Most if not all of AI prompters don't understand about artists is that we LOVE the process of it, problem solving, growing and learning. If AI is done ethically and legally, we professional artists would transcend into god mode, just because we can do so much more than just prompting.
We are at the edge - it can either be the best thing that happened to artists in centuries, or our demise. But! Imagine the following - companies having their signature human artists to show how powerful they are as they can afford humans instead of ai trash... hmmm
@@FeroxX_Gosu i dont think its going to be so niche. Companies will want to have human workers as a display of power. All the small startups will become outbranded and their products will be considered low quality due to audiences becoming bored.
@@GabrielLeni How many horses FedEx has?.. They will just make personificating marketing for their own superhuman Ai models for the masses to suck it up. Like most avg humans religiously love products.. Like iPhone, Geforce etc.
Art is about decisions…we make millions of decisions when we draw something, every stroke is our decision, 100% it's our thoughts there. With AI they decide 10% on their work at best and everything else is just random filling. Random filling from other artists…They call themselves Art Directors, but it's more like they AI directed, and they don't even see how they give away their ability to decide to a machine.
Art,Music,Poetry....etc are all human activities that heal the soul and used as meditation since the ancient times, we do them because we love the process of learning,getting better at it, using our imagination to be creative, Ai should never be attached to those and they should strictly be human activities we connect to each other through them, if i ever use Ai instead of my own brain for imagination and drawing i would simply put the pencil down and never pick it up again.
And to those Ai users who say we cant stop the progress this is degress because it limits our own brain to get creative!, and human Art will always always be ahead and it will always thrive because we connect to each other through it and always there will be people who only want Art made by humans
There is something with the process of creation that's simply resonating with most of us. Creative endavours have been a stable in Occupational therapy for avery long time. From painting, to drawing or making music.
I will continue to creating "human" Art, with digital or traditional techniques with my own skills because I LOVE IT. I hope this AI tech apps can be controlled by laws soon.
This Luddite movement is Disney bots, shilling for more copyright with deceit and disinformation. AI killed art? Naw , Luddites simping for Disney did.
The thing that is frustrating/sad is these Ai comic and book projects have no editing at all. No adjusting,painting over or correction. It's so lazy and show just a lack of taste.
My main issue with the AI comics is that no matter how good the art looks it all looks dead, like, there's no dynamism to it. And the thing I always admired about comicbook art is how everything looks alive and energetic, almost giving you an illusion of movement. Idk, maybe comicbooks are the only art from that's gonna largerly be safe from AI (sure, there will be a lot of the ones made by AI but they will all look like crap so there will still be room and need for really good artists). Would certainly be fun to see some artists get back to doing interior pages because of cover artist no longer being a career. (Not that I wish this on them. I hope that no major publisher is actually gonna start using AI instead of actual human art).
whoooOOOOOAOOO ! 51:39 " it's good to hear that your solution to this is to still dive into creating even more ".... whooooOOOaAOoo! after what Greg is going through! it's super powerfull good vibes melting from my soul/brain/heart ! and then gooooozzz bumps ;))) hahaha ! cheers to that! bravo for this conversation!
I still don't understand why Greg doesn't sue their asses... google-ing your name and finding AI stuff in front of your real art can convince any judge that this is concerning
@@leoromanski1696 I just mentioned, over damages to his image by having AI art associated with his name and placed in front of his actual art in search engines
@@Cha4k It baffles me how people can't see nothing wrong with this. It's not about google rankings, nor the art style, it's about HIS name associated with AI stuff that is more visible than his actual work. Also about the fact that anyone can type his name in the generator and get stuff that looks like his work. If this wouldn't hurt Greg in any way, you wouldn't see him so worried in all his interviews...
Cryptic-Metadata within the images would be the solution to this issue. Midjourney CEO said and i quote "It would be cool if images had metadata embedded in them about the copyright owner". The technology is there, we just need a site. We need to host images with metadata in them with an encryption.
we should make a letter addressing all videogame studios and production houses asking them to take a stance on AI imagery, so we know who are we dealing with.
Cryptic-Metadata within the images would be the solution to this issue. Midjourney CEO said and i quote "It would be cool if images had metadata embedded in them about the copyright owner". The technology is there, we just need a site. We need to host images with metadata in them with an encryption.
That already exists ...they do have Metadata. But hey it could have been much easier: they could have just not use pictures from a portfolio website where artists post their stuff .
Well, no. How about we have metadata for the images that are copy-right free, and assume that the rest aren't? Some people are not tech-savvy, and cannot put the correct metadata, which should not equate to silent consent.
Funny thing is, you don't have the same bullshit in the music industry because the big labels and music organisations sued AI developers. Go figure. Protection is possible. Don't let TechBros talk you in to "You just hate new stuff!" bullshit.
Counterpoint: I think the real argument here is that one trade is feeling another trade is not staying in their lane. Like how a chef might get upset when a waiter tries their hand at cooking. To get to the point where "AI Art" is now, a lot more than just entering a prompt into an engine was done to make it that easy for the laymen using it now to make the 1000s of renderings. Just like it was mentioned, just the last few weeks alone they noticed a huge improvement to now where its "the hands" that give it away. Creativity had to go into the programming, training and the likes to get there, and I would believe programmers see their work as an art of just a different medium. (just to note, I am in full agreement that AI can not replace real artists, and that the trade should be protected from misuse, copyright concerns, and their rights)
@@ShivaTD420 Definitely against laws that go against speech. I say more of an advocate of good etiquette use of the tech. What that looks like yet is anyone's guess.
@@AppaTalks the protest was a fraud. The entire premise "that ai stole" is false. It victimized people who don't know the law or the tos they agreed to. While misrepresented how the ai works to incite a Luddite hate cult. The push to change the law is probably a stunt by the corps who benefit from it. Some of the biggest names that could be considered "leaders" of this hysteria. Have been the source of the false accusations. Some of them claim that ai makes 1 to 1 copies of their stuff. One thing is for sure, they have benefited from the influx of views. Their content has become less about art and more about lying to keep the incitement going. These people have net worths of 500k to 1 mill+ How do we know that artists like Sam yang didn't stage the style capture trained models that he claims is copying 1 to 1. No one has filed DMCA requests, zero infringement lawsuits. The samdorsart models don't seem to violate his copyright. Not like that style is even Sam yang's to begin with.
That is why Midjourney claims irrevocable copyright license to the input and output because the prompter barely contributed. The latent space created was gathered by the image generator creators and they claim ownership to all of the outputs.
