🤖 Watch part 2 of this video: ruclips.net/video/-6HAsaDwzrI/видео.html 💟 Thank you for watching guys!! What do you think of AI art? Will it replace human artist's? 💌 Remember to like the video and subscribe if u haven't 🥰💖💖 💌 Follow my twitter if u want to be apart of my future videos too! twitter.com/Thuminnoo
I think it COULD replace them, at least when it comes to commissions for big companies who want to cut corners, or people who don't feel like waiting for it. My thoughts though, is that if it doesn't die out after all the hype, then it's going to be banned in certain areas. Like competitions. I find horrible because they are literally thieves. People go to college and work their butts off for this. They are able to steal an artists style and work with a robot and pass it off. We already have a problem with thieves in the community and this will only make it worse. The AI isn't working at all. It's running an algorithm fed with specific works, as you said, there's nothing "original" about it. The programmer or prompter are NOT artists anymore than Evie or cleverbot is a person. This is the same weasel words and deflection tactics that art thieves make in order to say they didn't "steal" or "mimic" your art/OCs. It's honestly troubling anyone argues for the sake of AI art. It's just genuinely not art. Beautiful theivery but not art. Could it be used to help you with completion? Yes, but it's like cutting corners than anything in life. It harms your skills.
So far my biggest fear with AI art is that eventually larger companies will end up defaulting to AI art rather than artists due to the convenience of it and them not having to pay actual humans for their work. Historically corporations would end up maximizing profits at the expense of their employees and if that happens then hundreds of artist's jobs could be at risk.
I cannot understand how people can be so naive in front of your sentence. Because it's true. Goddamn, it's like they forgot that what started (and will probably remain) as a hobby was also a JOB for artists. And that now those same people cannot even think about having a sustainable career (not that it was a safe path before, but now the bar is unbearably higher). These youtuber artists who "don't get why people are upset over AI art, it's just a new art tool" 1. are probably hobbyists, teenagers and generally people who never invested years of school for a professional path: I don't blame them, but i can't fathom how they do not see the problem with AI art; 2. They do not get the essence of the word "tool". This is automatization, not a tool; it's substitution, not "collaboration man-machine". They seem to live in a fluffy world, when now at best they can aspire to be popular online; they don't undestand that AI just stole them a possible, hardworking but satisfying future job. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but I cannot see this any different.
Currently, the more the result you want is specific, the more the present of a trained person with artistic knowledge is required. So there is a undeniable need for a man-machine collaboration. This could change. Quite unlikely as the rules making up language, drawings, beauty, and so on... Are extremely complex and hard to follow. AIs are amazingly good at predictions, but we currently don't know if the rules we have for language, etc. Can even be fully modelized, which is something usually needed if you want an AI to follow them. On another note, if AIs are amazing at predictions, humans are really bad at predicting the future, so there is no way to know for sure what will happen with that. But again, for now, it's an assistance, if not a tool. My biggest concern would be, like most people, the ability to pass for someone else. But, a good news is that making an AI capable of generating human-like art requires an AI capable of detecting if an artpiece is human or not. So if you train the other AI with those generated images, it could learn to distinguish the original artist's images from the replicated one for us. I'm a writer, and the first things those AIs did before learning how to generate images, was how to generate text, including stories, and I'm a programmer, and, those AIs can generate code as well. So I know about investing years of school for a professional path. And I can also tell you that AIs is one of the most misunderstood thing by non-programmers, coming from computer science. "Artificial Intelligence" is neither the original term, neither one that actually represents what this group of things is. So I'm pretty sure it is hard for artists and non-artists alike to understand what exactly is going on with this. But I could be wrong.
I fear the same :( my dream is to be an illustrator for games... Really frustrating. And I don't think companies care abt people losing their jobs, as long as it is more profitable for them
Work for companies requires consistency that isn't present yet in machine learning. For instance, you can't tell the A.I. to make character art for a character who doesn't exist yet, and on the off chance you get what you want, telling the A.I. to do it again will net a different result. Same with environments. You'll also need editors, people that are skilled in Photoshop, to modify the result to better fit the needs of the project. "Coaching" the bot to produce the result you want will require the same amount of human manpower and most likely won't net you a more desirable result than a seasoned artist. I think in the long run, people that have contracted jobs as artists will be fine. It's the people who make money off of commissioned and independent work that'll hurt the most from this. Horny people that were willing to pay hundreds of dollars to see Tony The Tiger doing unspeakable things to anime girls now have the tools to make that kind of art themselves. Esp. if they weren't picky on quality.
It's not just the fact that artists will lose jobs. A lot of young artists seems to feel discouraged to even make art, in the shadow of AI art. To me, that is the saddest thing about this. If you love making art. Don't give up on it. It doesn't have to be art, but putting in the work and becoming good at something can be a very rewarding experience. On a personal level. And if you think about it. Does someone who wants to become a chef call the pizza place for inspiration? Then invite someone for dinner and brag about how you chose the toppings... Sure, it will taste good but AI art is fast food.
The thing is whilst no one brags about the choosing the topping. Fast food has absolutely destroyed the profit margin of a lot of potential restaurants that have better food. So whilst you can have extreme low grade and top grade artist the great bulk of intermediate artist will get shafted since they won't get the ill pay with exposure but why would I pay you x amount when I can n get something similar in a minute for 2 dollars. Here I am supporting artist take my 20 for 8 hours of work
@@demonvictim Yes, I think the analogy between fast food and AI art, as a whole, shows us what we are heading for. Even down to the unhealthy aspects of fast food I think consumers of AI art might possibly be affected by the lack of meaning/humanity in the AI art. It's a pretty picture, not much more. But if the general consumer is fine with AI art, I'm afraid it can have the same kind of influence on our world as fast food has had for the last decades. *edit - probably not on the scale of fast food but in the same sense. I also see some problems in artists using AI art as a "reference" or "inspiration". Mostly for their personal artistic progression. Plenty of traditional artists (and digital artists) have been painting the surreal and "unseen" in beautiful ways. Max Erst, Remedios Varo and Zdzisław Beksiński didn't have AI art as a reference or inspiration. The human mind can do amazing things just from observing the world around us and being creative. Sure, AI art can be seen as just another thing to be observed but since the artist is generating a somewhat random image to be inspired by, I think you take away a step in the creative process of - observing - getting an idea - sketching - making iterations - painting and fleshing it out - arriving at a final art piece. If AI art is used for reference or inspiration you might run the risk of getting too reliant on it as a part of coming up with ideas, colors or composition. Things that the top grade artists spend years to perfect. If the AI would be a truly helpful tool it would be designed to speed up the end process of painting, where it is mostly labor and not that much creativity involved.
@@Yourlastbraincell-tt3uo and I say to that, human made art will ALWAYS be more popular than anything ai can "create" so don't give up on something you enjoy cause of some bot.
i dont really hate ai art, but i do hate the "ai art community" if it can be called that haha. The people that call themselves artists just because they learned how to make the AI do stuff. i also rlly hate how ppl are treating the ai art and calling it their own pieces and sometimes selling it. Ive been using midjourney for my own works! mainly for inspiration and colour palettes but also as slight bases for backgrounds, its surprisingly good for idea generation and photobashing and genuinely makes drawing so much more fun :0
AI art absolutely terrifies me, because I don't think that companies will want to implement the safeguards to protect artists that you suggested. At this point companies are more powerful than people and the government
I don't hate AI art, you can make some pretty funny stuff with it. I do believe it shouldn't be allowed in art contests and stuff like that though, but other than that I don't see a problem with it. EDIT: Thank you artists for replying. I've heard all you've had to say and I realize that ai art may be a bigger problem than I thought. I'm sorry if I offended anybody or seemed like I just didn't care or something, I was just being stupid and didn't want to admit that the silly ai art app could be capable of such damage. Again, sorry.
@@no_thoughts.only_rage1439 as someone who actively uses ai, for art purposes it definitely can replace an artist entirely. Definitely experienced that hate and it is scary
@@IM_GOING_TOO_HAM It can't replace artists who draw people's character though, unless you type in every detail that the character has into the prompt and hope for the best ig. But for scene art and logos I do see how it can replace those.
Someone was asking for pet portrait artist recommendations and one reply asked why they would commission an artist when they could just use an AI art site. That kinda hurt...
Being an artist myself, I mostly see A.I. art as a potential great tool for idea planning and creating references. Also, I believe that human artists will always have the advantage of being able to tell emotional stories with their art in ways that will make it very difficult for an a.i. program to convey from just using random images. My only main concern is the potential of actual artists losing major opportunities due to bigger companies seeing an incentive to only invest in A.I. art. But as others have mentioned, I think these concerns can be mitigated if the right regulations are put in place to protect human artists over a.I. programs.
I honestly see a craze even bigger then the nft craze of last year. Selling premium prompts that are extremely obscure but makes something beautiful. New channels popping up of guessing games of what is the missing part of the prompt.
With widespread adoption, people will just be using AI to generate the art hanging in their homes. This seems to be one of the most obvious outcomes, but rarely gets expressed. They will enter text, and think, wow that really looks cool........print, and frame. Also, online art markets are going to be absolutely saturated in fairly short order for those who are interested in the possibility of selling such AI generated works. I have totally mixed feelings and have been working with Midjourney for over a month. One limitation I've put on myself is I don't ever use artists names in my prompts, and think that contemporary artists should be protected from explicit use in prompts. Best of luck to all of us.
@@flickwtchr people already do that with google images, I remember many of my friends in middle school who will print an anime art and put it on their wall
The thing is that the AI doesn't work that way. It doesn't create a collage out of pre-existing images. Just like artists it learned the concepts of drawing art (e.g. color theory) and even understand what real life objects look like. AIs like this are possible due to the creation of GPT-3 and similar. If your job is about interacting with a computer your job will likely be gone before 2040. The truly scary thing about AI is not how fast it is at working, how cheap it is or what it can do. The truly scary thing is how fast it learns. AI art gets better by about 30% every 6 months. That means better at understanding prompts, better at creating images fitting the prompt, less flawed imagesa and better looking images. If this trend continues AI art will be 5 times better than it is now in 2025 it will be 5 times better than it is now. At 2030 it will be 66 times better at 2050 it will be 2403409 times better etc. We will never learn faster than AI so getting a new job is unrealistic - this is the beginning of the end of human work except for maybe burger flipping.
I think it’s perfectly fine as long as you’re not using it to win competitions or claiming the art as something you yourself drew. I’m not even a good artist, but I can imagine the pain of spending so much time on something just to be beat by someone who spent a few minutes typing in some words. It shouldn’t be used in competitions unless it’s against the other AI and there are no people who spend time and effort into their work there, that would just be unfair to the artists.
as an artist myself, i hated the idea of AI art stealing all my job oppurtunities away and making all my hard work become pointless. watching this video gave me a different perspective though, and i really hope this stuff becomes properly regulated so i'll still be able to earn money doing what i wanna do, while also letting people enjoy AI art at the same time.
Gonna be tough tho. My editor kicked 3 illustrators because the company will replace them with AI art. Is one of the biggest publisher house in the world.
@@odenkaz I do wonder how one would be able to regulate it without gimping the tech in unnecessary ways, or potentially problematic ways. It is an avenue that definitely needs care - too far in one extreme, and we have nothing effective, too much in the other extreme and we have the kind of bullshittery that comes with the movie, music, and software industries lobbying the govt to amend copyright laws.
@@DanknDerpyGamer i don't have the answer to that, but all I know that sooner or later it's gonna get regulated. if it isn't regulated then RIP digital artists
@@DanknDerpyGamer The only way it could be regulated is to force media companies to hire digital artists instead of using AI generation (which definitely could be done I think). Other than that, it's literally impossible to regulate the AI generation models themselves, and its certain that they will only get better and better in the future.
@@Jennifahh I know people who were comisssioned for things like indie album covers and designing characters to illustrate fan-fiction with original main characters. And they were just dropped from some of those.
@@TheVellure It is sad. It truly is. As much as I like AI i believe it will let ppl without their jobs and isnt fair. And I believe with time every art branch is going to have AI (music, writing etc) is kinda dark.
it will not replace concept art/design currently, that requires a whole different skillset than just making an image look pretty (which is what ai currently does best), most things labeled as "concept art" online are just rendered out pretty promotion pieces for art books or advertising.
I don't hate ai art but I am slightly bitter from personal experience. I had a project for school that stated every week we had to make something that followed the flow or prompt of that week's lesson. We were allowed to do this in many ways, like an essay or a song, I chose to make art. I got a passing grade for my art which made me disappointed but it is what it is, but what hurt me was when this ai art thing started showing up in the news my friends mentioned that they used it for their projects and got a perfect score and that freaking hurt. I put a lot of effort into my work and made some stuff that I genuinely find beautiful but they just typed stuff out on a generator and got a perfect score. So yeah I'm a bit bitter and it made me feel insecure for a good while
I am sure they did stuff other then just the prompt, as the AI makes a lot of clear errors. It can help fix it's own errors but it won't do it if you only just using the typing aspect of it. Though it does feel a bit unfair, never had to deal with anything of that level but in school often these with better tools have easier acess to better grades. Like in my math class even though my classmates also put the effort into solving the math because they had a more advance version of a texas instruments calculator they had an easier time then me, and were less error prone. Though often the calculators were just preprogrammed to do it for them with out the teacher knowing better, and I with my more basic version had more limited options (and for a while because I did not want my family spending money on me, I did not even have a TI calculator to help me, at least during tests was often given one to borrow). Well on the upside you got more practice then your classmates.
If the teacher was aware that such AI generated art was being entered, at the very least the teacher should have addressed the many issues associated with it. You were right to feel that way. It's one thing for the teacher to at least acknowledge the difference and still allow it, but it sounds like even that didn't occur.
