine results to creative work you pay for is disingenuous, and intellectually dishonest. You know exactly what people are not okay with.
1:20 I've done it before. AI trained on AI not that bad as long as you use the best outputs and know how to get your tags straight in training. Most people consider it more moral too.
I feel like Thor is ignoring the fact that a lot of people are "bad artists", and I say this from a perspective of commissions and graphic design work. That doesn't mean those same artists can't eventually get good. They could, but a lot of them will likely not get far along in their career / artistic pursuits to reach that level. That's reality before AI art became a thing. Right now, jobs for SEO specialists is nonexistent because AI can write articles good enough to accomplish SEO targets (setting aside the actual quality of research and writing). And we're already seeing beginner coder jobs dwindling as AI becomes more capable of making experienced devs a lot more productive. Fields like frontend web development will eventually (maybe in a few years) just fold into full stack development as AI picks up the design slack and makes it super easy to switch between frontend frameworks. Thor should know this, and probably has a nuanced perspective for coding. But for artwork, his advice is pure fantasy. Based on where Gen AI is going, you either have to be a damn good artist or call it quits, because a regular office worker can replace you by pushing a few buttons.
The argument in favor of still learning advanced proframming despite AI is simple: if AI can do the job of a real senior dev / architect, with all the requirement refining, domain knowledge and design - then there is no other job left, no human doctors, no lawyers, no engineers. When everything is equaly futile economicaly, the only thing left is to pursue your dreams.
Doctors and engineers are practical professions that require a lot of training and theory, and since we're only talking about AI and not robots we can safely say those aren't going anywhere. Lawyers especially cannot be AI, leaving legal decisions up to unaccountable non-persons is a terrible idea.
I’d like to add onto “not learning because the AI might do it in the future”. I feel like there is definitely many ways humans have adapted to ai perfecting their job/hobby, but have still found success. For example: Chess bots are significantly better at chess than human players, does that mean the people have stopped playing chess? No, in fact chess as a medium has benefited overall from the use of bots for learning the game. While yes, there are fair use and plagiarism issues with the currents state of ai art, however it should never be looked as troublesome because it will “replace humans”. Thank you for listening to my Ted talk, love your videos man.
I feel like Thor, a smart person, being like "I would hire a real artist everytime" is kinda a bit silly when a large chunk of business people would rather use AI rather than commission on a real person, like we know you're cool Thor: we also know a lot of business people aren't
What you think of as "not cool" is really just being more efficient, more productive and smart. Finding out ways to be more efficient and more productive or solving a problem is what drives innovation.
@@MarshPlaza Except it isn't more efficient, productive, or even smart. There are very specific cases where it has helped boost productivity, but largely AI is a fad right now that companies are trying to cram into anything and everything in the hopes of getting ahead on The Next Big Thing because they're afraid of being left behind (and to cut jobs for higher profits, the same as firing half your workforce and expecting the other half to do the work of 2 people for the same pay). They don't understand what AI is nor what it can and can't do. You tell them "We made an AI that knows how to bark like a dog" and they ask "How many doctors can I fire?" I recently read about a movie studio that hired a few AI prompters to work in the art division. They have banned the hiring of prompters. Because they simply can't do the work. You tell them "Give me a picture of a forest," and they'll come back the next day with 45 pictures of forests - far faster than anybody else can. You tell them "I like this one, but take the people out of it," and they'll come back the next day with 45 new pictures of forests. Because they can't do the work. They don't understand art nor iteration - they only know how to get an LLM to generate pictures.
Agree except for one point. The input being public domain shouldn't necessarily mean the output should be too. The value added is the training model, which is what consumers pay for. If training models becomes so easy anyone can do it, it'll end up free (or close enough to anyway). On a personal note, if I ever get to a point where chat gpt (or equivalent) is able to produce consistent, correct code that integrates into large systems, I'll be worried for my future. At present, (at least in C++/Unreal Engine), it's not even close. One to keep an eye on, but not one to fret about if you're a game dev.
So many people will try to argue that AI art is truly art because its an artificial intelligence that gave you a result based on what you asked for. 1, it is not an artificial intelligence. It is a system with a set of written rules that shows a product based on a query. Its a machine. An intelligence could question those rules or that query, could debate the rules with those who wrote them, could make a decision on what works best with that query. It can't, because it's not an intelligence, it is a machine. 2, art is not the final product. Art is the very process it took to get to the final product, and thusly why it belongs to the artist. Every stroke of paint or pencil, every texture sculpted on a sculpture, every mixture of color, every edit on a digital canvas, every word written because of what the artist chose to or needed to write for whatever reason they felt compelled to write them, every line of code in the order they were written for the system to make sense. Every little thing makes one piece of art, and all of those things reflect the artist's choices along every step of the process of making that art. Which brings me to point 3, it is so obviously proven that these AI are not intelligence at all because they cannot improve what they are given. They can only copy directly, or alter lines and shape and color to a certain degree. And we see this when AI is trained on AI data. It rapidly deteriorates in quality. It doesn't have a process or a choice on how to dictate that process, it doesn't create at all, it only copies. Its not an argument, it is a blatant fact. AI art is neither AI nor art.
"every word written because of what the artist chose to or needed to write for whatever reason they felt compelled to write them" so writing a prompt is art
@fenXtv writing a prompt is a question or a query. Im assuming you mean writing a prompt for a systematic generator, lets say an image generator. You're writing the prompt based on the sets and rules of that generator. You're asking it in the way it was designed to respond to. Same way writing specific queries for google will return different results on bing, they were designed to return results with different sets of rules. That is question without expression. That is not art by any means. You could write an essay about the experience of thirst and dehydration but you wouldn't do that to ask for a glass of water, you would simply ask for a glass of water. No, writing prompts is not at all the same as writing scripts or story settings or passages or short stories or novels or poetry or lyrics, etc.
Also guys, don't forget: Because so many people are scared of AI it's possible that many people don't even try to learn something, so you have a higher chance of being one the ones who did, so you'll be valuable. Consider this: AI is like a collection of knowledge. But it isn't experience. Experience is more important than knowledge alone.
How I see it as an artist: for AI to become adequate enough to keep up useful image generation across the board, the ways of operating it would need to become more complex in order to give more fine tuning capabilities. Art as a discipline is composed of theoretical knowledge and motoric training needed to precisely put that knowledge into practice. With the integration of AI we would see less draftsmanship but the need for that knowledge won't go away, so artists need to be hired either way in order to end up with a quality product. Also an artist can manually intervene by painting over and fixing stuff on the spot. This would lead to less positions for artists but not the extinction of the profession, even though it would be closer to an art director as a job.
@@8is They really don't, though. You can assign each strategy and outcome whatever value you want. If you only care about making money, then you may not value the outcomes where your job is replaced. But if you care about pursuing art or programming for the sake of doing it, then you will still have gotten value out of learning it even if your job is replaced.
To steal is to take something away from someone. You gain something and somebody lose something. To copy shit from the internet is not stealing because no one loses anything.
Where I have found AI to be really valuable in the art world is for providing artists with samples. Run a few generations in an ai generator to get a rough of the pose I'm looking for, a rough for the kind of outfit (its never perfect, but that's where notes come in), what the character and background resemble, and have them actually make the art I want. I don't mean cut and paste from the ai, I just mean I use the AI to visually convey the kind of thing I'm going for. It's also really handy in pen and paper rpgs when you are trying to explain something to someone and they're not quite getting it. I don't mean for books or anything but stuff like 'you enter a cave, there's a pool of water and crystals lit by some unknown force, like this: *shows quick ai art of scene*'. I'd never use it for a commercial thing, but it makes a lot of sense for something you need to show on the fly. If that adventure ever was to get published, then I'd hand the image over to an artist and get them to do it but more accurate to what I meant. Especially since, as the law is currently, AI works can not be copywritten. Anything not created by a person is fair use per US supreme court.
I kind of dislike the point that is being made at 3:40, because its not between either "you learn to do A or you learn nothing", its between "learning to do A, that might get replaced or learn to do B, that is not as likely do be replaced"
The problem is that at this stage you start thinking - Is it worth to learn B at this point. A is kinda a passion and something you can be good at. Something you had in you for some time. B is new experience. But it is always worth to learn B too
Back in the 90's when I was learning my trade I was told advancements in tech are going to "terk mer jerb" in the 00's I was told that I was going to be obsolete in a few years because advancements are going to "make my jerb obsolete" currently I am getting told that the next gen tech is going to "make my existence obsolete"... the next gen tech is setting its self on fire and half the industry is considering going in an entirely different direction. It's not just programming and art, loads of industries have been dealing with this for years
If the current technology allowed for the development of AGI, then maybe, as it could actually understand stuff, and improve itself. But as Thor said, that'd require one hell of a breakthrough that's unlikely in the next decades.
With AI art that may be the case, but if we take medical AI as an example (my field of research) it's definitely possible. Assuming we define "smarter" as "more accurate" for example. In my research I trained an AI model to detect mutated cells from microscopic scans, based on different pathologists' annotations. The final model outperformed all of them in terms of accuracy
@@ObviouslyASMR I'm simply adding a detail that I believe is left out of conversation when speaking about this topic: it's amazing what the AI models can achieve but YOU are still needed to interpret the data/results. My point is AI in itself as it is right now is not replacing you in your field of research. As an artist I still think that more complex versions are needed for satisfactory end-results but professionals will still be needed to work with it and achieve a quality product.