I am a developer, yes it feels like doing art. But this is the coding part, not the data-collection part. Your example is wrong. Imagine the waiter taking the chef's cooking, rearranging it, seasoning it additionally a bit, and serving it as their own. Yes, some creativity went on, but is it fair for the chef to get nothing, considering that he bought all the products and spent hours cooking?
Although not religious at all I always thought that the bible's story of adam and eve being warned not to eat from the tree of knowledge was quite intriguing and wise. And here we are. Ai is not going to replace artists. It is going to replace everyone. Maybe we should have listened to the bible eh?
AI -"art"- is like injecting yourself with steroids and hoping not to face consequences... Artists who use different means to train themselves neuromotorically are true warriors from Olympus. The AI SHOULD be a guide and drive for the process, not the end result at the expense of whatever and whoever it is.
take away the stolen artworks and the thousands willing slaves ( aka: sourcing it ethically and legally) the AI would have taken years. Thanks to unethical practices it only took 4-5 months. This should make think HARD that is not just about "the artists".
all academic papers of public schools, all the journals online, all the sound libraries, articles etc are in danger of being exploited in the most unethical way
@@Cha4k image generators used images to train. Copyright ensures exclusive benefit of the work. Creating an image generator and selling it sounds like a benefit to me.
Simple. In software painting, we are pampered with undo that in real canvas or paper, it makes us more precise and meticulous in every steps. Not to mention, digital colour tweaking is making us lose our mental colour palette for example. We become blind sort of in digital world.
I think if host asked more interesting and not basic question - it would be more unique. Feels like Greg is intelligent enough to answer controversial questions. You should change the host.
Searching Greg Rutkowski on google images results in mostly Greg Rutkowski. (have to scroll down a bit to find AI) I imagine it is bad for Google's reputation to prioritize the imitators over the authentic. There might also be a organic flow of google search users who's interest in AI is waning.
@@GeneTurnbow are you a painter? are you a promptist? Often these are taken for granted as non-overlapping. This is what comes to mind for me, when I consider black and white thinking as it applies to AI art. Is this the sort of thing you are pointing to?
@AZTEC MAN I am a figurative artist and illustrator, with a background in professional visual effects, and playing with Stable Diffusion in my spare time.
I certainly understand why we artists are worried and rightfully so. But the fact is that we have a skill which ai can not take away and "human art" will probably be a thing. The ones who should be really worried are the mega companies like disney and marvel studios who will shortly lose their monopoly on mega blockbusters that take an army of artists to produce. Artists who get worked to death and get paid peanuts out of the profits their work produced. Also.....if we embrace this technology wholeheartedly and discard the human artists what happens in a few....actually one.....generations when no human really can do art? And then we have a lovely solar storm which wipes out electricity for a decade or more......juuust thinking. I think if a tech replaces a human a good deal of it's profits should go to humanity and not a small group of people who invested in the tech.
AI is a tool, in much the same way a hammer is a tool. Now you can use a hammer to build a table and learn carpentry, or you can choose to use a hammer to go to Sotheby's smash tha main window, steal a Rembrandt and claiming it as your personal work, unfortunately that's what Midjourney and all the other apps of the same sort are doing. I truly feel for Greg, you can really feel the disappointment in his voice and being bullied by an army of morons is just unbearable. Unfortunately the majority of people love a good shortcut and social media has enhanced the 'maximum result with the minimum effort' paradigm, hence the Midjourney band wagon is growing exponentially. This is illegal pure and simple.
AI isn't a tool. A plow is a tool, you can also own a workhorse. That's what AI is. Putting AI in the same category as something such as Photoshop is dishonest and a false equivalence.
yeah.. instead of a hammer.. i would think AI art like a Gun... you can use the gun as a tool wich you use only for self defense... but well.. you know, it's a f-cking gun bro
Something has to be mentally wrong with a person that uses it to imitate the exact style of an art then say it's there's, its a big difference from learn that artists style or from old masters, then make your own stuff...but Ai can be abused by those that don't care. Me personally I started using it for a skill I haven't developed completely yet (concept art) to add me on design so I can use my developed skill (3d) to a higher level.
By that logic a book printer would say: "Me personally I started using it for a skill I haven't developed completely yet (cover art illustration) to add me on design so I can use my developed skill (releasing books) to a higher level." ...
@@FeroxX_Gosu lol that's not the same, but I see what you mean. I'm not going to go portray that I'm a concept artists with this I'm still a 3d artist. To me that's like when a random picks up a paint brush and some paint starts painting really bad stuff, then starts ailing there self an artist and selling there terrible art...while a master painter can't even get people to look at there master pieces long enough to care. That's what ai artists are doing to Veteran Digital artists it is distasteful, but at the same time you can't come at the Ai artists negatively that's not the way of an artist. I believe we need to make standards like most pros are saying.
You guys are so self absorbed in a issue that doesn't even matter. Nor is it even happening. The plagiarism is off.the charts according to you people. But no one can prove it, just sniveling.
@@ShivaTD420 naw that's according to professional artist's, they feel some type of way about it.... but it's funny because when people come to them for help or to learn from most of them it either costs to much, or they don't have time, or they give half assed answers like work hard. So it's the pros that a offended by AI, me personally like I said I use it to concept. Now I don't have to try and find someone or take a few years to learn everything about concepting for someone else's standards. Also Matt painting it stealing too but the pro won't say that...the process is you take parts of images that work for what you're working on and paint over it and make one image that looks new sounds the same to me as what the AI does or can do.
Damn.. I came here to hear some revelating thoughts on how this Ai phenomena could be battled by artists... but I have to say that sadly Greg's got a really really naive viewpoint on the matter. I mean he says heart warming things about the process of creating art, but in a profit oriented world the companies will only watch the $$$ signs at the end of the day... It really feels like a horse vs cars paradigm shift I fear..
Corporations own most of his art. The corporations that all use or plan to use the ai. You guys sit in the middle of a huge contradictory statement. If art is your career than it's a business. If it's a business, then it is about money. If it's about the love of art then just love art and do art. Make up your damn minds. Sheesh if you guys can't adapt, then your business and art sucked.
Ai will learn hands, but it won't learn to solve problems and guide the eye. Everyone is an art director now, but only few have the eye and understanding of an art director.