AI art has its uses. That ain't one of them, in my opinion - or shouldn't be, rather. I'm all for using AI art to create character concepts and for inspiration. As a non-artist myself, I love AI art, as it allows me to bring my thoughts to 'life', as it were... and, with new character concepts in hand, I can then use said concepts to commission artists. (Maybe I just haven't learned how yet, but one failing of AI art I've found is an apparent lack of character repetition. Found a character whose design you absolutely adore? Good luck getting the AI art to replicate the exact design in different poses. From what I've tried, there are always various differences. An artist, on the other hand, CAN replicate the character if they have a point of reference.) I'm sorry to hear you only received a passing grade for the work you actually put in. It irritates me that some people are using AI art to effectively invalidate artists - and is honestly one of the reasons, even with me now using AI art, that I continue to support artists via commissions. Much love to you for following your artistic passions. ^^
Fr I don't get how the guy won the art contest when all he did was tell the ai generator to do it like what about the other artists that actually drew theirs ???
Right? This is an insult to artists and the hard work they go through. Artists already have it hard why make something that makes it worse? In the words of Ian Malcolm, "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether not they could make it they didn't stop long enough to think of they should!"
here is my poem, i hope it may cause you to edit writing words is an art in itself, how do you not get it? crticizing ai in this way does not lend you much credit and what of photography, where all you do is snap it?
As a digital artist myself, coming from a family and community of non-artists, i had plenty of tedious explanations about how digital art is real art, something that requires a lot of effort, because I don't just say "computer, draw me a magical unicorn destroying a skyscraper" and whatnot, and have my drawing software do all the work for me. Kind of ironic. For me personally however art is not so much about the result as it is about the process. Oftentimes i start a piece with an idea in mind, and as hours pass, i end up finishing a completely different piece. The magic of the artistic process is not being able to predict what you will end up with in the end. Or take doodling. When you just let your hand move on its own, it creates things that you couldn't ever have planned with your conscious mind. Pure AI art doesn't have process. It's instant, it's based on that one prompt that you punch in, you don't have a chance to really sit down with it, spend some time thinking whether this or that will work and if the idea is good in the first place. imo it just ain't right. As a tool - yes, be my guest. But not for those snobby non-artists who would then come at artists and say "well, art is easy and quick!" It isn't. Real art isn't.
My dad is an artist (not professionally, but he is one), he tried to teach me to draw since I was 8, then because I got interested, I tried learning on my own, I never was able to. In spite of every advice, every hour spent training. When this came, I was lucky enough to learn at the same time that your prompt matters a lot. " Draw me a magical unicorn " wouldn't draw you a magical unicorn. I had to spend more than 2 hours writing prompts to get the correct result. And sometimes, in the exact same way, I ended up making something entirely different from what I had originally planned. When writing a novel, you let the words flow through your mind, guiding you in the direction that would make the most sense for the story. When writing with the help of an AI, you let the words flow through your mind, letting the AI guide you into the direction *you* want to take. When writing a prompt, you let the words flow through your mind, letting the images guide you towards something you'd like to have. In all those cases, the creative process is still there. Where is isn't is : " taking a story, doing visible editing to make it look slightly different ", "typing one word and letting the Ai write the whole story, fixing some grammar mistakes only when you feel like it ", " using an artpiece, changing the colors to make it look slightly different", " typing the word 'magical unicorn destroying a skyscraper' because you thought that'd look cool, getting an image of a house being blown up with no unicorn in sight and calling it a day. " Maybe I commented to much under this video, I just want people to know the actual process behind all this. At least, for me, it's not "quick and easy". My best advice would be to try it for yourself, like really dedicate a multiple days, even a week to making good artpiece you're satisfied with, using only the AI and, eventually, an editing software like photoshop.
True, now that I think about it IA art is what (generally) people think what digital art is, but now that they can actually make art pieces with it they don’t care about the ethical or moral problems about it haha😭
I think ai should be more of a tool for artists. Like for an example, let’s say you need to make a sci fi planet background and need inspiration. Mashing Jupiter and other planets to make an atmosphere is cool and helpful, but the skill and drawing should come from you. Lmao sorry if I worded it weird. :3 💛
@@liviwaslost the final result will never get copyrighted as it is random, the only thing that you can stop is the creator of that art specifically doesnt allow their art to be fed into the data.
But that spoils the fun of exploring what you are creating. Maybe if you are in a hurry and need to get something done you can use AI to conceptualize an idea for you (which is ironic). Otherwise, yeah, it ruins the fun and what comes out as your final work isn't true, especially if you use the AI's work as a base.
I’m in the art community and as much as I personally like ai art websites like dall-e mini when they are simply used for jokes and funnys but I hate it when its used to imitate other peoples work. Specifically artists, big and small, spending hours on a piece just for an ai to remake it in a matter of minutes. Like its just such a sad form of art theft and when it starts to actually threaten artists’ jobs is when it scares me.
I think the idea that art styles can't be stolen only applies to humans. Machines aren't "inspired" so it's not a case of them just really liking the art style, or liking the same thing that the original artist likes, resulting in similar styles. A machine *can* perfectly replicate a style, even if it's maybe not that advanced yet.
yeah and ive noticed a lot of people in the comments saying “AI art isnt THAT serious, it still messes up things” but what happens when it finally doesnt? or when it does, but it is highly insignificant and hard to notice even by a keen eye? 👁️
I really hope a balance can be found. I had mentionned in my comment on the poll that it could definitely be used for references and such, like you also mentionned in your video. However I am still weary of companies abusing AI art to avoid paying human made art. You could say my opinion is the same as before watching, seeing I wasn't too far off on some of the articles and mentions you brought up.
I don’t see anything wrong with the concept of AI generated art, but what I do think is wrong is comparing those artwork with art actual people have spent so much time making themselves without simply writing word prompts on a keyboard. While the AI using people’s actual art to make its generated art does rub me the wrong way, what does really worry me is how this will affect artists and how AI art might be relied on more than artists due to the money side of things. I’m an artist myself and I might not make money off my art because it’s something I do for my own enjoyment and don’t want to take the fun out of it by making it my job (not saying it can’t be fun for some other people, but it wouldn’t be for me), but I can see how that issue could drastically change artists’ income in the next years. And another thing I haven’t seen mentioned as much, is how people have been claiming to have made the art when it was AI generated and not genuinely made by that person; they wrote down a prompt and the bot made the art for them, they didn’t make it with their own hands. Yes, they wrote down the idea but to me it’s the equivalent to commissioning someone a specific artwork then claiming they’ve made it because they came up with the idea. It obviously isn’t the same, but I think that’s a good comparison.
I believe artists should have the option to opt out for sure. There could also be a way for artist to upload their copyright own images to be deleted from the AI's database. I'm not sure how that would work, but this could help with the AI copying art styles directly.
I think the most direct and effective way to protect contemporary artists would be to simply prohibit the use of their names as a style guide in a prompt. I use MJ and I never use the names of artists, especially contemporary artists in prompts. I just don't think it's right on ethical grounds.
That would only definitively work prior to training since the AI does not have an internal database of images during inference time, just a bunch of function parameters. As the other guy said, the closest you could get would be to prevent the names being used on the front end, but there would undoubtedly be ways to circumvent that, especially for open source models.
@@flickwtchr - but what if there are two artists with the same name? One doesn't want their name used....and the other does? Also...how would you enforce such a ban?
If they don't want anything learning to replicate their art, then they shouldn't post it. That's the only solution, really. Because that's all AI does. It looks at thousands of images, learns "ok, this is what that kind of thing looks like" and then generates images based on those patterns.... Which isn't any different from what people do or can do. Anyone can see an artist and make something immigrating their style. Hell, that's what the process of animation often is. But no one asks if it's ok for John Smith to draw something that looks straight out of Naruto, because everyone knows that it'd be ridiculous to say he can't.
@@OtakuNoShitpost - right. But the haters get mad because if the ease in which you can immigrate the style of someone else. Their thinking is that at least there is a natural learning curve barrier that keeps new competition out with the old model. You do have to spend a huge amount of time learning to draw and shade to even be able to imitate another artist. With AI you just need to have enough money to be able to access a computer know how to read and write. That’s about it. So it’s really a concern about gate keeping. For years the artist community relied on the learning curve (and people’s natural aversion to tackling it for a couple of years) to keep the competition OUT. Now in what amounts to six months that security has been taken from them. I don’t think they have much to worry about. Most of the stuff I see being made…nobody would pay for. It’s just a novelty for 99.99% of people out there tinkering with it. And when the novelty wears off…they are going to stop messing with it.
As a digital artist, I was really scared of this and I still kinda am. I really hope this doesn’t end up bad for artist. I want to use this ai art and try to make something inspired off the image I get from the promt.
It will and its totally doing it right know why you think artist are so livid? You cant be an artist as a career anymore unless you have heavy connections in a company. Now artist is a side gimmik since you at best will get a commision per month now.
As an artist myself I personally do not mind the use of Ai art. I have a passion for drawing all day, everyday. As long as I can keep doing what I love and sharing to the world what I have to offer, I think that speaks for itself. Ai art may be the future yes, but it will never capture the true essences of what a human can do better. Subtle hints or little fun easter eggs can be drawn within the art of an art piece that can surely tell a whole story all on its own. Something I do not think an Ai is capable of doing all on its own.
The fact that you have to write a prompt instead of.. you know... actually doing the art itself should be enough for people to understand that it's not the same. I agree with the end conclusion, you can use it for reference, funny stuff and even "art" for yourself as long as you're not trying to pass it off as your own marketable art or calling yourself an artist because you can type a couple words.
So because the process is different it takes no skill? It's not much different to photoshop actually. Instead of a slider it's words so to imply it takes no skill is kind of dumb. If you want film grain you can add it and specify an amount. That is directly adding a filter in a different way. The camera takes no skill then? You are just pointing it at something and pressing one button.
I think it’s highly fascinating truely, but it feels like it’s going to end up replacing artist jobs. Watching you use the ai program to see amazing art was really cool. If anything I think the computer is taking as many references as it can and makes one piece of artwork with it. And as an artist myself I do the same. If there is an eye style I like, I attempt to draw it on my own and maybe add a splash of what I think would look cool for the eyes as well. So would that make me a copier? It takes in enough information from the whole world and combines it for its own unique style.
I agree, but if you prompt the AI with “an image in the style of _ (some artists name)” it won’t create a new style, but the same style as that artist (if it’s work appeared in the training data). A style can’t be copyrighted, but I get it seems unfair to artists because it’s their style and people won’t have to pay artists anymore to get that style. At the same time I think AI is fascinating and will benefit us all, unless…
its not the same as human taking reference because its mashing up existing artworks and photos. So if you don't feed it anything new - nothing new will be created. Everyone see reality we live in diffrently and it shows in the artworks.
That kind of reminds me of the discussion in the sculpting community when 3D printers got introduced. Like, yes, I know it takes skills and huge effort to design your figurines in a program but it's not "handmade". I'm glad we can all benefit from different tools, my only concern is that people who consume social media content might think that I, who still does things by hand, will be able to achieve the same perfectly smooth and detailed work like an artist who mainly prints.
@@gpgp1841 I mean a video of specific artwork. Like a video of Pablo Picasso painting Guernica would be worth more than Guernica itself kind of deal. Artworks can be generated, but an artists painting or sculpting it can't.
@@dibbidydoo4318 you're right. I mean, again, I see sculptist and doll makers selling very cool photos of their creations (so it's a tiny bit what you're saying) but in no means it's worth more than the original thing.
I remember listening to a horror stoy podcast that used this as a theme. The main character in it was hyped to try and take AI tech in new directions and wasn't thinking about how it might be abused. (Then the program he made started doing things it wasn't supposed to do and he had a bad time) (for anyone interested, it was from Redwood Bureau, it's like scp, but if the organization was only in it for personal gain)
I hadn’t ever thought of this side of AI art!! I enjoy creating art and I find it crazy that I never thought of that. I think that maybe to submit into art competitions, there must be proof like a speed paint, paint palette, materials, ect. I also think that, if AI art is made, they cannot be using non-consenting artist’s work and have to have a link of the creation’s sources. I think that AI IMAGE creators are great! Especially for reference, but making AI ART generators doesn’t sit entirely right with me
I personally absolutely hate ai art... It makes me So sad that i had to learn all of the art skills for So long for nothing. It makes my art feel replaceable and i regret studying art
Well as someone who actually is starting to get into art because of AI, it is actually less advance in many ways then it seems at first. It needs a lot of help from the user if you actually want to make a presentable picture. However if your able to and willing to put your skills into use you can likely make some cool and fairly original end results. If for nothing else I would say it is worth trying just to at least have some fun with stuff that would be too silly to put time into drawing normally. Like making pictures of your family members underwater basket knitting, or your pet dog working an office job.
Hey, I commented something (admittedly quite long) on this video. I had the opposite problem. I regret studying art because even with all that knowledge I wasn't able to draw anything really worthwhile. But everything I learned is used when I used AI. All of your skills would be useful for using it. And, as @asdf30111 said, it's less advanced than you think. And, as I said to my friend, it may be able to do something in a certain style, but it can't do your art. It can't do the exact character I asked for if I had envisioned them in great details. Or it could, but it would require more work than commissioning an artist. So you still have some doors open.
@@TheHuYao I am not a company, nor an AI and am not stealing jobs myself. I used "some open doors" to not state that "all doors are open to you" which no matter the time or place would be false. What I should have said is "at least some doors" because I don't know the full state of anything. This was also a specific "you" adressing the OP directly. I didn't claim the same thing regarding the general state of the industry here.
Ya feels very wrong how people can just type something like "made by x" even though X 100% does not support their work being used. Even though if you would put even a tiny bit of effort the results will end up looking good either way, plus be more unique as your not pigeon holeing the AI into a certain look that every else is. Halve of the enjoyment is not know what the AI will pull out of it's latent space and adapting to what it gives you to work with. Like a unique backdrop is so much cooler for me then a backdrop that happens to look like someone elses painting. It 100% takes more time, but even then still is quicker then doing things by hand. Plus people seem to forget you can use AI not just for regular art. You can use it for baking ideas by quickly running though looks, or room design. Like taking a picture of a room and changing the color of the wallpaper. Or to put your self into wacky pictures (you need a rtx 3090+ for the last one, but you can borrow gpu time and it comes at a bit less then a dollar to train a single new person into the AI).