@@marethyu31 Oh of course, I completely agree! That's always something I talk about as well when discussing applications of my research; AI is meant as a tool, not a replacement. For the foreseeable future there should *always* be a human using it, or at the very least human oversight
imo - it has its use cases - mostly just stuff that would either be a waste of an artist and commissioner's time, or at best, a learning experience - like tattoo inspiration or "This is KIND of what I'm thinking I want, what's realistically possible?" or trying to visualize something from a story, etc. When it gets to the point where I can ask for my D&D character's pic and then have it just change like, the textures or colors of specific elements in the image, or just the slope of that line etc, and it manages it without changing anything you didn't ask to change... That's when shit'll really hit the fan.
Thanks for this Thor! As a game dev our industry is always threatened by disruption, I very much hope I get to keep doing what I love. While I'm not against AI, I just hope the tools which get created support independent creators rather than close that gap in the market.
It's clear that the only AI art generation you're aware of is just prompt generation, which is the lowest tier of creation. That's like saying all art sucks because abstract art sucks.
So the problem only happens when you think art was made by AI? Like, if you see a piece of art that was created by AI, but you think it was created by a person, you can enjoy it as art? Cos that sounds more like a perception problem on your part than an issue of whether or not AI can create anything new and original.
Given how much actual art has no soul and is more of a money laundering token for the elite, I find it hard to care. Art sold out long before AI threatened artists.
Investing in yourself is important because it can be used your entire life. I have a degree in the automotive field. By graduation, the field was over saturated and I couldn't get a good job. 10 years later I run an unrelated business and save (Genuinely thousands) by handling our own vehicle work. All skills are useful. Its the application of those skills that makes the difference. Each aspect can be broken down to core pieces that when honed can act as springboards for learning new skills.
The part about "3-5 years" and "breakthroughs" reminded me of a tweet I saw the other day that gave me a good chuckle, from someone that said "in 5 years 80% of all films will be AI-generated." I just thought sure, maybe someday that dystopia will be real. But it ain't happening in 5 years. It probably isn't even happening in our lifetime.
Using public domain art DOES NOT force you to make the result public domain. I am not sure what communist is trying to warp your understanding of the law, but public domain is not copy left. You can commercially use public domain, and the results are your copyright. The story of Aladdin is public domain, but the Disney Character is not.
@@wayIess That actually isn't what the court ruled. You claimed AI art doesn't involve a human creating the work. That isn't what the courts said. AI generated art may or may not involve a human creating the work, depending on the process. Also, even if the generated art is published and becomes public domain, adapting it into a commercial product does not make the commercial product public domain. I can make a Santa Clause movie, because the character is public domain, but you could not sell my movie, Only I could, because the movie is copyrighted, and any specific changes I made to the character would be copyrighted as well.
If you design a character, and have AI generate images of that character, the generated images are not free from copyright, you still own a copyright on those characters. If I generate a Luke Skywalker image, its not a public domain image, Disney still owns the rights to the character.
the thing ive directly noticed specifically with the creative medium is that even if Ai does get the break through, it doesnt invalidate the original methods. and something like coding is part of the creative regardless of what its used it has some scale of creativity that will always be sought after. a game dev specifically is thinking and understanding code well enough to implement it in creatively unique(not nessesarly) and intresting ways. the amount of stuff that people create based of existing setups because they think of doing it just that slight differently is numirous. a AI cant properly do this in its current state. and EVEN IF IT DOES, creating unique and intresting games even if all the setup of base things is already done. undertale comes to mind for this example of the amount of things that is already done in some way(if not a scale of fully), but everyone directly remembers that one because of it being unique.
This video was much needed. The AI advancements have been scaring me as of late. I want to work as a professional artist once I'm done with school and hearing about studios making deals with AI companies to replace storyboarders and VFX artists makes the future seem quite difficult. Your insights give me a more hopeful outlook on the issue. Thanks for being a positive and constructive figure in the chaos that is the internet (and in general life) right now
"AI art is fine, as long as the artist is getting paid." Which sadly won't ever happen with the majority of people seeking free art (maybe if we are lucky, 10/20 years some law might be put in place?) The dishonest will always far outnumber the honest. It's too complicated to deal with contracts, and usually the people wanting the art can't afford it (aside from giant corps)- therefore they will just get away with stealing. The truth hurts.
People seem to be under the impression that AI image generators train on raw JPEGs or something, and that's just not at all how it works. The reason the legality isn't clear is because the data collected for training is _transformed_ into a normalised vector-based format that is no longer an actual image that you can view. Even if you had access to the training data, you couldn't use it to recreate any of the original images used to produce said training data. And once the AI is trained, it cannot be used to perfectly recreate any of the images used in the training data. So it doesn't violate copyright law, because it counts as "transformative" enough to fall under fair use. It may be scummy, but it isn't illegal, and more importantly, it's more profitable. Don't expect any companies to keep acting "ethically" for very long.
if anyone thinks all companies will not abuse this, they are delusional. Even if you ban AI usage they will lie about it and still use it because its getting to the point its indistinguishable
Yep. You can't go in there and find your picture or reverse the model back into its training data, it's just a bunch of coefficients that have been blended up with everything else. You can get out something that looks similar to your work, but it's not going to be your work and it's also not ONLY going to be your work (assuming it's not your own model), even if you're the only style prompt given. It's a bit like lossy compression mixed with a collage, but the collage is on more of an abstract feature level than a full chunk of another work. I don't think it's any more scummy than "readymade" art, which is really just a scene-approved way for an artist to slap his name on something he didn't make.
Yes! I am an AI developer and I have been saying this to everyone. The law needs to catch up with technology fast. Anything created by AI is by definition derivative and non-original because AI models have to be trained using real stuff. They don't create anything that is genuinely new. Rather they simply use quick pattern recognition from training data and derive it into statistically likely output after given a prompt. Image generators are trained using the art of real artists and AI developers deliberately put those images in the training model. Just as someone writing a research paper should be required to cite all their sources, AI developers should be required to site their data sources. If any copyrighted material ends up in those training models, the developers should be liable to the same copyright laws as everything else. They ought to be subject to a subpoena of their training model data if there is a warrant for copyright infringement. It kills me that this is not better understood and that the law defaults to saying that anything created by AI is automatically public domain. That should be true only if it was trained exclusively with public domain data. And tech businesses try to further blur the line through their license agreements by claiming that they have the right to use your data or images for AI dev because you grant them permission in their EULAs. So for example, if you post a video on RUclips, you may unwittingly be granting Google permission to use your video to train the next generation of Gemini AI models. So when you see AI generated stuff that looks uncannily similar to something you produced, you will know exactly why.
AI has been "3 years" from taking every programming job for a long time. That was the talking point when I was learning AI and expert systems in the early 2000s. That was the talking point well before then too. Every form of AI has had its use cases. The current craze LLMs are useful for some pattern matching things. They're nowhere near where people claim they are or fear they are. And chances are that they won't be until well after we're all retired if they /ever/ are. Thor's right. Learn things, do things, and kick ass. That's all you can do. Fortunately, that's often all you /need/ to do
game developers: character design, we borrow from existing mechanics, it helps advanced games. artists: you need to pay for art in our style. corporations: our intellectual property is set for 70 years unless we can extend it another 70 years.
it's going to be interesting to see how courts rule on this. seems the people are fighting against our AI / automation overlords. I am going to watch anime matrix to see how this ends.
@@relytunder I think people are just afraid of a technological shift because it revolutionizes an entire industry and the skill can no longer be gatekept behind inherent ability or time investments. Horse buggy manufacturers sure hated cars when they were invented. People thought the internet was a fad and going to die out. Even artists hated photography when it first came out because all they were doing was "pressing a button."
You don't need to pay for art in the style of an artist if you created it yourself. If you just used an AI tool to fudge it around some, then yes you should pay the artist.
1:28 I have to disagree here, public domain is not the same as copyleft. If it's public domain, no one has the IP right/copyright to it, so you can do pretty much whatever you want with it.
Most people don't understand anything regarding copyright law. "Stealing" is just a buzz word they use, but under no definition of artistic stealing, is it actually that.
And then you can be a complete asshole and act like you own the rights to something in the public domain, while in reality you own the rights to your interpretation, where you didn't really change anything about the original 🙃
Ai art is not recognize by law and have zero copyright protection because the law classified it as non human work. Only human work PART can have copyright. You can Google monkey image copyright to read the story. The only way to have copyright is to denied it ever was a ai art and claim it was 100% produce by human. So far no case in court to change the current rulling since it would be extremely high gamble to set a case precedent on ai art specifically.
@@RandomPerson-tz7wk " The only way to have copyright is to denied it ever was a ai art and claim it was 100% produce by human." proves you don't know shit. If you make a derivative work based on the image it is copyrighted instantly. thus if you don't release the public domain image you have copyright.
@@Loki-qo2kb Any part of the image that was created by AI is not copyrightable, though. There have already been multiple copyrights thrown out over this.
Thor, public domain does not mean they should then produce public domain work. Regardless of the ethical side, that's not a logical a to b. If it was, Dracula would go in the public domain every time it gets remade
The more you learn, the more you realise how limited AI is. When I started to seriously learn programming, Chat-GPT got released and I thought: "Wow, this is amazing, it can do anything for me in seconds" But I kept on learning and now I am like "Why did it do it this way? What's that and why?" - and if you actually message the system back it often goes "You are right, apologies for my mistake. Let's try it again" It is very very far from taking your job - keep learning, keep being amazing people!
One thing Thor didn't mention here, is that rather subtitute artists AI is meant to be used by them as a tool. The "give a prompt and get an image" type of AI will only be used by people that don't wanna spend any money or don't care for a highly customized end product. Unless a breakthrough happens like explained in the video.