@@ShivaTD420 it's about people making profit with copyrighted data on their models, monopolizing them instead of make them open source.. midjourney and novel AI as example... are making millions monthly monopolizing the art for people that is forgetting what's a real artistic picture and just put the name of their favorite artists to have a free comission (paying to midjouney 20 or more monthly basis)
@@Mente_Fugaz they are open source. The monopolized ones haven't disclosed what they trained on. There is no copyright data in the model. You have been misled by this cult. Training on copyright material, didn't break any law, all the material trained from has a creative Commons license ( you agreed to that when you made your account) No one's stuff was copied, whole or in part. Because there is zero copyright material in the model it is not infringement or derivative. Training on images does not copy them into the model. This is not how it works. Viewing,.indexing, parsing, tagging, creating or extracting meta data is allowed . Google images has done this and won cases over it. The training images are used as truths so the ai can train unattended. A clip model ai examines the images and tags them with what it sees. These tags are converted to a vector. The model then generates its own images and adds various levels of noise in steps. Then it makes predictions on how many noise steps and removing the noise. This all happens in the latent space not in the pixel space. Eventually the forward diffusion results in a noise removal prediction pattern that gives outputs that match the tags of the trained image. The clip process of looking at the image and making tags is transformative. The tags do not contain any copy of a image or part of one. Nothing in the tags can create anything from your work. The noise prediction pattern is also a transformative work. Nothing in the pattern contains your image, or part of it. the object is 3 bits, which in a raster image, 1 pixel is 3 bits. This occurs the latent space, which manifests as patterns that relate to each other. For example, trucks have 4 tires, trucks have tires touching the ground, trucks have one windshield, windows are transparent, the ground is on the bottom, the sky begins where the ground meets the horizon. The copyright material everyone think was stolen was never stolen , cannot be found in the model , none of the data can be used to extract it out in whole or part. Since it was never there to begin with. I can prompt for a named painting, by a artist and I've never seen a non transformative work. People complaining about overfit models are silly. Why would someone go through the trouble, time, electricity, cpu utilization. To create a overfit model, when they could just take your image and hit the print button. The concern that there is overfit should be less than your concern anyone could have saved your images to their harddrive, renamed them, distributed them and took credit for them. Since that would require less work and time than a overfit which produces distorted messes. If you weren't worried about people downloading and printing , then you shouldn't worry about overfit. These have been out for long enough. Don't you find it weird that you guys have been arguing about infringement but none of you have gone to court? Zero DMCA takedown requests. Copyright free models won't change anything. There is enough artists doing transformative work inspired by copyright works that don't release copyright material themselves. The prompts.could arrive at the same style just by describing the artists work rather than just their name. All the non copyright model will accomplish is making style transfers descriptions vs names of people. Which I would say hurts artists more since they get even less credit at that point.
@@ShivaTD420 man .. this is a brand new technology that will change the course of human history in general, and you wanna judge it with the laws of our past century? i just think that if no one can make profit with models... and after that you said, despite if how it was trained , if the pandora box is opened to everyone, and models are just created for share and build communities, every one will play the same game, with the new rules, now you won't need to pay 20 or more monthly to make art. and industries like midjourney will think this is not profitable anymore, so the art will be absolutely in the hands of average people.
@@Mente_Fugaz I do find it odd that something that didn't break laws , is misrepresented in nearly every way possible. The movement responsible for the defamatory statements. Claims it's an ethical thing, while pushing to create laws to ban something that they don't like. Using false accusations and fictions of fear. Wonder what is more unethical. What makes you guys so sure that you're behind the right regulatory affairs when no one seems to even know how this works. How can this movement know they arnt just handing this over to Disney. Or that it's suggestions will be effective when its presupposed "facts" are incorrect. It's also worth mentioning that this artist movement didn't make a peep when the gpt projects trained off of every piece of literature. Nor does it seem to be targeting the closed proprietary image generations. Just seems to be focused on the open source project... As for commercial use, technically it's still in research stages. I believe most of what they are charging money for is hosting private models, training private models. The outputs of the model may fall under the ruling of algorithmically produced works. A case involving the crypto ape nfts came to the conclusion that works generated by a automatic algorithm could not be copyrighted. Which I don't believe stops commercialization, just no exclusive rights to the work. Is the prompt enough of a human part of the chain to have this not apply? The coming weeks should shed some light on that angle. I feel some of the worst parts of this will be artists accusing each other of using it. Proving the process was one thing or another may become an arms race that wastes time spent on proving you made art rather than making art.
oh the irony when he says I think it was only using only a photo and not work from a real artist ....yeah you probably never met commercial photographer before have you Greg ma boy. Where all in this together not just "real brush" using artists who think they are van Gogh.
Art in terms of the classical western tradition has been dead for a century. The impressionists and industrial manufacturing cemented the relativism of art. "Art is in the eye of the beholder, and it can be mass produced." People today who refer to themselves as artists, whether that's photographers, digital 'artists', shoe/game designers are more closely related to the textile and crafts industry than the dignified title of master artists who in the past created paintings and sculptures for emperors, popes, and kings. Once you reframe the notion of an modern artist as equivalent to a glorified mcdonalds sandwich artist, it's easy to not care about AI stealing artists jobs, because they aren't artists. They are image creators for mass production and consumption. Like a happy meal. This is coming from someone who is anti-AI, but for other reasons. As for the entire industry, they have no other options. You either post your work online for it to be scraped and used to advance AI models, you work for a large company like Disney who will use your work to train their AI models, or a small company who will do the same. It makes no difference seeing as the art of the best artists (old masters) in the world is being scanned as training data for AI. One way you can look at this positively is that your images being in the training data will only make the ai art worse.
You can also use AI image generators, to make extra sketches. AI image generators made Greg Rutkowski more famous than ever before. Copyrights should be protected, but a complete negative attitude towards AI generators is not serving the quality of art.
@@mf-- I don't believe they can replace artists. After watching the paintings by Greg Rutkowski in this video, where all composition is serving the final image, than compare it to AI generated images, there is a lot of difference in quality. AI generated images just place random objects in a field, they don't paint for any purpose. I wonder why programmers are not complaining at all. The threat to programmers with the coding Chat GPT, is a lot larger than for artists. Instead of complaining, programmers explain how AI can assist them.
@@somedude5951 I can’t speak for most programmers, but most of programming can feel like an unpleasant drudge work and we are always looking for shortcuts to achieve something. AI assistants like chatGPT made me more excited if anything. The output is more rewarding than the process itself, which isn’t the case for artists where the process can be quite enjoyable.
@@misterx4608 Interesting viewpoint. Well, I do both, art and programming. In my experience, some parts of it are fun, while some parts are not fun, but have to be done. I originally only did art school, had to learn programming myself. I don't see to much difference between programming and drawing, in regards to parts that are nice to do, and those that aren't. As an example in 3D, modelling is nice, but retopology is a drag. Both need to be done though. To me, AI image generation is not art, but a helpful tool to make art.