I don't have any problems with ai art itself, i actually think it's super cool, but the art theft part you mentioned is not so cool. Also think that it should be compared to human-made art that took actual effort. Like you can't compare a painting to a picture because they're two different mediums that require different skills. Making actual handmade art takes a ton of time and practice, while making ai art takes like... the ability to type?? I guess?? Learning how to type is arguably much easier than learning how to make good art. I feel like it would be a lot better if there was like an option to remove your art from the ai's library or something? But then you'd have to be able to prove that the art is yours which is a whole nother process so idk
I'm an artist and I buy artists work for their style. Ai art can't copy the personality and style of a specific artist. So, I do not think it will take artists jobs over at all.
How do you define capitalism? Because by the definition I am aware of it is one of the few systems that is based on ownership of real property (capital generating property i.e, "intellectual property") A non capitalist system would be something like the public commons or even stable diffusion ai which is open source, where no individual "owns" a piece.
Being a capitalist is the only way you can make a living being a artist lol cuz if ur comunist u have one of 3 jobs miner farmer laboror. Teaching police and entertainment are ushuly all up to the military historicly speaking. Also remember if ur we are comunists u dont get credit for ur art because its our art
On the topic of copyright, I think it should be illegal to sell AI art, but that it should be widely available for private personal use, like iPhone backgrounds. Reason being that it's essentially just photobashing but with none of the skill used by an artist to put everything together. So it should be allowed for inspiration and art drafts, or telling an artist the gist of what you want a commission to look like, but no one should be allowed to profit from it (so not in art contests either unless they're specifically ai art contests).
I also agree with what another commenter stated: "Ultimately, the larger issue is of a legal nature. The pictures themselves may be fair-use, but the software itself is basically derived from art that the developers never obtained the license to. But as you say, it's basically impossible for artists to find out whether their art was included in the training data, and even harder still to prove it. In some cases, for art with a very unique style and subject matter, it may be possible to tell. There's plenty of examples of Al generated art where the original artist's water mark ends up being partially reproduced. Personally, I'd say that this somewhat refutes the argument of fair use."
@@DogsandPennies The watermarks and signatures are reproduced because they are easily learnable for the AI. They are the same over many images of an artists work. The rest of the images are much more diverse and won’t easily be copied by the AI. It approximates it, resulting in new non-copyrighted work. I absolutely agree this isn’t ethical though.
@@BrianReplies Apple sued a company because they used rounded squares in their design. Similar lawsuits are commonplace in the patent world. You can police anything as long as you have any dumb, yet legally supported, reason and money to pay lawyers. However, it depends on luck whether it will work out or not. This is more like a gamble to get extra cash using the government since government is the only company that can legally steal money from anyone in their jurisdiction. Companies avoid getting sued but make lawsuits of pretty much anything as well. You can also gamble and sue any AI company for using your work for any reason right now as long as you have lawyers. Welcome to the regulated honor system, the suing industry.
The A.I is not just blindly photobashed bunch of images from the internet. They're studying it. Like the colours, shape, pattern, etc then use all of that to generate the artwork. It's gonna be hard to copyright those things.
I'm an artist myself, and I don't see how ai art "benefits people who can't create art", something I've seen get tossed around. Literally how?? Nobody is saying you can't start creating artwork. Literally no one is stopping you, pick up a damn pencil. "But I can't draw!!!" Yeah, neither could I. We ALL had to work hard to get where we are. If you're an "artist" who only relies on AI, I have my opinions and won't stop you, but my respect for you will never be the same as my respect for actual artists.
100% yeah! They just mean this AI skips all the hard work and effort, spare me the, "but it takes effort to make the prompt do what you want" line. It's like cheating on a test. You get great (?) results, but you didn't build that. AI art generators are standing on the blood, sweat, tears, and SOULS of creative Humans. How many wonderful future artists will not even start art now?How many will give up? The world will miss out. But hey, we'll have billions of images directed by everyone, so who cares, I guess. I started drawing at 4-5 years old. I haven't made art my career, but creating art made me feel like I was worthwhile, it was a safe outlet for the inner me. The last 8 or so years I've been suffering terrible art block due to life happenings. Hey, I'm just starting to get into making music! *AI TAKES OVER MUSIC TOO* Well, Sh*t. :/ Sorry, that got a bit long. I need to stop even looking at any of these AI videos, they make me so upset. It's like a loved one has died, and people who didn't know creating art are just going, "oh well, get over it." I know it is here to stay.
@@tfp7432 That’s kinda what I said in my comment, it’s alright as long as people aren’t using AI art to take over artists jobs. For fun it’s okay but I agree otherwise that AI art might cause some trouble along the line
to be perfectly honest, saying that AI art is gonna put artists out of a job is like saying Squarespace is gonna put web developers out of a job. It's never going to happen in our lifetime because machines that can deliver an extremely high level of customization are still decades upon decades away from us. Will it replace some roles or be used by people who want art on a budget? Yes. Are most companies and businesses suddenly going to fire their art teams for AI art. Nope. Will it take away commissions from artists with unique and cool art styles? Not at all. The only real issue is the ethical issue of using artists work without consent as training data. As someone who's doing their thesis on machine learning, consent in data collection for training data is the bare minimum a responsible programmer should do (this is different from referencing art because in machine learning, each instance of training data has a direct effect on the output. Where as referencing allows you to create your interpretation of the reference that is still ultimately your own). Unfortunately most people promoting AI art don't seem to understand consent, or try to wave it of as something people are needlessly getting mad about.
I’m a professional storyboard artist and I was putting a pitch together and had bad time finding good artists to hire. The Ai is good for putting together presentations and logos etc. that you don’t claim as your own. But I think people shouldn’t be charging to do this or claim thee drew it. But I’m sure this will be misused as well.
I've seen a video about animators who had been using AI to create an animation by using the animators' videos (of them acting) as reference which the AI will then blur then trace over to create the animation. As an aspiring cartoonist, it has it's flaws (e.g. sometimes parts of the drawings would go out of place) but it seemed interesting & it doesn't involve stealing other people's artwork/animations (which I appreciate for obvious reasons).
Hi thumin!!! So glad to see a vid of urs! Anyway, I love ur content so much. The topics u talk about hit close to home, especially when u talk about racism. My mom and her side of the family get racial comments to her face all the time. Growing up I saw this happening and they would give her weird looks. I hated it! My mom is Mexican and Puerto Rican. I look white af so I've never experienced this to me. I'm very empethetic tho so when it happens to my family I get really sad and angry even if they brush it off. Tysm for talking about the topics!!
I have to deal with a lot of racism too, as an Asian-American. It sucks, but it makes us all stronger in the end. Like any sort of exercise. I love her content too! ^^ I’m glad to know that I’m never the only one who’s going through something like it.
@@down-like-the-tower I hope racism stops very shortly! It makes me really sad to know that people have to deal with that. I look white because my dad was super white and Irish. I have been told racial comments to me about my family. I hate it but I'm glad racism has gone down by a lot over hundreds of years. My great grandpa made a book when he was seventy talking about his grand parents being slaves. Its sounds terrible 😔. I hope you and others don't have to deal with it shortly!!! All the love and hugs!!
@@BananaBByt yes! Thank you, it means a lot. I also hope that POC children don’t have to go through what a lot of adults and teens like them had to go through. It’s not fair.
im an artist...and i haven't heard of this actually....but that must suck how some artist's think that ai's are making it so the artist's can't make art without having to deal with an ai that is 10x better at making stuff then them
The main point is that this only the start, when more research goes into this only get scary. One of the Ai models has the ability to be trained on you're own images and unlike the deepfaked videos it only require a few images like 5 or more to create images of a specific persons face (nsfw fakes?) There's slowly gonna be a tribal community of people calling themselves "Artists" because the use Ai image generation. One of the AI Art reddit was a post memeing on an artist who didn't want his work in Ai modles but became one of the most used artist prompt. Its also interesting the since Sable Diffusion is open source it's gonna be hard to police specially when we can train our on Ai models. I think of the programs had the ability to nudge the Ai to a specific style of subject matter and there's the possibility of Ai models trained on narrow datasets like a specific art's or group of artists.
I was afraid of AI art but when I think about it, AI art is just a place for you to get either a painting or just something funny to look at and that's just that, AI art need persons art to in order to generate a "art" piece so it technically need artists in order to work. Plus AI art can't take away Manga Artist or Comic Artist because those individuals are what makes a Manga or Comic real, emotional and all that.
We have more then enaugh art to train an AI to do most things. When it comes to manga , comics i agree whit you. Something that requaires spesifisity will most likely need at least some humans in the loop. Anything that needs to be sharp or diferent is something ai cant do due to its inherit limitations and saying otherwise is the same as saying 2+2=6.
I agree with those who say that A.I Art should be used as a tool. It can be very useful to get those Ideas out there you know? I also agree that it will be a big help for those who are disabled and can not perform certain actions to make their art; it is not a problem for Art be become an easy activity for all to enjoy. But I also agree with Thumin that those Corporate Bastards are definitely going to abuse the sh*t out of A.I art and cause a whole Landslide of issues since they are greedy, cheap, and just plain souless. I also agree that A.I Art is not real art, but again, is a tool for art to help make more art and, again, should be used as such.
I think that using AI generated art as a prompt, reference or concept is a cool idea, and defiantly can help along creative process, but in the case of it being used to replace real artists, that just seems scummy and a way to scam people out of paying for their hard work and years of practice
i heavily agree with this video!! smth i dont think you mentioned though, which i personally have a problem with, are people calling themselves "ai artists" for inputting words into a program. yes, what comes out *is* art, but its art made by the ai, not you. with that logic you could call yourself an artist for commissioning someone for an art piece because you gave them the prompt/description of what you wanted the finished output to look like.
i feel like it's going to be helpful for artists when wanting to have a clearer vision of their ideas for an art piece, like if you're struggling to envision your great idea, it could help to stabilize it a bit. Also think the composition of AI works are sooo pleasant to look at! what i am trying to say is that AI artwork should be used as a tool meant to go hand in hand with artists, rather than an art medium.
ai art is great and all but the bad thing is someone can just become a famous artist by ai and people who worked hard to make themselfs better at art will just have wasted there time and no job would take em cause its eiser to just use ai
one of my classmates was talking abt the ai that won the art contest, hes a computer guy and he found it pretty neat, as an artist myself i tried to explain our side and i think he got it it made more sense when he explained the context was for new forms of art but i still think a discord bot should not have gotten first place on a fucking art competition
AI can be benficial to artists when it comes to generating ideas for their own work sometimes. But overall AI created by artists or non-artists should not be put in competitions or passed of as real art.
@@minmax5 I don’t know anything about Ai art, I don’t have an opinion about ai art being real art or not, but from what I’ve seen from people with an opinion on it, it’s because it’s not created by a real person, and it is fairly easy to get the art, while non-ai art, you have to learn how to do it for years. Sorry if this doesn't make sense enx
@@Poop-le9sb I agree that you have accurately assessed and presented an aspect of the reasoning which many people hold in opposing Ai art as "real" art. But, as you can see by the conversation above, this standard is not held consistently. Nor is it even necessarily true that creating Ai art takes less effort either in the learning process or execution when compared to other forms of art which are seen as legitimate by these same people. I would also contest the idea that Ai art is "not made a real person", we could just as easily say that photographs are not made by real people. But yes your comment totally does make sense, thank you for your contribution to the conversation!
For years people have said that digital art is not real art, as if it doesn't take a long time to learn how to do and get good at just like any other art form.. They are under the impression that digital artwork just takes a few click of the button and you create a masterpiece........ Well I guess these A.I. art generators are proving these people right arn't they!? I guess all it takes to create digital art IS just a click of a button.... Guess us digital artists were wrong all along
From experimentation, it's simply not there yet. It's perhaps at a point where the output is "good enough", maybe even good quality with a minor touch up by actual artists to clean up imperfections. But the process is largely hit-and-miss. For each picture posted on social media, there have likely been dozens of pictures that did not make the cut. But ultimately, the larger issue is of a legal nature. The pictures themselves may be fair-use, but the software itself is basically derived from art that the developers never obtained the license to. But as you say, it's basically impossible for artists to find out whether their art was included in the training data, and even harder still to prove it. In some cases, for art with a very unique style and subject matter, it may be possible to tell. There's plenty of examples of AI generated art where the original artist's water mark ends up being partially reproduced. Personally, I'd say that this somewhat refutes the argument of fair use.
@@noobatredstone3001 Training the AI on other artists' work without crediting them is exactly the problem here. In some models, you'll find a disclaimer akin to "trained on a database of pictures from x", so zero credit given there. Some platforms appear to work on an opt-out system, but again it's difficult for artists to verify whether their art was used in training. An opt-in system would be unproblematic, but undesirable for obvious reasons. The transformative aspect is why I mentioned the partial reproduction of signatures. Obtaining anything close to a recognizable signature is a sign of overfitting, and puts into question whether the generated output is really sufficiently different from the original works to stand on its own merit. Ultimately, I've come to understand that some artists recognize the potential of AI as a source for reference material and inspiration. It does that job quite well, too. However, the matter of copyright is an entirely different beast. As things stand, I see platforms which monetize models derived from unlicensed and uncredited art as the more pertinent problem.
@@Masterspam1 To the A.I., the watermark is just another trait that connects the presented pictures. It will struggle to differentiate style from watermark. Aside from the watermark though, it is creating a new piece. The situation ressembles requesting an artist to draw something in the style of tarot cards for example.
I’ve never seen AI “art” that didn’t look uncanny. To non-artists and others with an untrained eye it’s pretty,I do like the use of color,but it just looks fake because it’s taken from a non-definite thing,artwork. AI learns that people render their artwork,but it doesn’t know how to render it in a comfortable looking way. It’s combining unrealistic and realistic rendering styles which makes it creepy.
i think it would make less of a prolems if the ai art have a gigantic watermark in the middle indicating that it was made by an ai and not them cause it would make both good for artist and stopping people from abusing it saying its "theirs"
Omg Hiiii! I don't hate AI art, I'm not that worried cause it kinda sucks? And nobody makes better professional job than artists themselves. There are things that just can't be recreated. I myself use AI art for fun!