2:50 Not quite the same but along similar lines: I work in the nuclear industry as an operator. A lot of people bring up how in order to make it safer, these jobs should be fully automated rather than have humans running it. I have no fear that that is going to happen, for two big reasons. 1) A program is only as good as the programmer. There is no way that the programmer can anticipate every single thing that might ever go wrong, so there is no way that the program or automation system or whatever can react to every single possible problem. But a human can make the decisions at the time of event. It might not be the best decision, but its a decision. 2) An old Microsoft presentation from 1979: "A computer cannot be held accountable. Therefore, a computer cannot make a management decision." I don't care how good your AI model or automated system is, it still cannot be held morally responsible for its actions. I'm not against the automation of my field, but I think there will always be a human element. And I think that'll be the case for generative AI as well. You'll still want someone with experience in composition, color theory or just with "a good eye" to find the things wrong with the AI output and fix it. I will always prefer handmade art though.
2:35 I've been in this tough position with all the AI stuff/talk that's happening now (both informed and non-informed). Appreciate you talking about this.
yes this is what artist was trying to strike against AI was, we don't hate AI as the technology but we hate that our work is being stolen to feed the AI, that what making artist mad since AI art become popular
the very first day and following weeks at my very first job (as a data management intern) after leaving community college, i was told id be out of the job in 5-10 years because of AI Job redundancies. i quit in barely even 6 months because I could not assign any value to what I had learned, every day i felt like my career was pointless because someone did not give me this advice. Now I realise i was either hired by idiots or gaslit into showing my inability to adapt and fear of failing. Id wager it was the second option. thank u thor i appreciate this message
I know that woman (Maria Angelina Alexander) If you were born and raised in new York you'd know too, she's my family's Broker for 3yrs till now and a very good one if you asked me. No doubt she is the one that helped you get where you are!!!!
The point about investing in yourself is so true. I got my degree in graphic design in 2018, and have taught myself web on the job at every place I went to. In just 6 years, I make 4x the amount I did from my first job. I also work way less and enjoy the work I do way more
i mean existing art has been used to "train" human artists since... forever "oh i like how they drew the cloth dress folding on the knee in that painting, i think im gonna try that on my next piece"
AI art for me is great for the purpose of needing something for a instant reference. Like if your doing Dnd and need a quick NPC or an environment to show the players, Or possibly something like needing inspiration of seeing a character in a generic pose or generate background clutter to put a character into practice lighting and shading with thematic themes. AI should be a useful tool for speeding up rough draft work and putting up a frame to help figure out the final product. It should not be use to be the final product. Things like I think I heard was Elemental and The recent spider verse movie they used AI to help process and figure out things like making the flames on the fire characters so not every flicker and flick of fire had to be manually animated. Or in Spider verse where they trained it to help figure out where the cell shade lines should show up and vanish depending on how the camera is looking at the models.
Paradox Interactive just did this with Stellaris. They developed a Machine empire DLC and wanted to do an AI voice over for the machine empire. What they did was create two inhouse-only voice models based on voice actors that knew what they were signing up for, and those voice actors got royalties every time the model was used to create voice lines.
And that would make sense in that the data was used for two models which was used to make exact likenesses of their voices. But what if millions of people's voices were combined to make generic male and female voice models that could create multiple standardized variances of those voices, but didn't sound directly like anyone in particular? Well then it would be transformative creations and not imitative creations.
Demanding that every single person get paid is like demanding every single artist that another artist drew inspiration from also gets paid, simply because they looked at and learned from their style.
That happened much earlier for text to speech stuff. It was also a lot more work since it seems like they had to manually chop up the sounds in ways that can then be reassembled and still have it sound reasonably good.
That's cool. Do you know if they made a model from scratch, or trained an existing base model? From what I understood you need an enormous base dataset to do this stuff.
@@avalerionbass I think you are equivocating AI art with human made art. A person might be inspired by other people's work. AI art is derivative and actively copies human artists. The human actually worked to make their inspired work their own. The AI doesn't. If a person copies somebody's style, to the point most would agree it is no unique, that is already known as copyright infringement.
Training AI and making it profitable for free off the work of others is wrong.
@@avalerionbass
How about they just don't combine the voices of millions of people?
"Don't fall into this doomer fantasy of investing in yourself is going to be worthless in 3-5 years."
Line goes unbelievably hard.
It goes really hard. The problem is that when you start thinking like that then everything will look similar and at the end yo don;t do anything and just waste your life.
@@Kytrion start thinking in that way only fools. Normal people are just thinking about looking other jobs where they can't be replaced by something like AI and can be sure about their future.
yup this is amazingly good advice
I personally feel like AI has taught me to appreciate manually created stuff more.
It’s like fast food - sure, you can eat McDonalds, it’s not the worst you could eat, it fills your stomach with warm stuff that gives you energy, while taking the time to cook something good by yourself is just worlds better.
But i don’t always have my stove with me, and i don’t always have the time, and if the only alternative is eating nothing, a limp burger is still the better option.
As anyone who has ever worked with the general public: The average person is *very* dumb and kinda shit. AI generated content reflects that because it can only generate the average of its training data. Currently, the only way to improve an AI model is by feeding it more data, preferably curated data that isn't shit.
All that is fine if you want *really* average results. Therein lies the problem: What if you *need* better than average results? You'll need a human to make it. However, humans take time to get good. If all the jobs that need mediocre content evaporate because of AI, there's less opportunity for mediocre people to develop into excellent people. To make matters worse: The people that process doesn't weed out are going to be reliant on AI to help generate content, which means it's going to be even harder for them to get good since you don't really LEARN anything from AI.
So TLDR: Best case scenario, the AI industry collapses upon itself as it realizes it won't give them the results they are looking for. Worst case scenario, they just screwed over a generation of future professionals because they prevented them from ever learning the skills they need to BE professionals.
@@DaremKurosaki TLDR: No major advancements of technology have EVER just magically gone away.
You also can't just bully people into not using it. Artists hated Photoshop when it first came out because they thought it was "cheating." Now digital art is one of the most used forms of artistic media. Hell, artists even especially hated photography when it first came out, saying "All you're doing is just pressing a button!" Now it's also one of the most used forms of artistic media.
The times change, technology changes, jobs become obsolete. You either move with it or get left behind. You CANNOT stop it.
@@avalerionbass Who hated photoshop? WHO HATED PHOTOGRAPHY? I need some sources for this.
@@Slaarduk Thank you. It’s kinda encouraging
I deal with the "oh AI is gonna take your job" everytime I say to someone that I'm studying translation. And I'm like "do you want all your subtitles to be generated by Google? No you don't"
this is especially true for translating ideas. For example, a lot of the translaters for Harry Potter kept the "Hogwarts" play on words by changing the name to something that makes sense in the laguage and culture they were translating to, and that is just one example of many
How do you study translation? Doesn't it just come naturally with studying a new language?
@@LARAUJO_0 No. Knowing a language and translation are two very different skillsets. There's more to translation than just "equivalent words". You may know what something means in a certain language but actually being able to communicate that in another language, with all the different meanings and double meanings, takes training and a deep understanding of both the language and the culture of both languages
@@LARAUJO_0 a good example of what happens when you only know the two languages but not actual translation (which is also what google translate does):
ya ever seen those silly, poorly translated warning or danger signs?
To be fair activists masquerading as localisers has got people wanting ai translation
I graduated college after forever at like 38 with a cs degree and the market for new devs collapsed and I kinda just gave up on the dream and relaxed into being a stay at home dad (i'm lucky enough to be able to do that). Then I found Thor, and Prime and have since had the fire reignited to build stuff and get good at engineering/programming regardless of ever getting a job or not.. and this kinda message is exactly why. Thanks Thor.
That's awesome dude! Keep at it!
Still, keep looking to apply it in a way that benefits you. It's gotta be out there, or rather something that you can create for yourself.
Who is Prime?
@@BestHakaseThe Primetimeagen
I wish for you, that you get a job and good mentor. I was in the same situation.
Now I feel powerful. It grows with every day I am working and learning and practicing the skills
The idea that humans, a species that cannot reliably operate vehicles in a 2D plane would have flying car, is and has been wild to me since I was a teenager.
Except we already do have flying cars. We've had them since the 1940s actually. They're just really complicated, require very extensive training to operate, and are way, *way* too expensive for any average person to own.
They're called helicopters.
we've made flying cars plenty of times, and we've come to the conclusion that they suck ass.
@@610Blackhawk If you left out the last sentence you'd be correct. We already have flying cars, and I mean literally cars with foldable wings that can fly. They're just really expensive, need a pilot's license and probably can't legally take off on any public road.
@@610Blackhawk More like jets with stationary capabilities. Or those electric flying fan boards.
I mean, yeah, you probably don't want to give the average city driver the ability to drop a 2 ton vehicle on you from out of the sky.
1:34 adding on to this, AI-generated images cannot be copyrighted under US law anyway so technically *all* AI images are public domain.
Adding on to this; we couldn't even give copyrights to a monkey that took a selfie in 2014, or even the human owner of the camera. It was considered public domain and that was entirely based on pre-existing law. If a monkey doesn't get those rights, I highly doubt a computer or AI software would either, no matter what human owns the computer or who prompted the AI.
if you edit it in any way, its your copyright.
There has been an AI book that got given copyrights.
Sadly.
@@Loki-qo2kbFor US law, you have to substancially change it and even then. Most lisences from assets transfer up to the whole work. There have been whole albums pulled from shelves because of samples who's lisences changed (ex: that one elctroswing song that was used on YT as outro music for years, that later caused a mass copystrike issue)
I think the caveat here would be to prompt the image then recreate it yourself from scratch, or at least keep the idea of what the AI created for you, and then copyright it as your own. Because how can they then prove it wasn't your original art/idea?
There's a photographer who trains an AI model based on only his photographs to make new photographs and honestly that's a great way to use AI to make art.
I am pretty sure no one is happy with their screen filled up with low effort ai flop while searching for something, though.