@@somedude5951 It certainly has its enjoyable moments, otherwise I would’ve chosen a different profession. I personally sympathise with artists here. It’s as if one’s personal identity and signature is copied at a mass scale, weaponising the talent of modern artists against their own livelihood and now there are insufferable AI hacks acting smug about it online.
In some way its similar like artist take reference from other artist with no permition. Someone Will say, its not the same, bcause the IA work diferent, but in a couple years???
Artist use references to help them guide themselves while creating their own works. They don't copy paste it, those who do work this way risk the chance of getting a lawsuit on their hands. Coming from the contemporary art world I can tell you there is a lot of cases like this. It shouldn't be different in this situation regarding digital arts. Artist pour their souls into the craft, putting thousands of thousands of hours into it. So its just obvious that they feel extremely exploited.
Using a reference and grabbing a whole image signature included is absolutely not the same thing. If you can't grasp that, I really don't know what to tell you mate. Copyright laws are pretty clear on the use of intellectual property.
@@marcogifuni999 the thing is IA Will improve much more, and in a fast way. With time more artist Will produce his own art for sell to the IA. Companies like reference to IA database. Also they Will find another way to create art. I understand your feeling, but its like old matte painting in a glass with real brushes, and photoshop digital brushes. In that moment alot said, that digital thing its not art, but see now. Even If a New law protect the copyright, the IA Will find the way to work and be use in production pipelines
Artist: We really love art, and people don't value and respect that. Also artist: Art is so hard and takes such a lot of effort, and we can't just make a machine create art with the push of a button and then people go make money off of it. Me: Yeah, you love art so much. You love it more than money. 😉
Another thing....this whole ai "stealing" from artists is kinda bullcrap. We human artits do teh exact same thing! How many times have you had a client explain to you what they want by using existing artists' style? All the time. I guess the difference is time. That is the key here. We artists scarifice our time for the art. Ai does not. Ai does not care about time. It is immortal. What makes me gasp in amazement when I see the Sistine chapel( and I have seen it.....300 people in the chapel were absolutely quiet in the presence of this work. why? Because the first thing we realize when we see it is....a human being like me somehow managed to do this which I , as a human being can not even comprehend in terms of effort and dedication. Ai has none of that. It never will.
yeah, 'cause most of us taught our brains to rasterize. Unlike lazy asses who say it's a toOl, nah, a tool is a brush something that does the ENTIRE artwork for you isn't a tOOl.
It's a replacement, not a tool. A driller is a tool, but a robotic arm in an assembly line is a replacement. But that isn't the core problem. It's a replacement built off by feeding on the labor value of real talented artists like Greg and others, which they never consented to have their works be used in such a criminal way.
i like illustrating, it is indeed a kind of meditation, it is fun to do, it gives joy, etc. but not having any pretense that i could sell work to sustain myself. do it for the sole enjoyment of myself! perfectly fine with the likes of dall-e or stable diffusion, it's a fun and amazing tool. see how it could be an addition instead of a threat. there is just a small percentage of artists that can make a living on autonomous creating of art. an autonomous working artist will still be selling his work to the same interested people. those people that buy a photo for $2.500 or a painting for 10k. as it also is a bit like buying status. "look! i got a piece of [artist X] on the wall" but we hard working blue collar paupers can't afford even a simple sketch. i love certain artists, just don't have the money nor the motivation to hoddle that amount of money for what is considered an "a-list" artist. never was or will be considered the buying demography....i'm poor. i just like something on my wall dude 😉 then there is the whole herd of artists that survive as random tool for the wishes of publishers and clients. the others, the ones making money as corporate-slaves or freelancer somewhere in mumbay, will have have to broaden their horizon. publishers decide based primary on costs. they will go for ai allright! less overhead, efficient and 24/7 on the job. it's like my old job, woodworker, or "cabinet maker"....was great, lots of work! until Ikea became big......and 40 % lost their job in this sector. only the artizans survived, the ones making exceptional furniture. times chance. or you change with it, or you stay behind! it's not that it stops you from doing what you did before, making art! art isn't about money, is it? you happily enjoyed the free market when your talent was all you needed, but now it suddenly is "bad" and "not right"??🤦🤣 bit hypocrite in my opinion. guess all the fiverr's will be scrapping its digital artist section soon. "a portrait of a woman, trending on artstation, in the style of Greg Rutkowski, 4k" .......that standardized prompt will grant him more fame than any artwork you have ever made. look i didn't know this greg dude, but got acquainted with his work, so it works both ways ;) by the way, great skills that greg dude !
Most if not all of AI prompters don't understand about artists is that we LOVE the process of it, problem solving, growing and learning. If AI is done ethically and legally, we professional artists would transcend into god mode, just because we can do so much more than just prompting.
We are at the edge - it can either be the best thing that happened to artists in centuries, or our demise. But! Imagine the following - companies having their signature human artists to show how powerful they are as they can afford humans instead of ai trash... hmmm
@@GabrielLeni Human art will be definitely a niche luxury stuff.
@@FeroxX_Gosu i dont think its going to be so niche. Companies will want to have human workers as a display of power. All the small startups will become outbranded and their products will be considered low quality due to audiences becoming bored.
@@GabrielLeni How many horses FedEx has?.. They will just make personificating marketing for their own superhuman Ai models for the masses to suck it up. Like most avg humans religiously love products.. Like iPhone, Geforce etc.
@@FeroxX_Gosu Horses do not build a brand, same as images dont make up a brand. Companies sell symbols, not solutions nor assets or services.
Art is about decisions…we make millions of decisions when we draw something, every stroke is our decision, 100% it's our thoughts there. With AI they decide 10% on their work at best and everything else is just random filling. Random filling from other artists…They call themselves Art Directors, but it's more like they AI directed, and they don't even see how they give away their ability to decide to a machine.
Designing is Deciding is my motto.
I'd disagree bc most decisions are made by the art laws
Subjective pretentious nonsense about the "artistic process" like it's magic as per usual.
your elitism and bigotry is showing.
ofcourse the people who weren't artists will be the first to say artistic process is prententious. ^
Art,Music,Poetry....etc are all human activities that heal the soul and used as meditation since the ancient times, we do them because we love the process of learning,getting better at it, using our imagination to be creative, Ai should never be attached to those and they should strictly be human activities we connect to each other through them, if i ever use Ai instead of my own brain for imagination and drawing i would simply put the pencil down and never pick it up again.