Honestly what surprises me the most is how people who defend it can't tell it apart from actual art It's like the artistic version of an uncanny valley where it almost looks good but there's always something wrong I miss the days when people understood that it was weird and ugly but liked it regardless rather than trying to prop it up as the next big thing
@@DogsandPennies yes but there's a skill ceiling, especially with the method they are using The ai isn't learning anything, it's just grabbing what has already been made, putting that into a blender and filtering the worst results out If they switch methods and try to teach the ai how to understand anatomy and color theory instead of giving it a set of parameters and pictures to combine then it might create something of value but right now we're pretty safe
@@airplanes_aren.t_real but the method they are using is a denoising diffusion, it can't grab anything. Grabing and filtering stuff would actually be more difficult to do for an AI. Think of something on the level of brain of an insect like a bee (or likely actually weaker), if anything it is impressive how much it can do while being relatively simple, and because it is relatively tiny and is currently not really slowing down yet it is not that close to a skill ceiling.
one argument that I've heard on the topic of people who make ai art being considered artists is that they still need to get the prompt just right to get the ai to generate exactly what they have in their head, and that makes them an artist. I disagree, because the prompt itself is not the art. someone could give me a prompt and I could draw it, it's called a commission. the art does not belong to the person who told the ai what to do, just as the client cannot take credit for making an image that they payed an artist to make.
“And that makes them an artist” yeah but they’re not doing anything, they’re just typing. By that logic I don’t have the rights to any of my commissions because someone wrote down what they wanted.
I absolutely love the idea of AI art. It looks super beautiful and it could be used as a wonderful tool. But I dislike that they could copy an artist’s style. I know that AI art can never replace human art, especially when it comes to emotions, but I also understand why people are scared. Thinking about it, just a few years ago, I wouldn’t even dream that AI could do this. Technology evolves so quickly, and I think it’s wonderful, but it’s also… scary. If AI could do this today, think about what it can do in the future. What if it could perfectly create and mimic an artstyle for a person? What if it could memorize what a drawn character looks like and remake it perfectly in a new pose or setting? Think about animation as well. A lot of animators have been complaining about overworking and underpayment, but what if an AI learned how to animate perfectly? I’d honestly love if animators could catch a break, but I find possibilities like this a bit frightening, especially if it extends to, for example, a disney kids movie animated completely by AI. But what if AI could go farther than drawing, like writing its own book or or movie script. An AI now knows grammar and sentences , but what if it could perfect creating its own plotlines? And I’m sure the writing would be “flawless” if by a computer. And what about a different type of art, like for example, music. If AI can create pictures based on prompts and words, why not sounds? An AI would know probably every existing song in the world, and could use examples of already existing music to make its own music based on the vibes and types of lyrics you want. I already know AI programs that could make different voices, and I know it’s still a work in progress, but technology always improves, and then AI could make art and music to seem more emotional. There may be a lot of worrying things about AI for me and some other people, especially artists, but I still think AI is and has the potential to be a very wonderful tool that could help a lot of people. I just think that AI still has to have its limits and not cross the boundary of replacing people ❤️
I think AI art should be used as an assist. Like when you have a concept but it is hard to execute, you can get an idea from keywords and an image generated by a machine. But I don’t think it should be used to the extent of copying styles and even pieces that already exist, or replacing artists in their jobs. If the community can find a balance, I think this would benefit everyone.
Honestly as an artist, I'm embracing this new technology as a tool for inspiration and references I would never have otherwise. Though this will definitely bring more value to traditional artists like painters, something AI can never really replace. Will definitely be interesting.
Art style theft is a weird thing for me. Like, for the most part I don't think it's a big thing because people tend to take inspiration from other artists works and incorporate certain things into their own style. Every once in a while though I do see artists who have so wholely copied another artist's style that it's actually hard to tell that it's two different artists at first, and that's the thing that I can understand people being upset about style theft. AI art is such a complicated thing for me right now. I can absolutely see how it can help artists with ideas and assist with pieces and it could be a wonderful tool. I also see how it can be exploited by people and businesses who use that to cut costs and such instead of actually wanting to commission an artist. Especially with the gray area of some of these AI being able to do easily generate things in a style that is distinct to certain artists as well, when most of the time these artists didn't consent to their art being used in AIs. I feel like there needs to be a way for current artists to opt in or out of commercial AIs and the like of being able to use their art in training, so that certain artists don't feel like their art is being used without their consent. Separate categories for AI-made art and for human-made art in competitions and things like stock art purchasing would help out as well I feel, that way it doesn't feel like AI is intruding and pushing people out of art.
@@TerraVulture That's why I said there should be some sort of system for artists to opt in or out of having their artwork being used in these AI algorithms, so that at the very least it only uses art from artists who approved that theirs can be used It's a whole complicated thing and I don't think AI is completely evil, but there does need to be a system so that artists are protected from their art being used if they don't consent to it
@@TerraVulture Yeah yeah! I think it can be a great tool, but it just needs a system to protect artists who don't want to be part of it before I'm totally comfortable using it.
@@AshenDalia even if that system is already made. It's probably too late now since the training already started at 2015. When initially it was just annotations A.I to describe Images to people with poor eyesight.
I am an art student, I personally use AI art when i have an art block to look for inspiration. But i can also see how it can discouraging too. i think it is how you use the app ..
I feel like with AI art you are using your imagination and creativity to come up with unique/ original prompts and essentially collaborating with the AI software to execute your vision. I think with some rules/ regulations it can be a beautiful art form.
Or most people will do what Thumin did and just copy others prompts. There's really no creativity there :/ (and again, the way it makes art is by stealing others art, it isn't actually making them from scratch itself).
@@mimijae9154 oh I didn't realise that's what you meant by rules. ..however with no copying or plagiarism allowed how would ai art even work? It's entirely based on taking others art without permission
@@DogsandPennies maybe if the software takes references from real life images instead it would reduce the chances of it replicating or artist’s work? I’m not an expert on this but that’s just an idea I had it most likely won’t be easy to completely avoid plagiarism but that is a problem that exists within traditional art even with AI art being used.
@@mimijae9154 this issue is that if it took from irl photos the ai would look like real life. It has no artistic integrity of it's own (because it's a machine), which is why it needs to use others art and then simply mashes them together (hence why some images have peoples logos in them). It at the very least need to learn from other peoples art first, and given how that's always been done without artists permission, my hopes aren't high.
Since Ai art it inevitably gonna be apart of our lives from now on, I’m taking full advantage of it as an artist! It’s a great tool to figure out compositions, create pattern backgrounds for art, and color palettes, that’s the extent that I have used it in my own work.
Just dont complain if thats youre career and you dont make even a third of what you used to make anymore. For some freelancers that was a dead end and a LOT already quitted. Soon youll work will also be put in an AI and just be copied with some words
I don't hate AI art, but I hate when people uses this to shit on actual artist or uses AI for art in a contest against non AI art and winning money for it. AI art can help certain people. Like me personally, I have trouble putting lighting and shadows in my art so AI art might help teach me for it because I can't understand with like RUclips videos or an article with pictures
I think AI art should be allowed to exist, but it NEEDS to be regulated because it's taking elements from multiple people's art without credit or payment. A potential solution I thought of was for artists to grant permission to their portfolio for these programs by signing up for it in exchange for royalties everytime their tag is used. That's easier said than done, but something like that is probably the best way to go about it for professional artwork. There should probably also be a royalty free equivalent that people can use for fun, similar to music, but I'm no expert on the topic.
That's not possible, since that's not how the AI works. When producing an image, 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 single art piece in the dataset has some influence on the final piece. But what is possible is to divide a portion of the AI's profits among artists who's art is included in the database (maybe you can composite artists who have their names used in the prompts more but that's about it). Also there can be no backsies if an artist changes their mind about having their art in the dataset because the AI is only trained on the dataset once (unless the AI is improved and thus has to be retrained again) because it is very expensive and once the AI is trained, what is in the dataset does not matter any more because what was in the dataset has already had an influence on the AI's brain (neural network) developed and it's impossible to undo that influence because how the AI's brain is wired becomes far too complicated for any human to understand them.
They did a similar thing for copyrighted works, so why can’t they do that with non-copyrighted works? If any other AI can take inspiration without using google, why can’t it?
@@kurapikakurta1997 1. "They did a similar thing for copyrighted works, so why can’t they do that with non-copyrighted works?" This is a good question. These AI can't be trained on just open source material because current AI's need 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 of data to work off of (for example stable diffusion needs to be trained on over 2 billion images, or 6 times more images then there are on deviantart) I'm not sure if 2 billion open source images even exist. There are more specialized AI like novelAI that need a lot less but then the open source images also must be of a specific type. These AI need this much data because humans are very complicated and all of the small unnoticeable nuances that make something aesthetically pleasing or even just coherent to humans is also very complicated. 2. "If any other AI can take inspiration without using google, why can’t it?" I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. What other AI are you referring too? All machine learning AI need a lot of data to learn from. There are some like the Alphazero that don't need to learn from external sources but that's because it generates it's own data to learn from by playing 44 million chess games against itself so it can learn from it's own chess games but you can't really do that with an art AI because the AI needs to learn what astatically pleases humans.
@@wynnnova7706 let me clear my second topic up. I’m assuming each artwork the AI is inspired by is taken off of a google search, as we don’t have any evidence that most of them have only a certain few images in their databases. All of the research from other AI in fields other than art can be taken off of studies they didn’t pull off of google images or Wikipedia or anything similar, but rather off of studies that researchers allowed the developers of the programs to use (and in some cases- even did specific tests just for the program)
@@kurapikakurta1997 - your assumption is incorrect. Good was not involved. A non-profit organization used an army of computers to crawl the internet and build their own database. It's over 5 BILLION images large. It's free to use for anyone who wants to try their hand at making new AI software.
As someone who work in data field and also love drawing, the scene with AI "art" right now has more to do with data protection law and not just ethical reason. We all know nowadays, company can use your info to feed to AI for multiple business usage. The problem with it is that some private info can be traced back to the owner's identity which expose the owner to multiple dangers. This is why data protection law was born, depend on the country that the gov either forbid company from harvesting "info that can trace back the identity" or the info havested has to be modified/decoded so that the identity cannot be exposed. The using of some info also need to be consent by the owner, just like how they put cookies everywhere and ask us to be consent of giving our info while surfing a website. Now back to the artwork that was feed to the AI, obviously, no consent was given, plus art style or position can be traced back to the artist's identity which is against the data protection law. Related to copyright laws, AI company are using your artwork to make money, from what i know there is a membership payment on midjourney, so yeah. I hope that art community can reunite and hire a lawyer to take this to course.
being an artist takes so much perseverance, curiosity, creativity, and effort. the fact people are taking ai's and creating art without learning anything is just frustrating. maybe artists have fought hard battles to get where they are in their art, whether that was thru classes, art school, youtube videos, or just teaching yourself from life, learning to be better at your craft will always be hard. this goes for all craftsmen, even though we are all different. the ai robot can recreate art from years ago and the person who claims it is theirs makes it even worse. multiple tv shows, graphic novels, movies, etc are mostly hand drawn at first, before using an ai to help animate, not create, animate. not only is this just detrimental to the artist's name, its flat out horrible. why would someone want to do such a thing? art is an artifact of culture, inspiration, and emotions. an ai will NEVER come close to recreating that. in multiple studies, ai are tested to read human emotions or to try and recreate them however its always unsuccessful. art is meant to pull your heart, to bring emotions to you, to inspire you, yet people think an ai can accomplish that which spoiler alert, it can't. you can find artists who are BETTER than the ai because they can properly visualize a human emotion and create it. the ai machine isn't "art" what you're getting are google images.
This was honestly a great video, with a very balanced outlook and presentation of the subject, and I think you presented the information quite well! I, personally, as an artist, think it's kinda worrying that people so readily jump into the idea of it not being art. A lot of the definitions of art people who do that use would exclude very historically important art like Duchamp's readymades and his reappropriation of pop imagery, and I think we'd all be poorer for it. I do think the commercialization of AI artwork is concerning, though, and that having the option of being able to opt out of AI training sets is a really important thing. I agree with the person who pointed out it's like a paintbrush - a tool, that can be used for purposes good and nefarious. I'd also like to really reinforce that I see a lot of the opposition come from the very persistent misconception that AI art is made out of the original images. It is not. To greatly simplify, the way the original artwork is used is to train the AI: it starts by adding varying amounts of noise to artwork and then removing it, through which it "observes" how the pixels tend to cluster in those paintings. To produce its images, it "de-noises" an image of randomly generated nonsense color noise in the way it would if that was an existent picture noised to all hell, and does that in steps until it gets an image. It does *not* modify the artwork of people for its output, it does not use specific images in the process, it does not mash them up. It "learns" in a rudimentary fashion and creates from what it "learned", which is why some people use the art style comparison. If one uses a generator that lets you see the process, you can actually see the algorithm start from color noise.
This makes me sad in sort way, I'm invested my time for two years to learn art, some art i make take hours of my day... And see a algorithm makes this, to me the worst see the '' Ai artist " talking bullsht about artists, literally the guys who never have courage to trying to learn art thinking now they're artists... Anyway, I'm frustrated for real.
I don't hate ai art because I see it as a tool I hate it's usage, it's completely fine if an artist uses it for reference or someone tries to use it for fun but there are people out there with 0 artistic background claiming to be the new Picasso because they wrote 20 lines (half of which were the name of an artist/filter) on an algorithm Also let's be honest, it's not going to take over artists, most of it looks ugly and anyone with an understanding of art beyond surface level can see the mistakes, it looks soulless because the algorithm has 0 intent or passion when drawing, it just grabs whatever pictures that link to the words and then print out the least ugly results of the meshed up photo
Example 0:10 Okay this looks pretty at first but then I ask you Why is the circle fucked up? How many people are there? And most importantly What does it mean?
It is just a denoiser, it can't grab any pictures. It has a lot more parameters then a regular denoiser, but nether less in many ways it is super simple. So simple that it can't even do something as simple as actually grabing a picture and linking to a word. Would be nice for vram usage but no matter what words you type you still end up having to use the whole model all at once. It also has no clue of what is least ugly, all it can do is attempt to denoise what it thinks is a noisy picture back into the orginal it can't even tell that the noise is just actually just random noise.