I gotta disagree with you. Have you checked Pixiv lately? Let me tell, the Ai art I usually see there is actually amazing!
I'm sure many people feel the same about the lifeless splatters of most "abstract art."
but you dont get it, pirate software explained why youre wrong and AI art is good!!!!1!!!1!!
@@Nvideogames 2:10
@@Nvideogames not necessarily, We can have morally good AI, but it also shouldn't be the top result, if you search for an image it's generally not because you're looking for an AI image, if you wanna do that, you pull up an AI image generator
"Public domain" as a term is often used by people who confuse it with "publicly accessible".The books in a library are publicly accessible. But that doesn't mean I can start printing copies of books just because they're on the shelf.
Generally speaking: if a work is less than 100 years old it is VERY unlikely for it to be public domain. Lord of the Rings will not become public domain until 2044 for example in the US (this does vary by region).
Copyright is a cancer that grinds down progress almost as hard as patenting. It ain't like it's stopping anyone from copying or morphing the books. I know that from experience, if I was too poor to own a book, I went to the library and copied it all. Why? Fuq money xD
@@lexmortis5722 Copyright is meant to protect small creatives from their works being massively produced, distributed and possibly sold without permission.
Nobody cares if you paid a librarian $20 to use a B&W copier rather than checking it out for free.
@@lexmortis5722 Thank you! "The right to copy" is such a bullshit concept.
You can have property rights to materials that something is made of. If someone takes it away from you then you don't have it and can't use it anymore and if it's done without your consent it's theft.
You can't have property right to forms or ideas. If someone copies your idea or form you still have it and can use it, therefore there was no theft or stealing.
The whole "Dark Ages" lasted that long because of government enforced guilds, patents and copyrights that stifled any innovation and this damn world is going back to it.
@@lexmortis5722 Tell me you don't care about artists--including small artists--without telling me you don't care about artists. Being "too poor" isn't an excuse. Art is a luxury, not something you're entitled to, and the people who create it have the right to be compensated for it and be protected from others stealing their ideas.
Also like...sure the publishing house that sells the book you copied might not get hurt by what you did, but the author who won't make royalties from their book until the advance that publishing house paid them gets paid off with book sales absolutely will.
@@lexmortis5722 "copyright is a cancer" You know that copyright is in the Constitution right?
"that grinds down progress"
"The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
it literally PROMOTES progress
what i’m concerned about that eventually artists might not be able to get a job without having to sign away their art to be used for AI generation, even if they’re heavily against that
I think you’re right. That sounds exactly like what companies already do whenever you make something for them, because they can “use your art for transformative and marketing purposes”, which every client I’ve ever made something has in the contract. It’s standard practice. And usually it’s fine that they slap the logo you made on a bus or a billboard. But when they start using your art so that they won’t have to pay you again, that’s when stuff gets messed up.
Adobe already made that step.
@@asluckdespairs The fact that they managed to just weasel in a "We own everything you have ever and will ever make on our software, for the rest of time without exception" clause into their terms of service is insane.
that's pretty much what it was like with the music industry back in the day. you generally couldn't make it big if you weren't signed to a label. but now, the freedom of being signed has gotten so bad in comparison to the freedom of being unsigned that the chances of making it big have flipped.
so, eventually the freedom of signing to an ai generator service is going to peel in comparison to the freedom of not doing so, at which point unsigned artists will be better off
@@Legowest77 reminds me of when in the matrix a martial artist was paid to act in it, however he rejected it bc he wouldnt be able to his the moves her learned and created i think
What's funny is that companies are fighting VERY hard against having to actually pay or get permission from artists because they won't be profitable anymore if they do, and will completely crash.
Which I'm very excited for, hold them accountable.
They're already not profitable lol, AI takes so much computing power that it's impossible to make back the cost
@@coreymartin9630 You're right! I'm excited for its slow downfall, if nothing else so we can stop wasting ridiculous amounts of energy to generate a smudged image of a guy for hackneyed ads for shit nobody buys.
@@coreymartin9630 There's also this thing called the "efficient compute frontier" AI is struggling with, there's a video about it on YT if you wanna check it out for yourself too, but TL:DR AI is hitting a limit, there's an efficiency threshold no model has been able to pass yet and it seems to be the major thing holding AI back from becoming both better and more efficient at the same time, to make it better all you can do is put more power into it
@@coreymartin9630 For now, this is the infancy of image generation, the cost will be scaled back MASSIVELY here soon. They literally JUST started making custom chips, and keep in mind that chips get faster every year. If you compare the price to performance ratio of a chip today to a chip 15 years ago, the difference is insane.
So the same image gen you see today will cost a fraction of that 5-10 years from now.
Also, Nvidia has a monopoly, so whenever that gets challenged it's going to drop prices, but by that time custom chips will probably be the main thing used for AI.
Also keep in mind the solar and nuclear fission power plants that are being made primarily to power AI server farms, once they get the ROI on those projects the power it cost them to run the AI is going to be far lower than buying power at a premium off the grid
As an artist working in American animation, while I do agree with Thor's conclusion, I think his argument lacks a lot of nuance (which may just be for the purposes of this video).
Even if art training data becomes opt-in and has royalty compensation, how does anyone new break in? What happens to junior roles that will be outsourced to AI prompting? Eventually the avenue for new talent gets blocked off in the same way he said we will have a generation of people who don't know how to code. It's also easy to say the people who invest in themselves will adapt but that's way easier said than done. What if they can't adapt fast enough? Or find a new market for themselves? Or even a new discipline before their finances run out?
A lot of artists are ALREADY being hurt financially by this tech. Yes pay them for their work if they agree to let it be used, but that's still not the end all be all solution that will keep artists afloat.
The other big part is the same thing is also happening across alot of game dev right now generally. Layoff 10-25% of your staff and expect AI to take care of the workload you've dumped on your remaining workers. I feel the same as Thor on the long term effects of what this crap will result in...but the problem is laid off people needing to survive long enough for these employers to figure it out...
@@JustinGreene0224 And that is where we STILL fall agonizingly behind. As long as a technology needs public adoption to advance, people need to be allowed to survive during the transitionary period or it will just never happen. There is a lot of good that can be done by this tech but it is not here yet and it isn't being given a chance to come into form yet because peoples' livelihoods are at stake. And that is an asinine and backwards way to run a society.
What you're describing is something that has become the norm in all fields of work. Corporations do not want to spend money to train new workers. They want to hire experienced workers that will do a perfect job from day 1 and they expect to pay the lowest possible salary for that work.
This isn't an issue caused by Generative AI, it's an issue with how human resources have changed over time. We went from being able to learn on the job to having to acquire a college education to get a job to magically needing to have work experience from birth to get a job.
Yeah I think this is an underrated problem. You need to do the boring part before you can do the fancy part. Same reason why despite everything, most software engineers still learn some logic circuitry and assembly in college, even if it's 'obsolete', or why art school typically starts you with pen and paper even though you might only ever work digitally later on.
Adapt or don't, the world will keep spinning without you like it always has done.
This is the reason why you avoid stagnation, because if you are not constantly self improving, then you are letting yourself get complacent.
Trucking was another job that was 3-5 years away of disappearing due to automation and getting driverless cars. But we are now 3-5 years later and it is still not here.
I would say the jobs that are much more in danger of being replaced are the data entry jobs. The jobs where people take a set of data and plug it into spreadsheets, like HR, payroll, and accounting. Now I don't think all those jobs are going to disappear, but rather that software gets so good that they can have less people working those jobs. So demand will reduce and if supply remains the same, it means wages will drop.
0:46 "Wild West of AI" - best terming I have heard so far :D
Per US Copyright Law, no matter what source is used for training the model, the art it makes is public domain. It's that way because it is "machine generated".
as long as not edited.
No it's not. Just because a work is not protected by copyright does not mean it can be freely used. There may be other legal restrictions or terms of use set by the developer of the AI or the platform on which the artworks were created.
@@nowonmetube Then that would contravene US law, now would it? Sounds like it would require hashing out by a judge.
That's not really what was said. The case was yet another backdoor by animal rights people to try and get a court to grant rights to a completely machine process so they could then use that to built towards giving animals the rights of humans.
To be eligible for a copyright it requires some human inspiration which can be anything from refinements by prompts to inpainting to using a base image as the seed for the generative work.
If you didn't know you can convert stick man figures into full images.
If you want to claim that any and all AI image are public domain you are risking penalties under copyright law if a judge agrees that their was even a slight spark of human creativity in the process. Which doesn't even get into the aspect that a character might be protected by a copyright even if an image of them is not.
Now for a machine running without any human input that's randomly generating everything from true noise that wouldn't be something you could copyright, like you can't copyright security camera video of unscripted and unedited events.
But if you want to take legal advice from a news report that likely excluded a lot of the case and it's background and just start using images... well don't forget if someone makes a claim to offer them a license fee right away because that sets a point in time where future legal fees are unlikely to be awarded after. Which is to say if I say that's my copyright work don't use it, you turn around and say I'll give you $100 for it. If I reject your offer and push my claim and then go on to win in court if I asked the court to grant me my legal fees the court would be extremely unlikely to award me fees incurred after you made that offer and might even require me to pay your fees from that point.
The last ruling about AI and copyright was from Judge Beryl A. Howell and she stated that AI as an entity can't hold copyright and you can't transfer the copyright to a human. That said, the ruling about how much human input to the machine to consider authorship is yet to be clarified and stand open. A quote of judge Howell: "We are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put AI in their toolbox to be used in the generation of new visual and other artistic works". So, technically, you can claim copyright on AI generated images, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will refuse it.
Music is scary because how copyright works right now is based on western music theory - which is just math - so there is a limit to the amount of combinations of copyrights.
If people viewed music more like art - in that ALL details matter, it would be different.