And to those Ai users who say we cant stop the progress this is degress because it limits our own brain to get creative!, and human Art will always always be ahead and it will always thrive because we connect to each other through it and always there will be people who only want Art made by humans
@@RawazJabbar Agreed 🍻 🧔🤜🤛🏽💪🏼
@@kimerapolar cheers mate 🍻 human art will always be above Ai
There is something with the process of creation that's simply resonating with most of us. Creative endavours have been a stable in Occupational therapy for avery long time. From painting, to drawing or making music.
I will continue to creating "human" Art, with digital or traditional techniques with my own skills because I LOVE IT. I hope this AI tech apps can be controlled by laws soon.
Artist supporting regulations on art. We live in evil times
This Luddite movement is Disney bots, shilling for more copyright with deceit and disinformation.
AI killed art? Naw , Luddites simping for Disney did.
unless you are using traditional media its unethical and cheating... hypocryt.
@@verihimthered2418 Lol cry about it, you AI bros are finally getting a taste of your own medicine.
The thing that is frustrating/sad is these Ai comic and book projects have no editing at all. No adjusting,painting over or correction. It's so lazy and show just a lack of taste.
The Luddite hypocrite. It's both the most bland , skilless trash, and the most evil, career stealing , machine that needs to be stopped 🤣
My main issue with the AI comics is that no matter how good the art looks it all looks dead, like, there's no dynamism to it. And the thing I always admired about comicbook art is how everything looks alive and energetic, almost giving you an illusion of movement. Idk, maybe comicbooks are the only art from that's gonna largerly be safe from AI (sure, there will be a lot of the ones made by AI but they will all look like crap so there will still be room and need for really good artists). Would certainly be fun to see some artists get back to doing interior pages because of cover artist no longer being a career. (Not that I wish this on them. I hope that no major publisher is actually gonna start using AI instead of actual human art).
whoooOOOOOAOOO ! 51:39 " it's good to hear that your solution to this is to still dive into creating even more ".... whooooOOOaAOoo! after what Greg is going through! it's super powerfull good vibes melting from my soul/brain/heart ! and then gooooozzz bumps ;))) hahaha ! cheers to that!
bravo for this conversation!
I still don't understand why Greg doesn't sue their asses... google-ing your name and finding AI stuff in front of your real art can convince any judge that this is concerning
sue over what exactly?
@@leoromanski1696 I just mentioned, over damages to his image by having AI art associated with his name and placed in front of his actual art in search engines
@@vladgheneli i am pretty convinced you can't sue anyone over a search engine ranking
You can't sue much. More like make a good case for policy that would protect artists from this sort of insanity.
@@Cha4k It baffles me how people can't see nothing wrong with this. It's not about google rankings, nor the art style, it's about HIS name associated with AI stuff that is more visible than his actual work. Also about the fact that anyone can type his name in the generator and get stuff that looks like his work. If this wouldn't hurt Greg in any way, you wouldn't see him so worried in all his interviews...
What can we do to help fight this?
Support the GoFundMe leaded by Karla Ortiz
Cryptic-Metadata within the images would be the solution to this issue. Midjourney CEO said and i quote "It would be cool if images had metadata embedded in them about the copyright owner". The technology is there, we just need a site. We need to host images with metadata in them with an encryption.
grow balls and get a real job, then help us develop stable diffusion further
@@aaron6807 touch grass
@@SeniorAdrian are you just trying to repackage NFTs?
we should make a letter addressing all videogame studios and production houses asking them to take a stance on AI imagery, so we know who are we dealing with.
Studio only care about 1 thing. Money.
Cryptic-Metadata within the images would be the solution to this issue. Midjourney CEO said and i quote "It would be cool if images had metadata embedded in them about the copyright owner". The technology is there, we just need a site. We need to host images with metadata in them with an encryption.
That already exists ...they do have Metadata. But hey it could have been much easier: they could have just not use pictures from a portfolio website where artists post their stuff .
That's just an excuse to help their scraping of the internet.
Well, no. How about we have metadata for the images that are copy-right free, and assume that the rest aren't? Some people are not tech-savvy, and cannot put the correct metadata, which should not equate to silent consent.
Funny thing is, you don't have the same bullshit in the music industry because the big labels and music organisations sued AI developers. Go figure. Protection is possible. Don't let TechBros talk you in to "You just hate new stuff!" bullshit.
Counterpoint: I think the real argument here is that one trade is feeling another trade is not staying in their lane. Like how a chef might get upset when a waiter tries their hand at cooking. To get to the point where "AI Art" is now, a lot more than just entering a prompt into an engine was done to make it that easy for the laymen using it now to make the 1000s of renderings. Just like it was mentioned, just the last few weeks alone they noticed a huge improvement to now where its "the hands" that give it away. Creativity had to go into the programming, training and the likes to get there, and I would believe programmers see their work as an art of just a different medium. (just to note, I am in full agreement that AI can not replace real artists, and that the trade should be protected from misuse, copyright concerns, and their rights)
So zero laws were broken, plus a fictional dystopian future in your head means... Make laws that make it illegal. Loool
@@ShivaTD420 Definitely against laws that go against speech. I say more of an advocate of good etiquette use of the tech. What that looks like yet is anyone's guess.
@@AppaTalks the protest was a fraud. The entire premise "that ai stole" is false.
It victimized people who don't know the law or the tos they agreed to. While misrepresented how the ai works to incite a Luddite hate cult. The push to change the law is probably a stunt by the corps who benefit from it.
Some of the biggest names that could be considered "leaders" of this hysteria. Have been the source of the false accusations.
Some of them claim that ai makes 1 to 1 copies of their stuff.
One thing is for sure, they have benefited from the influx of views. Their content has become less about art and more about lying to keep the incitement going.
These people have net worths of 500k to 1 mill+
How do we know that artists like Sam yang didn't stage the style capture trained models that he claims is copying 1 to 1.
No one has filed DMCA requests, zero infringement lawsuits.
The samdorsart models don't seem to violate his copyright. Not like that style is even Sam yang's to begin with.
That is why Midjourney claims irrevocable copyright license to the input and output because the prompter barely contributed. The latent space created was gathered by the image generator creators and they claim ownership to all of the outputs.
I am a developer, yes it feels like doing art. But this is the coding part, not the data-collection part. Your example is wrong. Imagine the waiter taking the chef's cooking, rearranging it, seasoning it additionally a bit, and serving it as their own. Yes, some creativity went on, but is it fair for the chef to get nothing, considering that he bought all the products and spent hours cooking?
Although not religious at all I always thought that the bible's story of adam and eve being warned not to eat from the tree of knowledge was quite intriguing and wise. And here we are. Ai is not going to replace artists. It is going to replace everyone. Maybe we should have listened to the bible eh?