I think it should have its own category when it comes to competitions. I'm surprised we haven't had conversations about AI art before hand, it was inevitably going to happen.
this is where art starts getting devalued, why would anyone give value to art if any random with no art skills with a computer can easily make it. It's sad :(
Ai can be such a nice tool to use to help artists in the long run but it shouldnt be dependant on 100%. The physical work that goes into pieces is what makes the artist and their art have this deep personal connection that typing in words into an algorithm just does not have. Typing in words doesnt really compete to the accomplishments of learning how light works or how the body bends. If art was truly meant for you then you wouldn't give up on it if your first piece isnt a masterpiece.
A voice synthesizer software user isn't a real singer, but it can still sound good in the right hands. Autotune is a tool that can be used to help musicians correct mistakes and make it easier. A professional singer is more flexible and sounds better than a vocaloid track, which is why in professional settings they use singers instead of Miku.
I wouldn’t say I hate AI art, but it still p1sses me off a small bit. Don’t get me wrong it can be f*cking hilarious at times but there’s people out here creating f*cking masterpieces and it’s so easy for someone with no actual talent to use an AI art generator and play it off like it’s theirs, even charge money for it.
AI art would technically give commission artists less money bc people would just make their own stuff, and then it could discourage other people from making art bc its like, “what’s the point of me doing this if AI can do it better”, so then less people will do art even if its their passion bc their art might not get noticed bc of all the AI art. I dont like the idea of having a robot make my art for me bc that takes the fun out of it, and i probably only think this way bc of the fact that i had stopped drawing for like years and only started drawing again recently, since actually drawing it myself brings me joy, I’d rather not let an AI do it for me.
Someone I was arguing about AI art with never really acknowledged the potential concerns about how it could be misused. They just rattled off platitudes about how it could be beneficial (which I didn't disagree with but come on!).
something i have figured out that helps me with my art, as well as lets ai art coexist, is visual novels. usually, visual novel backgrounds are hard to come up with and even draw if you arent experienced, but with ai art, generating a background is so easy, that you dont have to stress about having to draw a background if you arent confident in your scenery drawing abilities.
I hate AI art becase people can just make "art" without any work, that looks like it was made by someone with a lot of skill. Well it can be used as a Tool but it can be obused So eazaly
i have a problem with some of the AI 'artists' not the bots themselves (hey, my pfp is a photo i took of me holding a plush frog i own put into a AI app thing) because i saw that whilst a streamer was doing some art (idk if it was a commission) on stream then someone too a screen shot of i think the line work, put it into a bot then had a completely finished piece. they posted it on twitter i think. but yeah- that streamer put hours upon hours into their finished piece and the other dude took him like a few seconds maybe a minute. but hey thats just my take
I feel like ai art can be used for good in terms of creating reference or concept art that the artist can use to improve their own work. For example, I'm currently working on sci fi comic and I am not good at backgrounds or transferring my mental image of the world I want onto the screen. I used Dall-e to generate a bunch of backgrounds and assets and it gave me a lot of ideas for the world I want. I am by no means defending or condoning people using ai art to replace the hard work we artist have to go through and steal our jobs and hobbies. I'm just saying it can be used another tool for artists to improve their own work.
Exactly. We gotta find ways to use it in our favour. I'm not an artist but a writer and I abuse of AI because helps me to put all my ideas into images that i collect to have a better understanding of the atmosphere, characters and concept in general. I think is a great tool
Eugh... I don't hate ai art, I've used it here and there for memes and it can be fun! But Im ngl, I'm terrified for what this means for artists. Because art is probably what I am best at! I've been building my art skills since I was able to hold a pencil.. so I'm certainly worried🥲 I'm also scared ai is gonna be everywhere in all forms of work... how are people supposed to make money anymore?
🤖 Watch part 2 of this video: ruclips.net/video/-6HAsaDwzrI/видео.html
💟 Thank you for watching guys!! What do you think of AI art? Will it replace human artist's?
💌 Remember to like the video and subscribe if u haven't 🥰💖💖
💌 Follow my twitter if u want to be apart of my future videos too!
twitter.com/Thuminnoo
hello
hi
Not much thoughts on it
I’m still going to art school fuck the AI
I think it COULD replace them, at least when it comes to commissions for big companies who want to cut corners, or people who don't feel like waiting for it.
My thoughts though, is that if it doesn't die out after all the hype, then it's going to be banned in certain areas. Like competitions.
I find horrible because they are literally thieves. People go to college and work their butts off for this. They are able to steal an artists style and work with a robot and pass it off. We already have a problem with thieves in the community and this will only make it worse.
The AI isn't working at all. It's running an algorithm fed with specific works, as you said, there's nothing "original" about it. The programmer or prompter are NOT artists anymore than Evie or cleverbot is a person.
This is the same weasel words and deflection tactics that art thieves make in order to say they didn't "steal" or "mimic" your art/OCs. It's honestly troubling anyone argues for the sake of AI art. It's just genuinely not art. Beautiful theivery but not art.
Could it be used to help you with completion? Yes, but it's like cutting corners than anything in life. It harms your skills.
So far my biggest fear with AI art is that eventually larger companies will end up defaulting to AI art rather than artists due to the convenience of it and them not having to pay actual humans for their work. Historically corporations would end up maximizing profits at the expense of their employees and if that happens then hundreds of artist's jobs could be at risk.
I cannot understand how people can be so naive in front of your sentence. Because it's true.
Goddamn, it's like they forgot that what started (and will probably remain) as a hobby was also a JOB for artists. And that now those same people cannot even think about having a sustainable career (not that it was a safe path before, but now the bar is unbearably higher).
These youtuber artists who "don't get why people are upset over AI art, it's just a new art tool" 1. are probably hobbyists, teenagers and generally people who never invested years of school for a professional path: I don't blame them, but i can't fathom how they do not see the problem with AI art;
2. They do not get the essence of the word "tool". This is automatization, not a tool; it's substitution, not "collaboration man-machine".
They seem to live in a fluffy world, when now at best they can aspire to be popular online; they don't undestand that AI just stole them a possible, hardworking but satisfying future job.
It's a bitter pill to swallow, but I cannot see this any different.
Currently, the more the result you want is specific, the more the present of a trained person with artistic knowledge is required. So there is a undeniable need for a man-machine collaboration.
This could change. Quite unlikely as the rules making up language, drawings, beauty, and so on... Are extremely complex and hard to follow. AIs are amazingly good at predictions, but we currently don't know if the rules we have for language, etc. Can even be fully modelized, which is something usually needed if you want an AI to follow them.
On another note, if AIs are amazing at predictions, humans are really bad at predicting the future, so there is no way to know for sure what will happen with that. But again, for now, it's an assistance, if not a tool.
My biggest concern would be, like most people, the ability to pass for someone else. But, a good news is that making an AI capable of generating human-like art requires an AI capable of detecting if an artpiece is human or not. So if you train the other AI with those generated images, it could learn to distinguish the original artist's images from the replicated one for us.
I'm a writer, and the first things those AIs did before learning how to generate images, was how to generate text, including stories, and I'm a programmer, and, those AIs can generate code as well. So I know about investing years of school for a professional path. And I can also tell you that AIs is one of the most misunderstood thing by non-programmers, coming from computer science. "Artificial Intelligence" is neither the original term, neither one that actually represents what this group of things is. So I'm pretty sure it is hard for artists and non-artists alike to understand what exactly is going on with this.
But I could be wrong.
I fear the same :( my dream is to be an illustrator for games... Really frustrating.
And I don't think companies care abt people losing their jobs, as long as it is more profitable for them
Work for companies requires consistency that isn't present yet in machine learning. For instance, you can't tell the A.I. to make character art for a character who doesn't exist yet, and on the off chance you get what you want, telling the A.I. to do it again will net a different result. Same with environments. You'll also need editors, people that are skilled in Photoshop, to modify the result to better fit the needs of the project. "Coaching" the bot to produce the result you want will require the same amount of human manpower and most likely won't net you a more desirable result than a seasoned artist.
I think in the long run, people that have contracted jobs as artists will be fine. It's the people who make money off of commissioned and independent work that'll hurt the most from this. Horny people that were willing to pay hundreds of dollars to see Tony The Tiger doing unspeakable things to anime girls now have the tools to make that kind of art themselves. Esp. if they weren't picky on quality.
That will happen. Especially for small things like UI elements
It's not just the fact that artists will lose jobs. A lot of young artists seems to feel discouraged to even make art, in the shadow of AI art.
To me, that is the saddest thing about this.
If you love making art. Don't give up on it.
It doesn't have to be art, but putting in the work and becoming good at something can be a very rewarding experience. On a personal level.
And if you think about it. Does someone who wants to become a chef call the pizza place for inspiration? Then invite someone for dinner and brag about how you chose the toppings...
Sure, it will taste good but AI art is fast food.
The thing is whilst no one brags about the choosing the topping. Fast food has absolutely destroyed the profit margin of a lot of potential restaurants that have better food. So whilst you can have extreme low grade and top grade artist the great bulk of intermediate artist will get shafted since they won't get the ill pay with exposure but why would I pay you x amount when I can n get something similar in a minute for 2 dollars. Here I am supporting artist take my 20 for 8 hours of work
@@demonvictim Yes, I think the analogy between fast food and AI art, as a whole, shows us what we are heading for.
Even down to the unhealthy aspects of fast food I think consumers of AI art might possibly be affected by the lack of meaning/humanity in the AI art. It's a pretty picture, not much more. But if the general consumer is fine with AI art, I'm afraid it can have the same kind of influence on our world as fast food has had for the last decades.
*edit - probably not on the scale of fast food but in the same sense.
I also see some problems in artists using AI art as a "reference" or "inspiration". Mostly for their personal artistic progression.
Plenty of traditional artists (and digital artists) have been painting the surreal and "unseen" in beautiful ways. Max Erst, Remedios Varo and Zdzisław Beksiński didn't have AI art as a reference or inspiration. The human mind can do amazing things just from observing the world around us and being creative. Sure, AI art can be seen as just another thing to be observed but since the artist is generating a somewhat random image to be inspired by, I think you take away a step in the creative process of - observing - getting an idea - sketching - making iterations - painting and fleshing it out - arriving at a final art piece.
If AI art is used for reference or inspiration you might run the risk of getting too reliant on it as a part of coming up with ideas, colors or composition. Things that the top grade artists spend years to perfect.
If the AI would be a truly helpful tool it would be designed to speed up the end process of painting, where it is mostly labor and not that much creativity involved.
I also feel like in the long run, ai art could leave people creatively and imaginatively stagnant and make art in general all flash, zero substance
I gave up art when I heard about the AI-art bot a long ago I'm not wasting my time on art
@@Yourlastbraincell-tt3uo and I say to that, human made art will ALWAYS be more popular than anything ai can "create" so don't give up on something you enjoy cause of some bot.
i dont really hate ai art, but i do hate the "ai art community" if it can be called that haha. The people that call themselves artists just because they learned how to make the AI do stuff. i also rlly hate how ppl are treating the ai art and calling it their own pieces and sometimes selling it.
Ive been using midjourney for my own works! mainly for inspiration and colour palettes but also as slight bases for backgrounds, its surprisingly good for idea generation and photobashing and genuinely makes drawing so much more fun :0
will who owns it then? AI has no copyright law so it can't own the work...
@@ryanclemons1 the programmers who created the AI and the artists work used to photobash.
I agree! I usually play around with Midjourney for fun and also use it for inspo on colour palettes :)
They can input an artist prompt that AI can base the generated image
@@triggerfairy4070 I mean as long as it is different and does not look like the reference used I see no issue.
AI art absolutely terrifies me, because I don't think that companies will want to implement the safeguards to protect artists that you suggested. At this point companies are more powerful than people and the government
so concept artists are not real artists?
@@gabrielWachong how did you even come to the conclusion
@@gabrielWachong also wtf is a concept artist lmfao
@@maitsuuuuuu3839 Concept artists are exactly what they sound like. They draw concepts.
@@Jordan-wc6nh I'm aware of that but they're just artists. They don't write some concepts and hope for the AI to get it right
I don't hate AI art, you can make some pretty funny stuff with it. I do believe it shouldn't be allowed in art contests and stuff like that though, but other than that I don't see a problem with it.
EDIT: Thank you artists for replying. I've heard all you've had to say and I realize that ai art may be a bigger problem than I thought. I'm sorry if I offended anybody or seemed like I just didn't care or something, I was just being stupid and didn't want to admit that the silly ai art app could be capable of such damage. Again, sorry.
People wont commision artists anymore
@@tfp7432 Plenty of artists are still being commissioned. No matter how good AI art is, it can't replace artists
@@no_thoughts.only_rage1439 as someone who actively uses ai, for art purposes it definitely can replace an artist entirely. Definitely experienced that hate and it is scary
@@IM_GOING_TOO_HAM It can't replace artists who draw people's character though, unless you type in every detail that the character has into the prompt and hope for the best ig. But for scene art and logos I do see how it can replace those.
@@no_thoughts.only_rage1439 I promise you it can, and already has.
Someone was asking for pet portrait artist recommendations and one reply asked why they would commission an artist when they could just use an AI art site. That kinda hurt...
Being an artist myself, I mostly see A.I. art as a potential great tool for idea planning and creating references. Also, I believe that human artists will always have the advantage of being able to tell emotional stories with their art in ways that will make it very difficult for an a.i. program to convey from just using random images.
My only main concern is the potential of actual artists losing major opportunities due to bigger companies seeing an incentive to only invest in A.I. art. But as others have mentioned, I think these concerns can be mitigated if the right regulations are put in place to protect human artists over a.I. programs.
I honestly see a craze even bigger then the nft craze of last year. Selling premium prompts that are extremely obscure but makes something beautiful. New channels popping up of guessing games of what is the missing part of the prompt.
With widespread adoption, people will just be using AI to generate the art hanging in their homes. This seems to be one of the most obvious outcomes, but rarely gets expressed. They will enter text, and think, wow that really looks cool........print, and frame. Also, online art markets are going to be absolutely saturated in fairly short order for those who are interested in the possibility of selling such AI generated works. I have totally mixed feelings and have been working with Midjourney for over a month. One limitation I've put on myself is I don't ever use artists names in my prompts, and think that contemporary artists should be protected from explicit use in prompts. Best of luck to all of us.