But we're going toward the point where society may say that composition doesn't matter and everything is in essence "a cover song".
You can only copyright holistic creations, you can't copyright things like chords, chord progressions, or style. Same applies with art. Using similar compositional elements isn't stealing as long as the holistic piece is derivative enough from the original, which is based purely on personal opinion of where that line is.
@@avalerionbass theoretically. In practise it's all about what "expert" witnesses can convince a laymen jury of. The US justice system is fucked, especially for copyright.
@@zwe1l1nkehaende I mostly agree with that, but it doesn't change that only holistic elements of creative works can be copyrighted.
@@avalerionbass there have been plenty of cases found in favour of plaintiffs, only because the songs shared a similar melody. so while copyright is indeed supposed to be holistic, in practice it isn't.
@@zwe1l1nkehaende And that's the line I side with you on. It's just a cash grab for greedy lawyers. Some no name band that made a single song in the 70's in Jamaica and a modern pop artist made a similar sounding song by coincidence. I forget who that was, but it was a real case a few years ago.
I grew up learning art, it's always been a struggle, but it's worthwhile to me. AI hasn't changed what I do or want to do, its just made it more annoying. On top of people stealing your art, not seeing it, etc. In addition, AI will steal your art, other art, and make it harder to find real art to inspire you. Just another layer of annoyance, but we get through it.
I hope the laws come in quicker. So then all the art forms require permission for their stuff to be used, and maybe even get some royalties. AI art made of ethically sourced content that pays the artist, while still less than actual art, will actual be the tool it's supposed to be.
Sending this off to a few worried buddies of mine. I used to worry about AI art but stopped when I realized that the people who use it are typically the kind who were never trying to pay an artist for their work anyway.
Most people that use it are actually people who have never created art before, either through time, inherent skill, access to resources, or even personal disabilities. They're they equivalent of kids learning how to draw with crayons the first time. Their posts of "Hey look at this awesome thing I made! I've never been able to make art before!" is met with "You're a horrible person, the scum of the earth, and you should unalive yourself."
Who's really the bad people here?
@@avalerionbass Good try with trying to guilt trip me for something I never said lol. What I said is that people who use it typically wouldn't be trying to pay an artist anyway. As a person who also has disabilities this will never not be a funny take.
@@BlinkingTwin Well first off I never tried to guilt trip or claim that you said anything. What you did do was imply that people who use AI art are negative in the context of " the kind who were never trying to pay an artist for their work anyway." The consistent and immediate take that people like you have is that just because you hate the technology, that also gives you a right to hate and vilify the people that use it, which is exactly what you're implying.
Just let people make things they wanna make and don't accost people because you feel morally righteous on the subject, while everyone else just wants to make pretty pictures on the screen.
@@avalerionbass My brother in christ you gave me a sob story about how people are saying that people who use AI art are horrible people then literally said "whose really the bad people here?" when it wasn't even remotely relevant to what I said. That's exactly what you were doing.
Also what I said is not rocket science: If you're using AI art in place of commissioning an artist the reason is generally because you either do not want to or want to but can't, which means that artists who work by commission don't really have all that much to worry about. People who want to pay for art from artists and can will keep on doing so for the reasons Thor mentioned.
As I said on my first comment I don't worry about AI art anymore. I havent for well over a year lol. If you want to assume my neutrality on the subject means I'm "vilifying" people then sure. Live your life. But youre not going to make me feel bad so you might as well stop crying about things I never said or did
@@avalerionbassBro are you a bot or ragebaiting? You are on every comment here.
Also u took a few ratios lmao
There is a core misunderstanding in the comments about Public Domain. The whole *point* of copyright is to provide a time-limited monopoly over the work, after which it becomes fair game for derivative works. When that compromise was struck, modern concepts such as Creative Commons did not exist. Thus the expected outcomes was further copyrighted works based on that public domain.
Because of that, works derived from public domain, even if they pass through AI, shouldn't be limited to public domain status. However, the US copyright office has ruled that AI generated content *can't* be copyrighted for a very different reason. The copyright office requires a *human* author of the work and refuses AI works, even AI works modified after by a human, so that remains up in the air.
Makes me think of how he was saying law should take time to avoid mistakes. That law seems like it will prove to be a mistake and a big hindrance.
In my opinion the way US courts look at it is bizarre. It treats AI as a separate actor with a will of its own. It's like saying "well, I didn't shoot them, my gun did!" while they held the gun and squeezed the trigger. A human had to do quite a few things for the AI to do anything. Without the human pressing the right buttons none of it would've happened.
The case of the monkey taking a photo is a bit different, because animals pretty clearly do a have a will of their own. AI though, at least so far, does not.
I wonder if this will eventually be used for some company to get away from liability "because the AI did the bad thing, not the human operator".
I love that world governments gave AI a free pass, but if somebody generated art that plagiarised an artist, that artist is only allowed to sue whoever generated it. Talk about double standards.
Clearly copyright was the mistake.
The only reason you'd want a monopoly on anything is if you were the monopolist and tried to exploit that status.
@@Aerroon It's because any given AI model cannot be held accountable. It doesn't enjoy the rights of a civilian, which is also true of animals. It doesn't have a demonstrable personhood.
3:42 if yall are to take anything away from this video this part is it
I love how aggressively, full-on in your face positive Thor is. No one does it quite like him :)
2:58 the true reason is, I think, to get money from sponsors, because if researcher says it will take 20 years, nobody will support that work, but if they say it will take 1-3 years - now they get all the attention, even if it takes longer.
The issue is that it’s not based off of public domain. They’re just using massive databases that’re massive siterips of places like twitter, tumblr, facebook, (insert social media site here), etc…
I dont see why we call it AI when it is still following programming parameters and cant extend those parameters itself.
AI images are the new plastic. Very useful in some situations, but it’s always going to be seen as cheap and imitative.
I don't think you're up to date on the state of AI art.
@@tf5pZ9H5vcAdBp i dont think hes up to date on the usefulness of plastic (polymers) I guess 3d printing is useless
Plastic is one of if not the most used materials in our society.
Plastic imitative of what? Is plastic use imitating steel?
i kind of get the idea of this comment but while also being cheap, plastic is easily one of the most innovative things humanity has ever created lmao
AI will be like that too one day, but as it stands it's not doing much of value besides harmlessly pissing some people off (yes it is harmless, literally no one has lost money or their jobs from it and anyone who says otherwise is lying to themselves and everybody else)
While I was at uni, I managed to rediscover an interest in art, and I wanted to apply that interest in the next group project and then I got fully replaced by midjourney and didn't get any grade, and now I'm back in a slump of not wanting to draw anything
So I may be biased when it comes to this topic
@@jennyinutil2018 Hey, sorry to hear that happened to you, that seemed very underhanded by them. Hope you climb out your slump soon 👍
So you base the worth of your art on what you can get with it. That is not really an artist pov
@@Loki-qo2kbThat's a bit of a dickish thing to say. Of course it's an "artist pov". They're an artist, and it's their pov. They aren't less of an artist for wanting their art to be useful for stuff. Even if they just wanted to sell art for money, that'd still be fine. Get off your high horse.
@@shrubninja6444 just because I crap 3d shapes doesn't make me a sculptor nor a 3d printer.
@@Loki-qo2kb What a sad little troll you are.
Thanks for the encouragement! I started software dev in university the same year that generative AI started making a splash which was pretty scary. I've kept pushing and I'm much more skilled because of it.
I use AI art for my dungeons & dragons and pathfinder games. I paid for the art pack from an artist who provided a bunch of training data, and I use that to generate new images.
I love both. Recently i actually used AI art to get basis of what i wanted and paid and artist to handle specific changes for me.
3-5 years is roughly the time a modest experiment goes from idea to publishing. Then it has to actually succeed, then do well.
Though even then, AI still is annoying. College professors are now (justifiably) paranoid that everything getting turned in is fake. But it's a pain in the ass to prove it's real after you spent all the time writing stupid papers.
Parallel to this for my field, cnc routers and laser cutters. I do all of my work via hand tools and your standard woodworking tools, scroll saw, table saw, miter saw, carvers, lathe etc. Not once did I swap over or think that I will lose my business because of these new computerized machines. People love that my intricate work is not done with a laser cutting but with a scroll saw. They love that it is handcrafted and made by someone who is passionate about woodworking and the products I make. Every year so far I have been reaching more people and making more money. Haven't had an issue keeping up. Like Thor said, invest in you and you will be in infinitely better places than you are right now. Push forward and knock it out of the park!
AI currently is also having a lot of struggle that is not mentionned.
"Oh AI can make 4k video"
What they don't say it was made in 720p and upscalled cause it took too long for higer rez and add on top that it is not consistent
Smart people know how to get around that. Using AI is an art in of itself.
@@8is That is from smart people that are "selling" the prowess of AI but atm it is a big empty void. Adam conover interviewed multiple people involved and it is mainly a storm of "who can master the new tech" to appeal investors. As it already happened with the metaverse that would be the next big thing, nft that would revolutionize the internet market, bitcoin that would ruined the economy and 1 of the big guy in AI is basicaly saying "AI WILL RUN THE WORLD AND RUIN EVERYONE LIVELYHOOD"
@@phelpsfilchat AI artists exist now and some of them are very good at using current AI. I'm sure AI will only continue to get better and better making it more accessible to more people, but we'll see how far it goes.
@@8is I don't think using AI can be considered an art in of itself. Maybe. But it definitely doesn't make you an artist.
@@gigabit6226then it makes you a crafter? Like coding. But that would imply that you consider coding not art as well.