AI -"art"- is like injecting yourself with steroids and hoping not to face consequences... Artists who use different means to train themselves neuromotorically are true warriors from Olympus. The AI SHOULD be a guide and drive for the process, not the end result at the expense of whatever and whoever it is.
@@Cha4k but the most of the people just use it to pretend making pretty pictures and make profit just with that, specially on pixiv and fanbox
you people are so insecure. Get better at art.
@@KeithDraws It won't be long until there's nothing else to be better at than an AI...
@@mekingtiger9095 its not like you can't use it too.
Question(s) for Greg:
Has your income changed in the past few months?
Has this effected the amount of work requests you get?
take away the stolen artworks and the thousands willing slaves ( aka: sourcing it ethically and legally) the AI would have taken years. Thanks to unethical practices it only took 4-5 months. This should make think HARD that is not just about "the artists".
all academic papers of public schools, all the journals online, all the sound libraries, articles etc are in danger of being exploited in the most unethical way
No ethics or laws were broken.
That's why you guys have to lie, and use misinformation. While you simp for Disney to lobby for more copyright.
@@Cha4k image generators used images to train. Copyright ensures exclusive benefit of the work. Creating an image generator and selling it sounds like a benefit to me.
excellent conversation!
Simple. In software painting, we are pampered with undo that in real canvas or paper, it makes us more precise and meticulous in every steps. Not to mention, digital colour tweaking is making us lose our mental colour palette for example. We become blind sort of in digital world.
Very good topic
What those guys were talking Durig one hour was discussed two years ago on all levels. Just wasted hour of life. But still Gregs work are awesome.
I think if host asked more interesting and not basic question - it would be more unique. Feels like Greg is intelligent enough to answer controversial questions. You should change the host.
Searching Greg Rutkowski on google images results in mostly Greg Rutkowski.
(have to scroll down a bit to find AI)
I imagine it is bad for Google's reputation to prioritize the imitators over the authentic.
There might also be a organic flow of google search users who's interest in AI is waning.
"HI, I'm Greg Rutkowski, I'm the artist the AI clone art is based on, because my work is so popular. " Something to consider.
@@GeneTurnbow so what am I supposed to take from your statement?
@AZTEC MAN that this issue is more nuanced than just black and white. Kind of like a Greg Rutkowski painting.
@@GeneTurnbow
are you a painter?
are you a promptist?
Often these are taken for granted as non-overlapping.
This is what comes to mind for me, when I consider black and white thinking as it applies to AI art.
Is this the sort of thing you are pointing to?
@AZTEC MAN I am a figurative artist and illustrator, with a background in professional visual effects, and playing with Stable Diffusion in my spare time.
I certainly understand why we artists are worried and rightfully so. But the fact is that we have a skill which ai can not take away and "human art" will probably be a thing. The ones who should be really worried are the mega companies like disney and marvel studios who will shortly lose their monopoly on mega blockbusters that take an army of artists to produce. Artists who get worked to death and get paid peanuts out of the profits their work produced. Also.....if we embrace this technology wholeheartedly and discard the human artists what happens in a few....actually one.....generations when no human really can do art? And then we have a lovely solar storm which wipes out electricity for a decade or more......juuust thinking. I think if a tech replaces a human a good deal of it's profits should go to humanity and not a small group of people who invested in the tech.
Looks like digital artist will be hurt the most. Traditional artist have their mediums to hold them up.
But traditional art is a niche where maybe a handfull of people actually make a living from.
AI is a tool, in much the same way a hammer is a tool. Now you can use a hammer to build a table and learn carpentry, or you can choose to use a hammer to go to Sotheby's smash tha main window, steal a Rembrandt and claiming it as your personal work, unfortunately that's what Midjourney and all the other apps of the same sort are doing.
I truly feel for Greg, you can really feel the disappointment in his voice and being bullied by an army of morons is just unbearable. Unfortunately the majority of people love a good shortcut and social media has enhanced the 'maximum result with the minimum effort' paradigm, hence the Midjourney band wagon is growing exponentially.
This is illegal pure and simple.
AI isn't a tool.
A plow is a tool, you can also own a workhorse. That's what AI is. Putting AI in the same category as something such as Photoshop is dishonest and a false equivalence.
@@GeometricPidgeon sure thing luddy, you tell us that flat earth fact.
yeah.. instead of a hammer.. i would think AI art like a Gun...
you can use the gun as a tool wich you use only for self defense... but well.. you know, it's a f-cking gun bro
Something has to be mentally wrong with a person that uses it to imitate the exact style of an art then say it's there's, its a big difference from learn that artists style or from old masters, then make your own stuff...but Ai can be abused by those that don't care. Me personally I started using it for a skill I haven't developed completely yet (concept art) to add me on design so I can use my developed skill (3d) to a higher level.
By that logic a book printer would say:
"Me personally I started using it for a skill I haven't developed completely yet (cover art illustration) to add me on design so I can use my developed skill (releasing books) to a higher level."
...
@@FeroxX_Gosu lol that's not the same, but I see what you mean. I'm not going to go portray that I'm a concept artists with this I'm still a 3d artist. To me that's like when a random picks up a paint brush and some paint starts painting really bad stuff, then starts ailing there self an artist and selling there terrible art...while a master painter can't even get people to look at there master pieces long enough to care. That's what ai artists are doing to Veteran Digital artists it is distasteful, but at the same time you can't come at the Ai artists negatively that's not the way of an artist. I believe we need to make standards like most pros are saying.
@@Musiclover6404 agree
You guys are so self absorbed in a issue that doesn't even matter. Nor is it even happening.
The plagiarism is off.the charts according to you people. But no one can prove it, just sniveling.
@@ShivaTD420 naw that's according to professional artist's, they feel some type of way about it.... but it's funny because when people come to them for help or to learn from most of them it either costs to much, or they don't have time, or they give half assed answers like work hard.
So it's the pros that a offended by AI, me personally like I said I use it to concept. Now I don't have to try and find someone or take a few years to learn everything about concepting for someone else's standards. Also Matt painting it stealing too but the pro won't say that...the process is you take parts of images that work for what you're working on and paint over it and make one image that looks new sounds the same to me as what the AI does or can do.
Damn.. I came here to hear some revelating thoughts on how this Ai phenomena could be battled by artists... but I have to say that sadly Greg's got a really really naive viewpoint on the matter.
I mean he says heart warming things about the process of creating art, but in a profit oriented world the companies will only watch the $$$ signs at the end of the day...
It really feels like a horse vs cars paradigm shift I fear..
Corporations own most of his art. The corporations that all use or plan to use the ai.
You guys sit in the middle of a huge contradictory statement.
If art is your career than it's a business. If it's a business, then it is about money.