Except thats not how it would be use. By corporation and opportunist
@@flickwtchr people already do that with google images, I remember many of my friends in middle school who will print an anime art and put it on their wall
The thing is that the AI doesn't work that way. It doesn't create a collage out of pre-existing images.
Just like artists it learned the concepts of drawing art (e.g. color theory) and even understand what real life objects look like.
AIs like this are possible due to the creation of GPT-3 and similar.
If your job is about interacting with a computer your job will likely be gone before 2040.
The truly scary thing about AI is not how fast it is at working, how cheap it is or what it can do.
The truly scary thing is how fast it learns. AI art gets better by about 30% every 6 months.
That means better at understanding prompts, better at creating images fitting the prompt, less flawed imagesa and better looking images.
If this trend continues AI art will be 5 times better than it is now in 2025 it will be 5 times better than it is now.
At 2030 it will be 66 times better at 2050 it will be 2403409 times better etc.
We will never learn faster than AI so getting a new job is unrealistic - this is the beginning of the end of human work except for maybe burger flipping.
I think it’s perfectly fine as long as you’re not using it to win competitions or claiming the art as something you yourself drew. I’m not even a good artist, but I can imagine the pain of spending so much time on something just to be beat by someone who spent a few minutes typing in some words. It shouldn’t be used in competitions unless it’s against the other AI and there are no people who spend time and effort into their work there, that would just be unfair to the artists.
Yk it was used to win a competition
@@ossie_3733 Yeah, but that was a very controversial situation and many artists are denouncing the judge's decision to uphold the results.
@@coffeewolfproductions9113 the judge deserves it lol
@@liviwaslost I agree, I don't think its fair to the other competitors at all
@@coffeewolfproductions9113 yeah, I would be pissed if something like that happened to me. It’s literally just tracing but even lazier.
as an artist myself, i hated the idea of AI art stealing all my job oppurtunities away and making all my hard work become pointless. watching this video gave me a different perspective though, and i really hope this stuff becomes properly regulated so i'll still be able to earn money doing what i wanna do, while also letting people enjoy AI art at the same time.
Gonna be tough tho. My editor kicked 3 illustrators because the company will replace them with AI art. Is one of the biggest publisher house in the world.
i believe it will eventually be regulated, but the code is most likely already distributed so we will see pirated AI art generators around
@@odenkaz I do wonder how one would be able to regulate it without gimping the tech in unnecessary ways, or potentially problematic ways. It is an avenue that definitely needs care - too far in one extreme, and we have nothing effective, too much in the other extreme and we have the kind of bullshittery that comes with the movie, music, and software industries lobbying the govt to amend copyright laws.
@@DanknDerpyGamer i don't have the answer to that, but all I know that sooner or later it's gonna get regulated. if it isn't regulated then RIP digital artists
@@DanknDerpyGamer The only way it could be regulated is to force media companies to hire digital artists instead of using AI generation (which definitely could be done I think). Other than that, it's literally impossible to regulate the AI generation models themselves, and its certain that they will only get better and better in the future.
I feel like ai art has its uses, such as for concept art and inspiration, but should never replace real artists
But it will.
Is doing it. My editor kicked out 3 illustrators from his company because theyll use AI. Is happening
@@Jennifahh I know people who were comisssioned for things like indie album covers and designing characters to illustrate fan-fiction with original main characters. And they were just dropped from some of those.
@@TheVellure It is sad. It truly is. As much as I like AI i believe it will let ppl without their jobs and isnt fair. And I believe with time every art branch is going to have AI (music, writing etc) is kinda dark.
it will not replace concept art/design currently, that requires a whole different skillset than just making an image look pretty (which is what ai currently does best), most things labeled as "concept art" online are just rendered out pretty promotion pieces for art books or advertising.
I don't hate ai art but I am slightly bitter from personal experience. I had a project for school that stated every week we had to make something that followed the flow or prompt of that week's lesson. We were allowed to do this in many ways, like an essay or a song, I chose to make art. I got a passing grade for my art which made me disappointed but it is what it is, but what hurt me was when this ai art thing started showing up in the news my friends mentioned that they used it for their projects and got a perfect score and that freaking hurt. I put a lot of effort into my work and made some stuff that I genuinely find beautiful but they just typed stuff out on a generator and got a perfect score. So yeah I'm a bit bitter and it made me feel insecure for a good while
I am sure they did stuff other then just the prompt, as the AI makes a lot of clear errors. It can help fix it's own errors but it won't do it if you only just using the typing aspect of it. Though it does feel a bit unfair, never had to deal with anything of that level but in school often these with better tools have easier acess to better grades. Like in my math class even though my classmates also put the effort into solving the math because they had a more advance version of a texas instruments calculator they had an easier time then me, and were less error prone. Though often the calculators were just preprogrammed to do it for them with out the teacher knowing better, and I with my more basic version had more limited options (and for a while because I did not want my family spending money on me, I did not even have a TI calculator to help me, at least during tests was often given one to borrow). Well on the upside you got more practice then your classmates.
If the teacher was aware that such AI generated art was being entered, at the very least the teacher should have addressed the many issues associated with it. You were right to feel that way. It's one thing for the teacher to at least acknowledge the difference and still allow it, but it sounds like even that didn't occur.
The future is now!
AI art has its uses. That ain't one of them, in my opinion - or shouldn't be, rather. I'm all for using AI art to create character concepts and for inspiration. As a non-artist myself, I love AI art, as it allows me to bring my thoughts to 'life', as it were... and, with new character concepts in hand, I can then use said concepts to commission artists.
(Maybe I just haven't learned how yet, but one failing of AI art I've found is an apparent lack of character repetition. Found a character whose design you absolutely adore? Good luck getting the AI art to replicate the exact design in different poses. From what I've tried, there are always various differences. An artist, on the other hand, CAN replicate the character if they have a point of reference.)
I'm sorry to hear you only received a passing grade for the work you actually put in. It irritates me that some people are using AI art to effectively invalidate artists - and is honestly one of the reasons, even with me now using AI art, that I continue to support artists via commissions. Much love to you for following your artistic passions. ^^
You realize this has nothing to do with the technology itself, but everything to do with how your school system works, right...
Being an artist takes effort. Writing words into an algorithm takes significantly less effort.
Excatly and then just editing it?? Like you didn't even create it you just typed in some words
Fr I don't get how the guy won the art contest when all he did was tell the ai generator to do it like what about the other artists that actually drew theirs ???
Right? This is an insult to artists and the hard work they go through. Artists already have it hard why make something that makes it worse?
In the words of Ian Malcolm, "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether not they could make it they didn't stop long enough to think of they should!"
here is my poem, i hope it may cause you to edit
writing words is an art in itself, how do you not get it?
crticizing ai in this way does not lend you much credit
and what of photography, where all you do is snap it?
And a dude just typed some words and won $300. This is ridiculous.
As a digital artist myself, coming from a family and community of non-artists, i had plenty of tedious explanations about how digital art is real art, something that requires a lot of effort, because I don't just say "computer, draw me a magical unicorn destroying a skyscraper" and whatnot, and have my drawing software do all the work for me. Kind of ironic.
For me personally however art is not so much about the result as it is about the process. Oftentimes i start a piece with an idea in mind, and as hours pass, i end up finishing a completely different piece. The magic of the artistic process is not being able to predict what you will end up with in the end. Or take doodling. When you just let your hand move on its own, it creates things that you couldn't ever have planned with your conscious mind.
Pure AI art doesn't have process. It's instant, it's based on that one prompt that you punch in, you don't have a chance to really sit down with it, spend some time thinking whether this or that will work and if the idea is good in the first place. imo it just ain't right.
As a tool - yes, be my guest. But not for those snobby non-artists who would then come at artists and say "well, art is easy and quick!" It isn't. Real art isn't.
My dad is an artist (not professionally, but he is one), he tried to teach me to draw since I was 8, then because I got interested, I tried learning on my own, I never was able to. In spite of every advice, every hour spent training.
When this came, I was lucky enough to learn at the same time that your prompt matters a lot.
" Draw me a magical unicorn " wouldn't draw you a magical unicorn.
I had to spend more than 2 hours writing prompts to get the correct result. And sometimes, in the exact same way, I ended up making something entirely different from what I had originally planned.
When writing a novel, you let the words flow through your mind, guiding you in the direction that would make the most sense for the story. When writing with the help of an AI, you let the words flow through your mind, letting the AI guide you into the direction *you* want to take. When writing a prompt, you let the words flow through your mind, letting the images guide you towards something you'd like to have.
In all those cases, the creative process is still there.
Where is isn't is : " taking a story, doing visible editing to make it look slightly different ", "typing one word and letting the Ai write the whole story, fixing some grammar mistakes only when you feel like it ", " using an artpiece, changing the colors to make it look slightly different", " typing the word 'magical unicorn destroying a skyscraper' because you thought that'd look cool, getting an image of a house being blown up with no unicorn in sight and calling it a day. "
Maybe I commented to much under this video, I just want people to know the actual process behind all this. At least, for me, it's not "quick and easy".
My best advice would be to try it for yourself, like really dedicate a multiple days, even a week to making good artpiece you're satisfied with, using only the AI and, eventually, an editing software like photoshop.
Now i want art of a magical unicorn destroying a skyscraper
True, now that I think about it IA art is what (generally) people think what digital art is, but now that they can actually make art pieces with it they don’t care about the ethical or moral problems about it haha😭
I think ai should be more of a tool for artists. Like for an example, let’s say you need to make a sci fi planet background and need inspiration. Mashing Jupiter and other planets to make an atmosphere is cool and helpful, but the skill and drawing should come from you. Lmao sorry if I worded it weird. :3 💛
The AI should only use images that aren’t copyrighted.
@@liviwaslost *are. I want to see them get sued by Nintendo for not using my things.
@@liviwaslost I dont think you understand how this AI works
@@liviwaslost the final result will never get copyrighted as it is random, the only thing that you can stop is the creator of that art specifically doesnt allow their art to be fed into the data.
But that spoils the fun of exploring what you are creating. Maybe if you are in a hurry and need to get something done you can use AI to conceptualize an idea for you (which is ironic). Otherwise, yeah, it ruins the fun and what comes out as your final work isn't true, especially if you use the AI's work as a base.
This is very off topic but i love all of ur drawings their absolutely beautiful and stunning, ur so talented
Thank youu 🌟
I’m in the art community and as much as I personally like ai art websites like dall-e mini when they are simply used for jokes and funnys but I hate it when its used to imitate other peoples work. Specifically artists, big and small, spending hours on a piece just for an ai to remake it in a matter of minutes. Like its just such a sad form of art theft and when it starts to actually threaten artists’ jobs is when it scares me.
I think the idea that art styles can't be stolen only applies to humans. Machines aren't "inspired" so it's not a case of them just really liking the art style, or liking the same thing that the original artist likes, resulting in similar styles. A machine *can* perfectly replicate a style, even if it's maybe not that advanced yet.
yeah and ive noticed a lot of people in the comments saying “AI art isnt THAT serious, it still messes up things” but what happens when it finally doesnt? or when it does, but it is highly insignificant and hard to notice even by a keen eye? 👁️
@@junyaiwase my fear exactly
I really hope a balance can be found.
I had mentionned in my comment on the poll that it could definitely be used for references and such, like you also mentionned in your video.
However I am still weary of companies abusing AI art to avoid paying human made art.
You could say my opinion is the same as before watching, seeing I wasn't too far off on some of the articles and mentions you brought up.
I don’t see anything wrong with the concept of AI generated art, but what I do think is wrong is comparing those artwork with art actual people have spent so much time making themselves without simply writing word prompts on a keyboard. While the AI using people’s actual art to make its generated art does rub me the wrong way, what does really worry me is how this will affect artists and how AI art might be relied on more than artists due to the money side of things. I’m an artist myself and I might not make money off my art because it’s something I do for my own enjoyment and don’t want to take the fun out of it by making it my job (not saying it can’t be fun for some other people, but it wouldn’t be for me), but I can see how that issue could drastically change artists’ income in the next years. And another thing I haven’t seen mentioned as much, is how people have been claiming to have made the art when it was AI generated and not genuinely made by that person; they wrote down a prompt and the bot made the art for them, they didn’t make it with their own hands. Yes, they wrote down the idea but to me it’s the equivalent to commissioning someone a specific artwork then claiming they’ve made it because they came up with the idea. It obviously isn’t the same, but I think that’s a good comparison.
When everyone has their own Commissoner....
I believe artists should have the option to opt out for sure. There could also be a way for artist to upload their copyright own images to be deleted from the AI's database. I'm not sure how that would work, but this could help with the AI copying art styles directly.
I think the most direct and effective way to protect contemporary artists would be to simply prohibit the use of their names as a style guide in a prompt. I use MJ and I never use the names of artists, especially contemporary artists in prompts. I just don't think it's right on ethical grounds.
That would only definitively work prior to training since the AI does not have an internal database of images during inference time, just a bunch of function parameters. As the other guy said, the closest you could get would be to prevent the names being used on the front end, but there would undoubtedly be ways to circumvent that, especially for open source models.
@@flickwtchr - but what if there are two artists with the same name? One doesn't want their name used....and the other does? Also...how would you enforce such a ban?
If they don't want anything learning to replicate their art, then they shouldn't post it. That's the only solution, really. Because that's all AI does. It looks at thousands of images, learns "ok, this is what that kind of thing looks like" and then generates images based on those patterns.... Which isn't any different from what people do or can do. Anyone can see an artist and make something immigrating their style. Hell, that's what the process of animation often is. But no one asks if it's ok for John Smith to draw something that looks straight out of Naruto, because everyone knows that it'd be ridiculous to say he can't.
@@OtakuNoShitpost - right. But the haters get mad because if the ease in which you can immigrate the style of someone else. Their thinking is that at least there is a natural learning curve barrier that keeps new competition out with the old model. You do have to spend a huge amount of time learning to draw and shade to even be able to imitate another artist. With AI you just need to have enough money to be able to access a computer know how to read and write. That’s about it.