So far AI has been useful in niche cases:
"Write a class that fits the structure of this database/file" -> boom, done, easy
"Write a function that returns all odd values from a given array" -> 15 syntax error (yes this can be done with a one liner)
Same with Art. Tried making an image for my DnD character sheet. You can type RED EYES in as many combinations and variations as you want. That Tiefling will have green eyes. Cause Algo - the god of algorithms - is a dick.
It’s always green eyes I swear
I'm not an artist, but AI art is something kind of weird to me, but I have friends who do art and they're wprried about it. Thank you for your insight, somehow makes me feel a bit less worried because you have more knowledge in tech than me lol
I know you can’t control it, but the ad being create your own video games through AI was hilarious😂😂
I think the question for most people is not should I invest in myself or not.
It's should I invest in myself with art/coding etc. vs should I invest in some other skill that is less likely to be taken over by AI.
Not "taken over by" but more "supplemented with." There is still skill and knowledge required to use the technologies effectively and accurately. There are also limitations to it currently that can be circumvented by manual edits and reiterations. That kind of attitude is just a Doomers point of view.
If you don't move with the technology, you will get taken over by it and left behind. That's just how human progress works.
It doesn't matter: Like Thor said, if you're entering an industry with AI in it, you adapting to a advanced high paced ecosystem and the problems you examine will make you more capable and better informed, if you're not, you carry on as usual. You can go be a plumber or whatever. Ny the time robot plumbers come out, you'll know all about plumbing and how to lead your own company or automate plumbing problems. Its literally all. the. same.
You have the right of it and I have been saying this for a while. AI art makes it easier for small projects to have nice looking art, but a real artist is always preferable because they work with can make exactly what you need and you don't have to waste huge ammounts of time going through 80 billion renditions to get something "good enough"
I thought that ai art could not be copyrighted
It can't. Yet.
Copyright is assigned to the prompter and is the only way artists can sue for infringed works.
Thor I have recently been laid off and have been watching your content more and more because the way you encourage others to lift themselves up is inspiring. I have felt pretty down everytime an application gets rejected, but watching your streams helps me to get back up and try again. I hope I can get back at it and if I do it will be all thanks to you.
Dang, I went through a tough period until recently of being unemployed and job hunting. I hope things turn around for your job hunting soon and I'm rooting for you!
The "singularity" has been 5-10 years off for like 30 years too.
no, Ray Kurzweil has been very consistent in his singularity predictions for decades. He is predicting 2029 as AI achieving human level intelligence, and 2045 as the time we merge with the machines to produce super human intelligence.
@@RPG_Guy-fx8ns see ya on 2029 then
@@RPG_Guy-fx8ns We’ll see, but it’s been a shaky prediction for a while, so if it’s wrong, you may want to switch fortune tellers.
Thank you... AI is just a tool like all tools.
This tool is a little more advanced but so was digital art programs and digital drawing tablets when they came out. So was the camera when it came out.
Once the dust settles and everything subsides AI art is just going to be a new form of art, it's not going to replace artists, it's not going to ruin the idea of being a creative... it's just going to exist... like all technology before it.
Why would I waste my time reading or looking at something that no one took time to make.
@grimscriven was hoping to see a comment like this, cause I agree with the idea
i assume you have filters on your webbrowser to remove all of the ai-summaries in your search results?
@@nobody8717 Comparing search engine results to creative work you pay for is disingenuous, and intellectually dishonest. You know exactly what people are not okay with.
1:20
I've done it before. AI trained on AI not that bad as long as you use the best outputs and know how to get your tags straight in training. Most people consider it more moral too.
I feel like Thor is ignoring the fact that a lot of people are "bad artists", and I say this from a perspective of commissions and graphic design work. That doesn't mean those same artists can't eventually get good. They could, but a lot of them will likely not get far along in their career / artistic pursuits to reach that level. That's reality before AI art became a thing. Right now, jobs for SEO specialists is nonexistent because AI can write articles good enough to accomplish SEO targets (setting aside the actual quality of research and writing). And we're already seeing beginner coder jobs dwindling as AI becomes more capable of making experienced devs a lot more productive. Fields like frontend web development will eventually (maybe in a few years) just fold into full stack development as AI picks up the design slack and makes it super easy to switch between frontend frameworks. Thor should know this, and probably has a nuanced perspective for coding. But for artwork, his advice is pure fantasy. Based on where Gen AI is going, you either have to be a damn good artist or call it quits, because a regular office worker can replace you by pushing a few buttons.
You might be the first person I’ve ever seen that always makes sense. I constantly end up finishing your videos going “Yeah he’s probably right”
The argument in favor of still learning advanced proframming despite AI is simple: if AI can do the job of a real senior dev / architect, with all the requirement refining, domain knowledge and design - then there is no other job left, no human doctors, no lawyers, no engineers.
When everything is equaly futile economicaly, the only thing left is to pursue your dreams.
Except if your dream is to be a doctor, lawyer, engineer or architect I guess.
@@wayIess can still do those professions for entertainment. Not to mention no matter how good ai gets some people will always rather a human element
Doctors and engineers are practical professions that require a lot of training and theory, and since we're only talking about AI and not robots we can safely say those aren't going anywhere. Lawyers especially cannot be AI, leaving legal decisions up to unaccountable non-persons is a terrible idea.
I’d like to add onto “not learning because the AI might do it in the future”. I feel like there is definitely many ways humans have adapted to ai perfecting their job/hobby, but have still found success.
For example: Chess bots are significantly better at chess than human players, does that mean the people have stopped playing chess? No, in fact chess as a medium has benefited overall from the use of bots for learning the game.
While yes, there are fair use and plagiarism issues with the currents state of ai art, however it should never be looked as troublesome because it will “replace humans”. Thank you for listening to my Ted talk, love your videos man.
I feel like Thor, a smart person, being like "I would hire a real artist everytime" is kinda a bit silly when a large chunk of business people would rather use AI rather than commission on a real person, like we know you're cool Thor: we also know a lot of business people aren't
I feel like Thor thinks like that:
,, It is more worth it to hire artist and have custom changes done on demand without AI bugs than to use AI"
What you think of as "not cool" is really just being more efficient, more productive and smart. Finding out ways to be more efficient and more productive or solving a problem is what drives innovation.
@@MarshPlazaThis sounds like something Lemon Demon would sing in 'Redesign your Logo', lmao
@@MarshPlaza Except it isn't more efficient, productive, or even smart. There are very specific cases where it has helped boost productivity, but largely AI is a fad right now that companies are trying to cram into anything and everything in the hopes of getting ahead on The Next Big Thing because they're afraid of being left behind (and to cut jobs for higher profits, the same as firing half your workforce and expecting the other half to do the work of 2 people for the same pay). They don't understand what AI is nor what it can and can't do. You tell them "We made an AI that knows how to bark like a dog" and they ask "How many doctors can I fire?"
I recently read about a movie studio that hired a few AI prompters to work in the art division. They have banned the hiring of prompters. Because they simply can't do the work. You tell them "Give me a picture of a forest," and they'll come back the next day with 45 pictures of forests - far faster than anybody else can. You tell them "I like this one, but take the people out of it," and they'll come back the next day with 45 new pictures of forests. Because they can't do the work. They don't understand art nor iteration - they only know how to get an LLM to generate pictures.
@MarshPlaza and then, by trying to be "smarter" and "more innovative", we abandon the value of humanity and life in favor of chasing the dollar.
Agree except for one point. The input being public domain shouldn't necessarily mean the output should be too. The value added is the training model, which is what consumers pay for. If training models becomes so easy anyone can do it, it'll end up free (or close enough to anyway).
On a personal note, if I ever get to a point where chat gpt (or equivalent) is able to produce consistent, correct code that integrates into large systems, I'll be worried for my future. At present, (at least in C++/Unreal Engine), it's not even close. One to keep an eye on, but not one to fret about if you're a game dev.
So many people will try to argue that AI art is truly art because its an artificial intelligence that gave you a result based on what you asked for. 1, it is not an artificial intelligence. It is a system with a set of written rules that shows a product based on a query. Its a machine. An intelligence could question those rules or that query, could debate the rules with those who wrote them, could make a decision on what works best with that query. It can't, because it's not an intelligence, it is a machine. 2, art is not the final product. Art is the very process it took to get to the final product, and thusly why it belongs to the artist. Every stroke of paint or pencil, every texture sculpted on a sculpture, every mixture of color, every edit on a digital canvas, every word written because of what the artist chose to or needed to write for whatever reason they felt compelled to write them, every line of code in the order they were written for the system to make sense. Every little thing makes one piece of art, and all of those things reflect the artist's choices along every step of the process of making that art. Which brings me to point 3, it is so obviously proven that these AI are not intelligence at all because they cannot improve what they are given. They can only copy directly, or alter lines and shape and color to a certain degree. And we see this when AI is trained on AI data. It rapidly deteriorates in quality. It doesn't have a process or a choice on how to dictate that process, it doesn't create at all, it only copies. Its not an argument, it is a blatant fact. AI art is neither AI nor art.
"every word written because of what the artist chose to or needed to write for whatever reason they felt compelled to write them"
so writing a prompt is art
@fenXtv writing a prompt is a question or a query. Im assuming you mean writing a prompt for a systematic generator, lets say an image generator. You're writing the prompt based on the sets and rules of that generator. You're asking it in the way it was designed to respond to. Same way writing specific queries for google will return different results on bing, they were designed to return results with different sets of rules. That is question without expression. That is not art by any means. You could write an essay about the experience of thirst and dehydration but you wouldn't do that to ask for a glass of water, you would simply ask for a glass of water. No, writing prompts is not at all the same as writing scripts or story settings or passages or short stories or novels or poetry or lyrics, etc.
We already have flying cars - they're called helicopters.