If it's about the love of art then just love art and do art.
Make up your damn minds.
Sheesh if you guys can't adapt, then your business and art sucked.
@@Cha4k Yes. Except for the horses :D
Ai will learn hands, but it won't learn to solve problems and guide the eye.
Everyone is an art director now, but only few have the eye and understanding of an art director.
that's a skill you can learn
Wise guys use wise words 😅
The fight against Ai will be the Death of fair use.
good
Might want to look into the fair use website by the US government. The image generators conflict with most fair use arguments.
Ia cant do a better job than a good artist , and this has nothing to do with image execution.
If it can't do the job then what's all the fuss about.
@@ShivaTD420 it's about people making profit with copyrighted data on their models,
monopolizing them instead of make them open source..
midjourney and novel AI as example... are making millions monthly monopolizing the art for people that is forgetting what's a real artistic picture and just put the name of their favorite artists to have a free comission (paying to midjouney 20 or more monthly basis)
@@Mente_Fugaz they are open source. The monopolized ones haven't disclosed what they trained on.
There is no copyright data in the model. You have been misled by this cult.
Training on copyright material, didn't break any law, all the material trained from has a creative Commons license ( you agreed to that when you made your account)
No one's stuff was copied, whole or in part.
Because there is zero copyright material in the model it is not infringement or derivative.
Training on images does not copy them into the model. This is not how it works.
Viewing,.indexing, parsing, tagging, creating or extracting meta data is allowed . Google images has done this and won cases over it.
The training images are used as truths so the ai can train unattended. A clip model ai examines the images and tags them with what it sees. These tags are converted to a vector. The model then generates its own images and adds various levels of noise in steps. Then it makes predictions on how many noise steps and removing the noise. This all happens in the latent space not in the pixel space.
Eventually the forward diffusion results in a noise removal prediction pattern that gives outputs that match the tags of the trained image.
The clip process of looking at the image and making tags is transformative. The tags do not contain any copy of a image or part of one. Nothing in the tags can create anything from your work.
The noise prediction pattern is also a transformative work. Nothing in the pattern contains your image, or part of it. the object is 3 bits, which in a raster image, 1 pixel is 3 bits.
This occurs the latent space, which manifests as patterns that relate to each other. For example, trucks have 4 tires, trucks have tires touching the ground, trucks have one windshield, windows are transparent, the ground is on the bottom, the sky begins where the ground meets the horizon. The copyright material everyone think was stolen was never stolen , cannot be found in the model , none of the data can be used to extract it out in whole or part. Since it was never there to begin with.
I can prompt for a named painting, by a artist and I've never seen a non transformative work.
People complaining about overfit models are silly. Why would someone go through the trouble, time, electricity, cpu utilization. To create a overfit model, when they could just take your image and hit the print button. The concern that there is overfit should be less than your concern anyone could have saved your images to their harddrive, renamed them, distributed them and took credit for them. Since that would require less work and time than a overfit which produces distorted messes. If you weren't worried about people downloading and printing , then you shouldn't worry about overfit.
These have been out for long enough. Don't you find it weird that you guys have been arguing about infringement but none of you have gone to court? Zero DMCA takedown requests.
Copyright free models won't change anything. There is enough artists doing transformative work inspired by copyright works that don't release copyright material themselves. The prompts.could arrive at the same style just by describing the artists work rather than just their name. All the non copyright model will accomplish is making style transfers descriptions vs names of people. Which I would say hurts artists more since they get even less credit at that point.
@@ShivaTD420 man .. this is a brand new technology that will change the course of human history in general, and you wanna judge it with the laws of our past century?
i just think that if no one can make profit with models...
and after that you said, despite if how it was trained ,
if the pandora box is opened to everyone, and models are just created for share and build communities,
every one will play the same game, with the new rules,
now you won't need to pay 20 or more monthly to make art.
and industries like midjourney will think this is not profitable anymore,
so the art will be absolutely in the hands of average people.
@@Mente_Fugaz I do find it odd that something that didn't break laws , is misrepresented in nearly every way possible. The movement responsible for the defamatory statements. Claims it's an ethical thing, while pushing to create laws to ban something that they don't like. Using false accusations and fictions of fear.
Wonder what is more unethical.
What makes you guys so sure that you're behind the right regulatory affairs when no one seems to even know how this works.
How can this movement know they arnt just handing this over to Disney. Or that it's suggestions will be effective when its presupposed "facts" are incorrect.
It's also worth mentioning that this artist movement didn't make a peep when the gpt projects trained off of every piece of literature. Nor does it seem to be targeting the closed proprietary image generations. Just seems to be focused on the open source project...
As for commercial use, technically it's still in research stages.
I believe most of what they are charging money for is hosting private models, training private models.
The outputs of the model may fall under the ruling of algorithmically produced works. A case involving the crypto ape nfts came to the conclusion that works generated by a automatic algorithm could not be copyrighted. Which I don't believe stops commercialization, just no exclusive rights to the work.
Is the prompt enough of a human part of the chain to have this not apply? The coming weeks should shed some light on that angle.
I feel some of the worst parts of this will be artists accusing each other of using it. Proving the process was one thing or another may become an arms race that wastes time spent on proving you made art rather than making art.
oh the irony when he says I think it was only using only a photo and not work from a real artist ....yeah you probably never met commercial photographer before have you Greg ma boy. Where all in this together not just "real brush" using artists who think they are van Gogh.
Artists: Photography isn't real art!... Digital art isn't real art!... AI art isn't real art!... etc
Also Artists: this blue square is "modern art".
Oversimplification is rarely a good thing in discussions about very complex issues and problems.
I'm pretty sure a lot of non-"modern" artists out there would agree that modern art isn't art or is at least very terrible art, though.
Art in terms of the classical western tradition has been dead for a century. The impressionists and industrial manufacturing cemented the relativism of art. "Art is in the eye of the beholder, and it can be mass produced." People today who refer to themselves as artists, whether that's photographers, digital 'artists', shoe/game designers are more closely related to the textile and crafts industry than the dignified title of master artists who in the past created paintings and sculptures for emperors, popes, and kings.
Once you reframe the notion of an modern artist as equivalent to a glorified mcdonalds sandwich artist, it's easy to not care about AI stealing artists jobs, because they aren't artists. They are image creators for mass production and consumption. Like a happy meal. This is coming from someone who is anti-AI, but for other reasons.
As for the entire industry, they have no other options. You either post your work online for it to be scraped and used to advance AI models, you work for a large company like Disney who will use your work to train their AI models, or a small company who will do the same. It makes no difference seeing as the art of the best artists (old masters) in the world is being scanned as training data for AI. One way you can look at this positively is that your images being in the training data will only make the ai art worse.