So it’s really a concern about gate keeping. For years the artist community relied on the learning curve (and people’s natural aversion to tackling it for a couple of years) to keep the competition OUT. Now in what amounts to six months that security has been taken from them.
I don’t think they have much to worry about. Most of the stuff I see being made…nobody would pay for. It’s just a novelty for 99.99% of people out there tinkering with it. And when the novelty wears off…they are going to stop messing with it.
As a digital artist, I was really scared of this and I still kinda am. I really hope this doesn’t end up bad for artist. I want to use this ai art and try to make something inspired off the image I get from the promt.
I think this new programming could be a good art tool for artists, as long as it’s not used against artists and their careers.
It will be used against artist careers, at least industrialy
It will replace artists.
Better than dealing with furry artists.
It will and its totally doing it right know why you think artist are so livid? You cant be an artist as a career anymore unless you have heavy connections in a company. Now artist is a side gimmik since you at best will get a commision per month now.
As an artist myself I personally do not mind the use of Ai art. I have a passion for drawing all day, everyday. As long as I can keep doing what I love and sharing to the world what I have to offer, I think that speaks for itself. Ai art may be the future yes, but it will never capture the true essences of what a human can do better. Subtle hints or little fun easter eggs can be drawn within the art of an art piece that can surely tell a whole story all on its own. Something I do not think an Ai is capable of doing all on its own.
And it never will. Because AI doesn't have what we humans have - ingenuity.
Agreed with all your points thoroughly.
I personally have used AI art generators just to see what it would look like. I tried to make a human and i was then scared for life.
bro for real 💀shit be looking like something straight outta dark souls
@@sauzy0 HELP, exactly
The fact that you have to write a prompt instead of.. you know... actually doing the art itself should be enough for people to understand that it's not the same. I agree with the end conclusion, you can use it for reference, funny stuff and even "art" for yourself as long as you're not trying to pass it off as your own marketable art or calling yourself an artist because you can type a couple words.
So because the process is different it takes no skill? It's not much different to photoshop actually. Instead of a slider it's words so to imply it takes no skill is kind of dumb. If you want film grain you can add it and specify an amount. That is directly adding a filter in a different way.
The camera takes no skill then? You are just pointing it at something and pressing one button.
I think it’s highly fascinating truely, but it feels like it’s going to end up replacing artist jobs. Watching you use the ai program to see amazing art was really cool. If anything I think the computer is taking as many references as it can and makes one piece of artwork with it. And as an artist myself I do the same. If there is an eye style I like, I attempt to draw it on my own and maybe add a splash of what I think would look cool for the eyes as well. So would that make me a copier? It takes in enough information from the whole world and combines it for its own unique style.
I agree, but if you prompt the AI with “an image in the style of _ (some artists name)” it won’t create a new style, but the same style as that artist (if it’s work appeared in the training data). A style can’t be copyrighted, but I get it seems unfair to artists because it’s their style and people won’t have to pay artists anymore to get that style. At the same time I think AI is fascinating and will benefit us all, unless…
its not the same as human taking reference because its mashing up existing artworks and photos. So if you don't feed it anything new - nothing new will be created. Everyone see reality we live in diffrently and it shows in the artworks.
@@Akaynonek And this is why real Art is important - but also not a reason to stop AI art.
That kind of reminds me of the discussion in the sculpting community when 3D printers got introduced. Like, yes, I know it takes skills and huge effort to design your figurines in a program but it's not "handmade". I'm glad we can all benefit from different tools, my only concern is that people who consume social media content might think that I, who still does things by hand, will be able to achieve the same perfectly smooth and detailed work like an artist who mainly prints.
maybe we will sell videos of people sculpting rather than sculpting itself in the future. The future is wild, like that documentary.
@@dibbidydoo4318 scultping tutorial videos and courses already exist so.... ;)
@@gpgp1841 I mean a video of specific artwork. Like a video of Pablo Picasso painting Guernica would be worth more than Guernica itself kind of deal. Artworks can be generated, but an artists painting or sculpting it can't.
You know, someone made the model, but with AI it's different
@@dibbidydoo4318 you're right. I mean, again, I see sculptist and doll makers selling very cool photos of their creations (so it's a tiny bit what you're saying) but in no means it's worth more than the original thing.
Human ingenuity and creativity is the true commodity, if humans stop making art AI will have nothing to mimic.
I remember listening to a horror stoy podcast that used this as a theme. The main character in it was hyped to try and take AI tech in new directions and wasn't thinking about how it might be abused. (Then the program he made started doing things it wasn't supposed to do and he had a bad time) (for anyone interested, it was from Redwood Bureau, it's like scp, but if the organization was only in it for personal gain)
I hadn’t ever thought of this side of AI art!! I enjoy creating art and I find it crazy that I never thought of that. I think that maybe to submit into art competitions, there must be proof like a speed paint, paint palette, materials, ect. I also think that, if AI art is made, they cannot be using non-consenting artist’s work and have to have a link of the creation’s sources. I think that AI IMAGE creators are great! Especially for reference, but making AI ART generators doesn’t sit entirely right with me
I personally absolutely hate ai art... It makes me So sad that i had to learn all of the art skills for So long for nothing. It makes my art feel replaceable and i regret studying art
Well as someone who actually is starting to get into art because of AI, it is actually less advance in many ways then it seems at first. It needs a lot of help from the user if you actually want to make a presentable picture. However if your able to and willing to put your skills into use you can likely make some cool and fairly original end results. If for nothing else I would say it is worth trying just to at least have some fun with stuff that would be too silly to put time into drawing normally. Like making pictures of your family members underwater basket knitting, or your pet dog working an office job.
Hey, I commented something (admittedly quite long) on this video.
I had the opposite problem. I regret studying art because even with all that knowledge I wasn't able to draw anything really worthwhile. But everything I learned is used when I used AI. All of your skills would be useful for using it. And, as @asdf30111 said, it's less advanced than you think.
And, as I said to my friend, it may be able to do something in a certain style, but it can't do your art. It can't do the exact character I asked for if I had envisioned them in great details. Or it could, but it would require more work than commissioning an artist.
So you still have some doors open.
@@aencya "you still have SOME doors" oh thanks shena for not stealing my job completely, so nice of u
@@TheHuYao I am not a company, nor an AI and am not stealing jobs myself.
I used "some open doors" to not state that "all doors are open to you" which no matter the time or place would be false.
What I should have said is "at least some doors" because I don't know the full state of anything.
This was also a specific "you" adressing the OP directly. I didn't claim the same thing regarding the general state of the industry here.
same, i don't regret it but i hare ai art
I think AI art is a cool new tool, and I don't have a problem with it IF there are protections for traditional artist put in place.
Ya feels very wrong how people can just type something like "made by x" even though X 100% does not support their work being used. Even though if you would put even a tiny bit of effort the results will end up looking good either way, plus be more unique as your not pigeon holeing the AI into a certain look that every else is. Halve of the enjoyment is not know what the AI will pull out of it's latent space and adapting to what it gives you to work with. Like a unique backdrop is so much cooler for me then a backdrop that happens to look like someone elses painting.
It 100% takes more time, but even then still is quicker then doing things by hand. Plus people seem to forget you can use AI not just for regular art. You can use it for baking ideas by quickly running though looks, or room design. Like taking a picture of a room and changing the color of the wallpaper. Or to put your self into wacky pictures (you need a rtx 3090+ for the last one, but you can borrow gpu time and it comes at a bit less then a dollar to train a single new person into the AI).
I don't have any problems with ai art itself, i actually think it's super cool, but the art theft part you mentioned is not so cool. Also think that it should be compared to human-made art that took actual effort. Like you can't compare a painting to a picture because they're two different mediums that require different skills. Making actual handmade art takes a ton of time and practice, while making ai art takes like... the ability to type?? I guess?? Learning how to type is arguably much easier than learning how to make good art.
I feel like it would be a lot better if there was like an option to remove your art from the ai's library or something? But then you'd have to be able to prove that the art is yours which is a whole nother process so idk
I'm an artist and I buy artists work for their style. Ai art can't copy the personality and style of a specific artist. So, I do not think it will take artists jobs over at all.
Capitalists will literally make anything to give them the excuse to Not give credit to real life artists
Faaaacts
How do you define capitalism? Because by the definition I am aware of it is one of the few systems that is based on ownership of real property (capital generating property i.e, "intellectual property") A non capitalist system would be something like the public commons or even stable diffusion ai which is open source, where no individual "owns" a piece.
Omg, it's the capitalists!!!!
Being a capitalist is the only way you can make a living being a artist lol cuz if ur comunist u have one of 3 jobs miner farmer laboror. Teaching police and entertainment are ushuly all up to the military historicly speaking. Also remember if ur we are comunists u dont get credit for ur art because its our art
On the topic of copyright, I think it should be illegal to sell AI art, but that it should be widely available for private personal use, like iPhone backgrounds. Reason being that it's essentially just photobashing but with none of the skill used by an artist to put everything together. So it should be allowed for inspiration and art drafts, or telling an artist the gist of what you want a commission to look like, but no one should be allowed to profit from it (so not in art contests either unless they're specifically ai art contests).
I also agree with what another commenter stated:
"Ultimately, the larger issue is of a legal nature. The pictures themselves may be fair-use, but the software itself is basically derived from art that the developers never obtained the license to. But as you say, it's basically impossible for artists to find out whether their art was included in the training data, and even harder still to prove it. In some cases, for art with a very unique style and subject matter, it may be possible to tell. There's plenty of examples of Al generated art where the original artist's water mark ends up being partially reproduced. Personally, I'd say that this somewhat refutes the argument of fair use."
@@DogsandPennies The watermarks and signatures are reproduced because they are easily learnable for the AI. They are the same over many images of an artists work. The rest of the images are much more diverse and won’t easily be copied by the AI. It approximates it, resulting in new non-copyrighted work. I absolutely agree this isn’t ethical though.
How would you police such a thing? Just use the honor system?
@@BrianReplies Apple sued a company because they used rounded squares in their design. Similar lawsuits are commonplace in the patent world. You can police anything as long as you have any dumb, yet legally supported, reason and money to pay lawyers. However, it depends on luck whether it will work out or not. This is more like a gamble to get extra cash using the government since government is the only company that can legally steal money from anyone in their jurisdiction. Companies avoid getting sued but make lawsuits of pretty much anything as well. You can also gamble and sue any AI company for using your work for any reason right now as long as you have lawyers. Welcome to the regulated honor system, the suing industry.
The A.I is not just blindly photobashed bunch of images from the internet. They're studying it. Like the colours, shape, pattern, etc then use all of that to generate the artwork.
It's gonna be hard to copyright those things.
I stand with any and all artists that are against A.I "art works"
down with the AI art thieves!
Don’t worry we taking your jobs
@@youtubedeletedmyaccountlma2263 bro you can have it!
@@MissDeadGuy Thanks brooo, Although my job title will still be the same while replacing your job 😂😂
@@youtubedeletedmyaccountlma2263 good to know you will have a decent job👍
I'm an artist myself, and I don't see how ai art "benefits people who can't create art", something I've seen get tossed around. Literally how??
Nobody is saying you can't start creating artwork. Literally no one is stopping you, pick up a damn pencil. "But I can't draw!!!" Yeah, neither could I. We ALL had to work hard to get where we are. If you're an "artist" who only relies on AI, I have my opinions and won't stop you, but my respect for you will never be the same as my respect for actual artists.
100% yeah! They just mean this AI skips all the hard work and effort, spare me the, "but it takes effort to make the prompt do what you want" line. It's like cheating on a test. You get great (?) results, but you didn't build that. AI art generators are standing on the blood, sweat, tears, and SOULS of creative Humans. How many wonderful future artists will not even start art now?How many will give up? The world will miss out. But hey, we'll have billions of images directed by everyone, so who cares, I guess.
I started drawing at 4-5 years old. I haven't made art my career, but creating art made me feel like I was worthwhile, it was a safe outlet for the inner me. The last 8 or so years I've been suffering terrible art block due to life happenings.
Hey, I'm just starting to get into making music! *AI TAKES OVER MUSIC TOO* Well, Sh*t. :/
Sorry, that got a bit long. I need to stop even looking at any of these AI videos, they make me so upset. It's like a loved one has died, and people who didn't know creating art are just going, "oh well, get over it." I know it is here to stay.
I’m in the art community and I don’t hate ai art, at least if it’s only used for fun and doesn’t take over artists’ jobs n stuff
Yep yep! It’s helpful for stuff like making textures for games, for fun drawing challenges or just to type something funny and show your friends.
I dont get how people dont get how dangerous it is for artists jobs. You cant have it exist and not expect it to put artists out of work
@@tfp7432 That’s kinda what I said in my comment, it’s alright as long as people aren’t using AI art to take over artists jobs. For fun it’s okay but I agree otherwise that AI art might cause some trouble along the line
to be perfectly honest, saying that AI art is gonna put artists out of a job is like saying Squarespace is gonna put web developers out of a job. It's never going to happen in our lifetime because machines that can deliver an extremely high level of customization are still decades upon decades away from us. Will it replace some roles or be used by people who want art on a budget? Yes. Are most companies and businesses suddenly going to fire their art teams for AI art. Nope. Will it take away commissions from artists with unique and cool art styles? Not at all.
The only real issue is the ethical issue of using artists work without consent as training data. As someone who's doing their thesis on machine learning, consent in data collection for training data is the bare minimum a responsible programmer should do (this is different from referencing art because in machine learning, each instance of training data has a direct effect on the output. Where as referencing allows you to create your interpretation of the reference that is still ultimately your own). Unfortunately most people promoting AI art don't seem to understand consent, or try to wave it of as something people are needlessly getting mad about.
Didn't someone use ai art to win an art competition ,he didn't break the rules as it was a digital art competition but other people weren't happy
I’m a professional storyboard artist and I was putting a pitch together and had bad time finding good artists to hire. The Ai is good for putting together presentations and logos etc. that you don’t claim as your own. But I think people shouldn’t be charging to do this or claim thee drew it.