It don't go vroom vroom though :(
Also guys, don't forget: Because so many people are scared of AI it's possible that many people don't even try to learn something, so you have a higher chance of being one the ones who did, so you'll be valuable.
Consider this: AI is like a collection of knowledge. But it isn't experience. Experience is more important than knowledge alone.
How I see it as an artist: for AI to become adequate enough to keep up useful image generation across the board, the ways of operating it would need to become more complex in order to give more fine tuning capabilities.
Art as a discipline is composed of theoretical knowledge and motoric training needed to precisely put that knowledge into practice. With the integration of AI we would see less draftsmanship but the need for that knowledge won't go away, so artists need to be hired either way in order to end up with a quality product. Also an artist can manually intervene by painting over and fixing stuff on the spot. This would lead to less positions for artists but not the extinction of the profession, even though it would be closer to an art director as a job.
I like the use of truth tables in that explanation. They were right about logic defeating that AI.
They're bad in the sense that they imply everything is a 50/50 when they're not.
@@8is They really don't, though. You can assign each strategy and outcome whatever value you want. If you only care about making money, then you may not value the outcomes where your job is replaced. But if you care about pursuing art or programming for the sake of doing it, then you will still have gotten value out of learning it even if your job is replaced.
To steal is to take something away from someone. You gain something and somebody lose something. To copy shit from the internet is not stealing because no one loses anything.
@@erickgomes7704 artist loose contrôle and revenu of there art , so yes its stealing
The people who get mad about even the people doing the paid licensing model need to chill the hell out.
Where I have found AI to be really valuable in the art world is for providing artists with samples. Run a few generations in an ai generator to get a rough of the pose I'm looking for, a rough for the kind of outfit (its never perfect, but that's where notes come in), what the character and background resemble, and have them actually make the art I want. I don't mean cut and paste from the ai, I just mean I use the AI to visually convey the kind of thing I'm going for.
It's also really handy in pen and paper rpgs when you are trying to explain something to someone and they're not quite getting it. I don't mean for books or anything but stuff like 'you enter a cave, there's a pool of water and crystals lit by some unknown force, like this: *shows quick ai art of scene*'. I'd never use it for a commercial thing, but it makes a lot of sense for something you need to show on the fly. If that adventure ever was to get published, then I'd hand the image over to an artist and get them to do it but more accurate to what I meant. Especially since, as the law is currently, AI works can not be copywritten. Anything not created by a person is fair use per US supreme court.
I kind of dislike the point that is being made at 3:40, because its not between either "you learn to do A or you learn nothing", its between "learning to do A, that might get replaced or learn to do B, that is not as likely do be replaced"
The problem is that at this stage you start thinking - Is it worth to learn B at this point. A is kinda a passion and something you can be good at. Something you had in you for some time. B is new experience. But it is always worth to learn B too
Back in the 90's when I was learning my trade I was told advancements in tech are going to "terk mer jerb" in the 00's I was told that I was going to be obsolete in a few years because advancements are going to "make my jerb obsolete" currently I am getting told that the next gen tech is going to "make my existence obsolete"... the next gen tech is setting its self on fire and half the industry is considering going in an entirely different direction.
It's not just programming and art, loads of industries have been dealing with this for years
I realized ai is trained on humanly created data... this cannot yield something that is smarter than humans, how could it?
Not currect models, no.
If the current technology allowed for the development of AGI, then maybe, as it could actually understand stuff, and improve itself. But as Thor said, that'd require one hell of a breakthrough that's unlikely in the next decades.
With AI art that may be the case, but if we take medical AI as an example (my field of research) it's definitely possible. Assuming we define "smarter" as "more accurate" for example. In my research I trained an AI model to detect mutated cells from microscopic scans, based on different pathologists' annotations. The final model outperformed all of them in terms of accuracy
@@ObviouslyASMR I'm simply adding a detail that I believe is left out of conversation when speaking about this topic: it's amazing what the AI models can achieve but YOU are still needed to interpret the data/results.
My point is AI in itself as it is right now is not replacing you in your field of research.
As an artist I still think that more complex versions are needed for satisfactory end-results but professionals will still be needed to work with it and achieve a quality product.
@@marethyu31 Oh of course, I completely agree! That's always something I talk about as well when discussing applications of my research; AI is meant as a tool, not a replacement. For the foreseeable future there should *always* be a human using it, or at the very least human oversight
imo - it has its use cases - mostly just stuff that would either be a waste of an artist and commissioner's time, or at best, a learning experience - like tattoo inspiration or "This is KIND of what I'm thinking I want, what's realistically possible?" or trying to visualize something from a story, etc. When it gets to the point where I can ask for my D&D character's pic and then have it just change like, the textures or colors of specific elements in the image, or just the slope of that line etc, and it manages it without changing anything you didn't ask to change... That's when shit'll really hit the fan.
thor has been speaking what I've been thinking
Thanks for this Thor! As a game dev our industry is always threatened by disruption, I very much hope I get to keep doing what I love. While I'm not against AI, I just hope the tools which get created support independent creators rather than close that gap in the market.
It's hard to enjoy art that you know has no soul.
I enjoy creating art.
AI will never create new like people do.
It's clear that the only AI art generation you're aware of is just prompt generation, which is the lowest tier of creation. That's like saying all art sucks because abstract art sucks.
So the problem only happens when you think art was made by AI? Like, if you see a piece of art that was created by AI, but you think it was created by a person, you can enjoy it as art? Cos that sounds more like a perception problem on your part than an issue of whether or not AI can create anything new and original.
@@EditUnivers75 lmao its almost 2025. you literally cant tell between real art and a well made AI art.
True. And only idiots talking about Ai replacing artists.
But AI could and probably will replace stock images.
Given how much actual art has no soul and is more of a money laundering token for the elite, I find it hard to care. Art sold out long before AI threatened artists.
Investing in yourself is important because it can be used your entire life.
I have a degree in the automotive field. By graduation, the field was over saturated and I couldn't get a good job.
10 years later I run an unrelated business and save (Genuinely thousands) by handling our own vehicle work.
All skills are useful. Its the application of those skills that makes the difference. Each aspect can be broken down to core pieces that when honed can act as springboards for learning new skills.
"If the artists are paid" which will never happen...
The part about "3-5 years" and "breakthroughs" reminded me of a tweet I saw the other day that gave me a good chuckle, from someone that said "in 5 years 80% of all films will be AI-generated." I just thought sure, maybe someday that dystopia will be real. But it ain't happening in 5 years. It probably isn't even happening in our lifetime.
Using public domain art DOES NOT force you to make the result public domain. I am not sure what communist is trying to warp your understanding of the law, but public domain is not copy left. You can commercially use public domain, and the results are your copyright. The story of Aladdin is public domain, but the Disney Character is not.
Ai art by US law cannot be copyrighted. By court ruling it doesn't involve a human creating the work so this forces AI work to become public domain.
@@wayIess That actually isn't what the court ruled. You claimed AI art doesn't involve a human creating the work. That isn't what the courts said. AI generated art may or may not involve a human creating the work, depending on the process. Also, even if the generated art is published and becomes public domain, adapting it into a commercial product does not make the commercial product public domain. I can make a Santa Clause movie, because the character is public domain, but you could not sell my movie, Only I could, because the movie is copyrighted, and any specific changes I made to the character would be copyrighted as well.
If you design a character, and have AI generate images of that character, the generated images are not free from copyright, you still own a copyright on those characters. If I generate a Luke Skywalker image, its not a public domain image, Disney still owns the rights to the character.
the thing ive directly noticed specifically with the creative medium is that even if Ai does get the break through, it doesnt invalidate the original methods. and something like coding is part of the creative regardless of what its used it has some scale of creativity that will always be sought after. a game dev specifically is thinking and understanding code well enough to implement it in creatively unique(not nessesarly) and intresting ways. the amount of stuff that people create based of existing setups because they think of doing it just that slight differently is numirous. a AI cant properly do this in its current state. and EVEN IF IT DOES, creating unique and intresting games even if all the setup of base things is already done. undertale comes to mind for this example of the amount of things that is already done in some way(if not a scale of fully), but everyone directly remembers that one because of it being unique.
It's so important for every person alive to hear this.
This video was much needed. The AI advancements have been scaring me as of late. I want to work as a professional artist once I'm done with school and hearing about studios making deals with AI companies to replace storyboarders and VFX artists makes the future seem quite difficult. Your insights give me a more hopeful outlook on the issue. Thanks for being a positive and constructive figure in the chaos that is the internet (and in general life) right now
"AI art is fine, as long as the artist is getting paid."
Which sadly won't ever happen with the majority of people seeking free art (maybe if we are lucky, 10/20 years some law might be put in place?) The dishonest will always far outnumber the honest.
It's too complicated to deal with contracts, and usually the people wanting the art can't afford it (aside from giant corps)- therefore they will just get away with stealing.
The truth hurts.
An art of eyeball merging with earring is a wild description 😂😂😂
People seem to be under the impression that AI image generators train on raw JPEGs or something, and that's just not at all how it works. The reason the legality isn't clear is because the data collected for training is _transformed_ into a normalised vector-based format that is no longer an actual image that you can view. Even if you had access to the training data, you couldn't use it to recreate any of the original images used to produce said training data. And once the AI is trained, it cannot be used to perfectly recreate any of the images used in the training data.
So it doesn't violate copyright law, because it counts as "transformative" enough to fall under fair use. It may be scummy, but it isn't illegal, and more importantly, it's more profitable. Don't expect any companies to keep acting "ethically" for very long.
if anyone thinks all companies will not abuse this, they are delusional. Even if you ban AI usage they will lie about it and still use it because its getting to the point its indistinguishable
Yep. You can't go in there and find your picture or reverse the model back into its training data, it's just a bunch of coefficients that have been blended up with everything else. You can get out something that looks similar to your work, but it's not going to be your work and it's also not ONLY going to be your work (assuming it's not your own model), even if you're the only style prompt given. It's a bit like lossy compression mixed with a collage, but the collage is on more of an abstract feature level than a full chunk of another work.