😂😂😂
You can also use AI image generators, to make extra sketches.
AI image generators made Greg Rutkowski more famous than ever before.
Copyrights should be protected, but a complete negative attitude towards AI generators is not serving the quality of art.
Image generators are not advertised on their websites as tools for artists. They are a replacement for artists.
@@mf-- I don't believe they can replace artists. After watching the paintings by Greg Rutkowski in this video, where all composition is serving the final image, than compare it to AI generated images, there is a lot of difference in quality. AI generated images just place random objects in a field, they don't paint for any purpose.
I wonder why programmers are not complaining at all. The threat to programmers with the coding Chat GPT, is a lot larger than for artists. Instead of complaining, programmers explain how AI can assist them.
@@somedude5951 I can’t speak for most programmers, but most of programming can feel like an unpleasant drudge work and we are always looking for shortcuts to achieve something. AI assistants like chatGPT made me more excited if anything. The output is more rewarding than the process itself, which isn’t the case for artists where the process can be quite enjoyable.
@@misterx4608 Interesting viewpoint.
Well, I do both, art and programming. In my experience, some parts of it are fun, while some parts are not fun, but have to be done. I originally only did art school, had to learn programming myself. I don't see to much difference between programming and drawing, in regards to parts that are nice to do, and those that aren't. As an example in 3D, modelling is nice, but retopology is a drag. Both need to be done though. To me, AI image generation is not art, but a helpful tool to make art.
@@somedude5951 It certainly has its enjoyable moments, otherwise I would’ve chosen a different profession.
I personally sympathise with artists here. It’s as if one’s personal identity and signature is copied at a mass scale, weaponising the talent of modern artists against their own livelihood and now there are insufferable AI hacks acting smug about it online.
In some way its similar like artist take reference from other artist with no permition. Someone Will say, its not the same, bcause the IA work diferent, but in a couple years???
Artist use references to help them guide themselves while creating their own works. They don't copy paste it, those who do work this way risk the chance of getting a lawsuit on their hands. Coming from the contemporary art world I can tell you there is a lot of cases like this. It shouldn't be different in this situation regarding digital arts. Artist pour their souls into the craft, putting thousands of thousands of hours into it. So its just obvious that they feel extremely exploited.
Using a reference and grabbing a whole image signature included is absolutely not the same thing. If you can't grasp that, I really don't know what to tell you mate. Copyright laws are pretty clear on the use of intellectual property.
@@ronfischer8024 what about photoshop using alot of IA for diferent tastes?
@@marcogifuni999 the thing is IA Will improve much more, and in a fast way. With time more artist Will produce his own art for sell to the IA. Companies like reference to IA database. Also they Will find another way to create art. I understand your feeling, but its like old matte painting in a glass with real brushes, and photoshop digital brushes. In that moment alot said, that digital thing its not art, but see now. Even If a New law protect the copyright, the IA Will find the way to work and be use in production pipelines
@@degibocu How photoshop that gives you tools to work with and AI that creates everything by itself as to do in common?
Artist: We really love art, and people don't value and respect that.
Also artist: Art is so hard and takes such a lot of effort, and we can't just make a machine create art with the push of a button and then people go make money off of it.
Me: Yeah, you love art so much. You love it more than money. 😉
No, we just don't like starving or being homeless.
The amount most artists get paid is more often than not barely the minimum to survive. You act like they are some sort of "rich elite" or something.
Another thing....this whole ai "stealing" from artists is kinda bullcrap. We human artits do teh exact same thing! How many times have you had a client explain to you what they want by using existing artists' style? All the time. I guess the difference is time. That is the key here. We artists scarifice our time for the art. Ai does not. Ai does not care about time. It is immortal. What makes me gasp in amazement when I see the Sistine chapel( and I have seen it.....300 people in the chapel were absolutely quiet in the presence of this work. why? Because the first thing we realize when we see it is....a human being like me somehow managed to do this which I , as a human being can not even comprehend in terms of effort and dedication. Ai has none of that. It never will.
its a tool... you don't have to use it
yeah, 'cause most of us taught our brains to rasterize. Unlike lazy asses who say it's a toOl, nah, a tool is a brush something that does the ENTIRE artwork for you isn't a tOOl.
It's a replacement, not a tool. A driller is a tool, but a robotic arm in an assembly line is a replacement. But that isn't the core problem. It's a replacement built off by feeding on the labor value of real talented artists like Greg and others, which they never consented to have their works be used in such a criminal way.
KEEP SCREAMING
LET SEE U CAN STOP OVERLORD A.1 😂😂😂
i like illustrating, it is indeed a kind of meditation, it is fun to do, it gives joy, etc.
but not having any pretense that i could sell work to sustain myself.
do it for the sole enjoyment of myself!
perfectly fine with the likes of dall-e or stable diffusion, it's a fun and amazing tool.
see how it could be an addition instead of a threat.
there is just a small percentage of artists that can make a living on autonomous creating of art.
an autonomous working artist will still be selling his work to the same interested people.
those people that buy a photo for $2.500 or a painting for 10k.
as it also is a bit like buying status.
"look! i got a piece of [artist X] on the wall"
but we hard working blue collar paupers can't afford even a simple sketch.
i love certain artists, just don't have the money nor the motivation to hoddle that amount of money for what is considered an "a-list" artist.
never was or will be considered the buying demography....i'm poor.
i just like something on my wall dude 😉
then there is the whole herd of artists that survive as random tool for the wishes of publishers and clients.
the others, the ones making money as corporate-slaves or freelancer somewhere in mumbay, will have have to broaden their horizon.
publishers decide based primary on costs.
they will go for ai allright!
less overhead, efficient and 24/7 on the job.
it's like my old job, woodworker, or "cabinet maker"....was great, lots of work!
until Ikea became big......and 40 % lost their job in this sector.
only the artizans survived, the ones making exceptional furniture.
times chance.
or you change with it, or you stay behind!
it's not that it stops you from doing what you did before, making art!
art isn't about money, is it?
you happily enjoyed the free market when your talent was all you needed, but now it suddenly is "bad" and "not right"??🤦🤣
bit hypocrite in my opinion.
guess all the fiverr's will be scrapping its digital artist section soon.
"a portrait of a woman, trending on artstation, in the style of Greg Rutkowski, 4k" .......that standardized prompt will grant him more fame than any artwork you have ever made.
look i didn't know this greg dude, but got acquainted with his work,
so it works both ways ;)
by the way, great skills that greg dude !