I don't think it's any more scummy than "readymade" art, which is really just a scene-approved way for an artist to slap his name on something he didn't make.
@@VertFirstQuestion why would you ban it? would you ban calculators as they take the job of human calculators?
I bet there are people who support reaction videos protected as transformative, but don't then believe generative AI is.
@@Loki-qo2kb A calculator is a tool used in calculations vs AI which generally will take jobs by removing the human element completely.
AI art has unironically made me appreciate the power I wield.
Yes! I am an AI developer and I have been saying this to everyone. The law needs to catch up with technology fast. Anything created by AI is by definition derivative and non-original because AI models have to be trained using real stuff. They don't create anything that is genuinely new. Rather they simply use quick pattern recognition from training data and derive it into statistically likely output after given a prompt. Image generators are trained using the art of real artists and AI developers deliberately put those images in the training model. Just as someone writing a research paper should be required to cite all their sources, AI developers should be required to site their data sources. If any copyrighted material ends up in those training models, the developers should be liable to the same copyright laws as everything else. They ought to be subject to a subpoena of their training model data if there is a warrant for copyright infringement.
It kills me that this is not better understood and that the law defaults to saying that anything created by AI is automatically public domain. That should be true only if it was trained exclusively with public domain data. And tech businesses try to further blur the line through their license agreements by claiming that they have the right to use your data or images for AI dev because you grant them permission in their EULAs. So for example, if you post a video on RUclips, you may unwittingly be granting Google permission to use your video to train the next generation of Gemini AI models. So when you see AI generated stuff that looks uncannily similar to something you produced, you will know exactly why.
4:39 Whoah! Fostex T50RPv1 sighting! That’s a classic orthodynamic, from before Yamaha coined the term!
AI has been "3 years" from taking every programming job for a long time. That was the talking point when I was learning AI and expert systems in the early 2000s. That was the talking point well before then too. Every form of AI has had its use cases. The current craze LLMs are useful for some pattern matching things. They're nowhere near where people claim they are or fear they are. And chances are that they won't be until well after we're all retired if they /ever/ are.
Thor's right. Learn things, do things, and kick ass. That's all you can do. Fortunately, that's often all you /need/ to do
game developers: character design, we borrow from existing mechanics, it helps advanced games.
artists: you need to pay for art in our style.
corporations: our intellectual property is set for 70 years unless we can extend it another 70 years.
it's going to be interesting to see how courts rule on this. seems the people are fighting against our AI / automation overlords. I am going to watch anime matrix to see how this ends.
@@relytunder I think people are just afraid of a technological shift because it revolutionizes an entire industry and the skill can no longer be gatekept behind inherent ability or time investments. Horse buggy manufacturers sure hated cars when they were invented. People thought the internet was a fad and going to die out. Even artists hated photography when it first came out because all they were doing was "pressing a button."
@@relytunder there used to be people calculators, these are just Luddites all over again
You don't need to pay for art in the style of an artist if you created it yourself. If you just used an AI tool to fudge it around some, then yes you should pay the artist.
@@asmosisyup2557 "You don't need to pay for art in the style of an artist if you created it yourself." You think you can create an artstyle? LFMAO.
By far the best take anyone can have on this subject.
AI is a tool like any other. The capabilities of the wielder is what matters most.
1:28 I have to disagree here, public domain is not the same as copyleft. If it's public domain, no one has the IP right/copyright to it, so you can do pretty much whatever you want with it.
yea my favorite quote is "nuclear is only 30 years away" the quote was made in 1960
You can use public domain works for commercial use, and that commercial use can acquire copyright since it's a new work.
Most people don't understand anything regarding copyright law. "Stealing" is just a buzz word they use, but under no definition of artistic stealing, is it actually that.
And then you can be a complete asshole and act like you own the rights to something in the public domain, while in reality you own the rights to your interpretation, where you didn't really change anything about the original 🙃
Ai art is not recognize by law and have zero copyright protection because the law classified it as non human work. Only human work PART can have copyright.
You can Google monkey image copyright to read the story.
The only way to have copyright is to denied it ever was a ai art and claim it was 100% produce by human.
So far no case in court to change the current rulling since it would be extremely high gamble to set a case precedent on ai art specifically.
@@RandomPerson-tz7wk "
The only way to have copyright is to denied it ever was a ai art and claim it was 100% produce by human." proves you don't know shit. If you make a derivative work based on the image it is copyrighted instantly. thus if you don't release the public domain image you have copyright.
@@Loki-qo2kb Any part of the image that was created by AI is not copyrightable, though. There have already been multiple copyrights thrown out over this.
That is a life changing statment if I ever heard one. " Invest in yourself and you always win."
Thor, public domain does not mean they should then produce public domain work. Regardless of the ethical side, that's not a logical a to b. If it was, Dracula would go in the public domain every time it gets remade
The more you learn, the more you realise how limited AI is.
When I started to seriously learn programming, Chat-GPT got released and I thought: "Wow, this is amazing, it can do anything for me in seconds"
But I kept on learning and now I am like "Why did it do it this way? What's that and why?" - and if you actually message the system back it often goes "You are right, apologies for my mistake. Let's try it again"
It is very very far from taking your job - keep learning, keep being amazing people!
I like AI. I want to learn more about it, just so I can adapt.
One thing Thor didn't mention here, is that rather subtitute artists AI is meant to be used by them as a tool. The "give a prompt and get an image" type of AI will only be used by people that don't wanna spend any money or don't care for a highly customized end product. Unless a breakthrough happens like explained in the video.
1:45 - no. By that logic if I put public domain music in my game, then my game needs to be public domain. Which would be bollocks.
Not quite. Legally speaking, using public media in a private project is not the same as using that media to generate more media.
That's not the same thing, you're still creating something else YOURSELF
2:50 Not quite the same but along similar lines:
I work in the nuclear industry as an operator. A lot of people bring up how in order to make it safer, these jobs should be fully automated rather than have humans running it. I have no fear that that is going to happen, for two big reasons.
1) A program is only as good as the programmer. There is no way that the programmer can anticipate every single thing that might ever go wrong, so there is no way that the program or automation system or whatever can react to every single possible problem. But a human can make the decisions at the time of event. It might not be the best decision, but its a decision.
2) An old Microsoft presentation from 1979: "A computer cannot be held accountable. Therefore, a computer cannot make a management decision." I don't care how good your AI model or automated system is, it still cannot be held morally responsible for its actions.
I'm not against the automation of my field, but I think there will always be a human element. And I think that'll be the case for generative AI as well. You'll still want someone with experience in composition, color theory or just with "a good eye" to find the things wrong with the AI output and fix it.
I will always prefer handmade art though.
Training ai on ai = goobley gobley...but we might be f'd still lol
2:35 I've been in this tough position with all the AI stuff/talk that's happening now (both informed and non-informed). Appreciate you talking about this.
yes this is what artist was trying to strike against AI was, we don't hate AI as the technology but we hate that our work is being stolen to feed the AI, that what making artist mad since AI art become popular
@@GenaTroyA human neural network is not a statistical model, stop anthropomorphizing it
@@GenaTroy the mental gymnastics youre doing to justify stealing are crazy, please be better
@@m34805 But it is. We literally got this idea from studying how neurons in the brain work.
@@GenaTroy Damn, you're really desperate to defend this concept, a follower of Shadiversity? Let me guess, "AI images are hard to make too"?
@@GenaTroy objectively wrong
the very first day and following weeks at my very first job (as a data management intern) after leaving community college, i was told id be out of the job in 5-10 years because of AI Job redundancies. i quit in barely even 6 months because I could not assign any value to what I had learned, every day i felt like my career was pointless because someone did not give me this advice. Now I realise i was either hired by idiots or gaslit into showing my inability to adapt and fear of failing. Id wager it was the second option. thank u thor i appreciate this message
*I'm glad you made this video,* it reminds me of my transformation from a nobody to good home, $89k biweekly and a good daughter full of love..
Please how ?
It's Maria Angelina Alexander doing she's changed my life. A BROKER- like her is what you need.
$356K monthly is something you should feel differently about....
Lovely! I enjoyed it like I enjoy a $100k monthly around the turn!!!
I know that woman (Maria Angelina Alexander)
If you were born and raised in new York you'd know too, she's my family's Broker for 3yrs till now and a very good one if you asked me. No doubt she is the one that helped you get where you are!!!!
The point about investing in yourself is so true. I got my degree in graphic design in 2018, and have taught myself web on the job at every place I went to. In just 6 years, I make 4x the amount I did from my first job. I also work way less and enjoy the work I do way more
i mean existing art has been used to "train" human artists since... forever
"oh i like how they drew the cloth dress folding on the knee in that painting, i think im gonna try that on my next piece"
AI art for me is great for the purpose of needing something for a instant reference. Like if your doing Dnd and need a quick NPC or an environment to show the players, Or possibly something like needing inspiration of seeing a character in a generic pose or generate background clutter to put a character into practice lighting and shading with thematic themes.
AI should be a useful tool for speeding up rough draft work and putting up a frame to help figure out the final product. It should not be use to be the final product. Things like I think I heard was Elemental and The recent spider verse movie they used AI to help process and figure out things like making the flames on the fire characters so not every flicker and flick of fire had to be manually animated. Or in Spider verse where they trained it to help figure out where the cell shade lines should show up and vanish depending on how the camera is looking at the models.
im to poor to afford a artist but i fully support artiest over AI, i just have no choice till my channel picks up, it sucks :(