But I’m sure this will be misused as well.
I've seen a video about animators who had been using AI to create an animation by using the animators' videos (of them acting) as reference which the AI will then blur then trace over to create the animation. As an aspiring cartoonist, it has it's flaws (e.g. sometimes parts of the drawings would go out of place) but it seemed interesting & it doesn't involve stealing other people's artwork/animations (which I appreciate for obvious reasons).
Hi thumin!!! So glad to see a vid of urs! Anyway, I love ur content so much. The topics u talk about hit close to home, especially when u talk about racism. My mom and her side of the family get racial comments to her face all the time. Growing up I saw this happening and they would give her weird looks. I hated it! My mom is Mexican and Puerto Rican. I look white af so I've never experienced this to me. I'm very empethetic tho so when it happens to my family I get really sad and angry even if they brush it off. Tysm for talking about the topics!!
I have to deal with a lot of racism too, as an Asian-American.
It sucks, but it makes us all stronger in the end. Like any sort of exercise.
I love her content too! ^^
I’m glad to know that I’m never the only one who’s going through something like it.
@@down-like-the-tower I hope racism stops very shortly! It makes me really sad to know that people have to deal with that. I look white because my dad was super white and Irish. I have been told racial comments to me about my family. I hate it but I'm glad racism has gone down by a lot over hundreds of years. My great grandpa made a book when he was seventy talking about his grand parents being slaves. Its sounds terrible 😔. I hope you and others don't have to deal with it shortly!!! All the love and hugs!!
@@BananaBByt yes! Thank you, it means a lot.
I also hope that POC children don’t have to go through what a lot of adults and teens like them had to go through. It’s not fair.
i just hate it when people just yank an AI's art and be like, "Yup! i made this masterpiece!" like bitch do you want to start the Robot Uprising?
detroit become human but the robots just want credit
@@fxlthyfool2815 that would be so sad yet funny XD
im an artist...and i haven't heard of this actually....but that must suck how some artist's think that ai's are making it so the artist's can't make art without having to deal with an ai that is 10x better at making stuff then them
I can't believe that you're almost at 300k! That's amazing! Keep up the great work!
I love your art so much Thumin!!! If people don't think so, then they don't know what true beautiful art is.
The main point is that this only the start, when more research goes into this only get scary.
One of the Ai models has the ability to be trained on you're own images and unlike the deepfaked videos it only require a few images like 5 or more to create images of a specific persons face (nsfw fakes?)
There's slowly gonna be a tribal community of people calling themselves "Artists" because the use Ai image generation.
One of the AI Art reddit was a post memeing on an artist who didn't want his work in Ai modles but became one of the most used artist prompt.
Its also interesting the since Sable Diffusion is open source it's gonna be hard to police specially when we can train our on Ai models.
I think of the programs had the ability to nudge the Ai to a specific style of subject matter and there's the possibility of Ai models trained on narrow datasets like a specific art's or group of artists.
I was afraid of AI art but when I think about it, AI art is just a place for you to get either a painting or just something funny to look at and that's just that, AI art need persons art to in order to generate a "art" piece so it technically need artists in order to work. Plus AI art can't take away Manga Artist or Comic Artist because those individuals are what makes a Manga or Comic real, emotional and all that.
We have more then enaugh art to train an AI to do most things.
When it comes to manga , comics i agree whit you. Something that requaires spesifisity will most likely need at least some humans in the loop.
Anything that needs to be sharp or diferent is something ai cant do due to its inherit limitations and saying otherwise is the same as saying 2+2=6.
I agree with those who say that A.I Art should be used as a tool. It can be very useful to get those Ideas out there you know? I also agree that it will be a big help for those who are disabled and can not perform certain actions to make their art; it is not a problem for Art be become an easy activity for all to enjoy.
But I also agree with Thumin that those Corporate Bastards are definitely going to abuse the sh*t out of A.I art and cause a whole Landslide of issues since they are greedy, cheap, and just plain souless.
I also agree that A.I Art is not real art, but again, is a tool for art to help make more art and, again, should be used as such.
I think that using AI generated art as a prompt, reference or concept is a cool idea, and defiantly can help along creative process, but in the case of it being used to replace real artists, that just seems scummy and a way to scam people out of paying for their hard work and years of practice
i heavily agree with this video!! smth i dont think you mentioned though, which i personally have a problem with, are people calling themselves "ai artists" for inputting words into a program.
yes, what comes out *is* art, but its art made by the ai, not you. with that logic you could call yourself an artist for commissioning someone for an art piece because you gave them the prompt/description of what you wanted the finished output to look like.
i feel like it's going to be helpful for artists when wanting to have a clearer vision of their ideas for an art piece, like if you're struggling to envision your great idea, it could help to stabilize it a bit. Also think the composition of AI works are sooo pleasant to look at! what i am trying to say is that AI artwork should be used as a tool meant to go hand in hand with artists, rather than an art medium.
ai art is great and all but the bad thing is someone can just become a famous artist by ai and people who worked hard to make themselfs better at art will just have wasted there time and no job would take em cause its eiser to just use ai
one of my classmates was talking abt the ai that won the art contest, hes a computer guy and he found it pretty neat, as an artist myself i tried to explain our side and i think he got it
it made more sense when he explained the context was for new forms of art but i still think a discord bot should not have gotten first place on a fucking art competition
AI can be benficial to artists when it comes to generating ideas for their own work sometimes. But overall AI created by artists or non-artists should not be put in competitions or passed of as real art.
What makes makes Ai art not "real art"?
@@minmax5 I don’t know anything about Ai art, I don’t have an opinion about ai art being real art or not, but from what I’ve seen from people with an opinion on it, it’s because it’s not created by a real person, and it is fairly easy to get the art, while non-ai art, you have to learn how to do it for years. Sorry if this doesn't make sense enx
@@Poop-le9sb I agree that you have accurately assessed and presented an aspect of the reasoning which many people hold in opposing Ai art as "real" art. But, as you can see by the conversation above, this standard is not held consistently. Nor is it even necessarily true that creating Ai art takes less effort either in the learning process or execution when compared to other forms of art which are seen as legitimate by these same people.
I would also contest the idea that Ai art is "not made a real person", we could just as easily say that photographs are not made by real people.
But yes your comment totally does make sense, thank you for your contribution to the conversation!
@@Poop-le9sb Oh god I thought this was in a different thread, ignore my allusions to "conhversation above" my apologies.
@@minmax5 The fact that ot wasn't Made By a person
For years people have said that digital art is not real art, as if it doesn't take a long time to learn how to do and get good at just like any other art form.. They are under the impression that digital artwork just takes a few click of the button and you create a masterpiece........ Well I guess these A.I. art generators are proving these people right arn't they!? I guess all it takes to create digital art IS just a click of a button.... Guess us digital artists were wrong all along
From experimentation, it's simply not there yet. It's perhaps at a point where the output is "good enough", maybe even good quality with a minor touch up by actual artists to clean up imperfections. But the process is largely hit-and-miss. For each picture posted on social media, there have likely been dozens of pictures that did not make the cut. But ultimately, the larger issue is of a legal nature. The pictures themselves may be fair-use, but the software itself is basically derived from art that the developers never obtained the license to. But as you say, it's basically impossible for artists to find out whether their art was included in the training data, and even harder still to prove it. In some cases, for art with a very unique style and subject matter, it may be possible to tell. There's plenty of examples of AI generated art where the original artist's water mark ends up being partially reproduced. Personally, I'd say that this somewhat refutes the argument of fair use.
People are always using others’ artworks to train, I don’t see the issue with A.I. doing the same. Copying the watermark however is a different story.
@@noobatredstone3001 Training the AI on other artists' work without crediting them is exactly the problem here. In some models, you'll find a disclaimer akin to "trained on a database of pictures from x", so zero credit given there. Some platforms appear to work on an opt-out system, but again it's difficult for artists to verify whether their art was used in training. An opt-in system would be unproblematic, but undesirable for obvious reasons.
The transformative aspect is why I mentioned the partial reproduction of signatures. Obtaining anything close to a recognizable signature is a sign of overfitting, and puts into question whether the generated output is really sufficiently different from the original works to stand on its own merit.
Ultimately, I've come to understand that some artists recognize the potential of AI as a source for reference material and inspiration. It does that job quite well, too. However, the matter of copyright is an entirely different beast.
As things stand, I see platforms which monetize models derived from unlicensed and uncredited art as the more pertinent problem.
@@Masterspam1 To the A.I., the watermark is just another trait that connects the presented pictures. It will struggle to differentiate style from watermark. Aside from the watermark though, it is creating a new piece. The situation ressembles requesting an artist to draw something in the style of tarot cards for example.
I’ve never seen AI “art” that didn’t look uncanny. To non-artists and others with an untrained eye it’s pretty,I do like the use of color,but it just looks fake because it’s taken from a non-definite thing,artwork.
AI learns that people render their artwork,but it doesn’t know how to render it in a comfortable looking way. It’s combining unrealistic and realistic rendering styles which makes it creepy.
i think it would make less of a prolems if the ai art have a gigantic watermark in the middle indicating that it was made by an ai and not them
cause it would make both good for artist and stopping people from abusing it saying its "theirs"
Omg Hiiii! I don't hate AI art, I'm not that worried cause it kinda sucks? And nobody makes better professional job than artists themselves. There are things that just can't be recreated. I myself use AI art for fun!
Honestly what surprises me the most is how people who defend it can't tell it apart from actual art
It's like the artistic version of an uncanny valley where it almost looks good but there's always something wrong
I miss the days when people understood that it was weird and ugly but liked it regardless rather than trying to prop it up as the next big thing
Except it's gonna keep improving :/
@@DogsandPennies yes but there's a skill ceiling, especially with the method they are using
The ai isn't learning anything, it's just grabbing what has already been made, putting that into a blender and filtering the worst results out
If they switch methods and try to teach the ai how to understand anatomy and color theory instead of giving it a set of parameters and pictures to combine then it might create something of value but right now we're pretty safe
@@airplanes_aren.t_real you know what that's true. Thank you for telling me this!
@@airplanes_aren.t_real but the method they are using is a denoising diffusion, it can't grab anything. Grabing and filtering stuff would actually be more difficult to do for an AI. Think of something on the level of brain of an insect like a bee (or likely actually weaker), if anything it is impressive how much it can do while being relatively simple, and because it is relatively tiny and is currently not really slowing down yet it is not that close to a skill ceiling.
i feel like art made by a real human is lovely, and i think ai could never compete with art made by a human. i don’t have any fear.
If it isn't created by a human or at least a living being i wouldn't call it "art", it's just a image
@@cameram-guy8684 it’s a cheap imitation masquerading as something grand.
Yeah it can’t compete with human art but wins an art competition.
@@ratiemand4529 i still believe it’ll never compete with art drawn by hand. i think it’s kinda silly that it won a competition, lol.
This is like saying AI would never beat Humans in Chess in the 1980s
one argument that I've heard on the topic of people who make ai art being considered artists is that they still need to get the prompt just right to get the ai to generate exactly what they have in their head, and that makes them an artist. I disagree, because the prompt itself is not the art. someone could give me a prompt and I could draw it, it's called a commission. the art does not belong to the person who told the ai what to do, just as the client cannot take credit for making an image that they payed an artist to make.
“And that makes them an artist” yeah but they’re not doing anything, they’re just typing. By that logic I don’t have the rights to any of my commissions because someone wrote down what they wanted.
I absolutely love the idea of AI art. It looks super beautiful and it could be used as a wonderful tool. But I dislike that they could copy an artist’s style. I know that AI art can never replace human art, especially when it comes to emotions, but I also understand why people are scared. Thinking about it, just a few years ago, I wouldn’t even dream that AI could do this. Technology evolves so quickly, and I think it’s wonderful, but it’s also… scary. If AI could do this today, think about what it can do in the future. What if it could perfectly create and mimic an artstyle for a person? What if it could memorize what a drawn character looks like and remake it perfectly in a new pose or setting? Think about animation as well. A lot of animators have been complaining about overworking and underpayment, but what if an AI learned how to animate perfectly? I’d honestly love if animators could catch a break, but I find possibilities like this a bit frightening, especially if it extends to, for example, a disney kids movie animated completely by AI. But what if AI could go farther than drawing, like writing its own book or or movie script. An AI now knows grammar and sentences , but what if it could perfect creating its own plotlines? And I’m sure the writing would be “flawless” if by a computer. And what about a different type of art, like for example, music. If AI can create pictures based on prompts and words, why not sounds? An AI would know probably every existing song in the world, and could use examples of already existing music to make its own music based on the vibes and types of lyrics you want. I already know AI programs that could make different voices, and I know it’s still a work in progress, but technology always improves, and then AI could make art and music to seem more emotional. There may be a lot of worrying things about AI for me and some other people, especially artists, but I still think AI is and has the potential to be a very wonderful tool that could help a lot of people. I just think that AI still has to have its limits and not cross the boundary of replacing people ❤️
I think AI art should be used as an assist. Like when you have a concept but it is hard to execute, you can get an idea from keywords and an image generated by a machine. But I don’t think it should be used to the extent of copying styles and even pieces that already exist, or replacing artists in their jobs. If the community can find a balance, I think this would benefit everyone.
Honestly as an artist, I'm embracing this new technology as a tool for inspiration and references I would never have otherwise. Though this will definitely bring more value to traditional artists like painters, something AI can never really replace. Will definitely be interesting.
Art style theft is a weird thing for me. Like, for the most part I don't think it's a big thing because people tend to take inspiration from other artists works and incorporate certain things into their own style. Every once in a while though I do see artists who have so wholely copied another artist's style that it's actually hard to tell that it's two different artists at first, and that's the thing that I can understand people being upset about style theft.
AI art is such a complicated thing for me right now. I can absolutely see how it can help artists with ideas and assist with pieces and it could be a wonderful tool.
I also see how it can be exploited by people and businesses who use that to cut costs and such instead of actually wanting to commission an artist. Especially with the gray area of some of these AI being able to do easily generate things in a style that is distinct to certain artists as well, when most of the time these artists didn't consent to their art being used in AIs.
I feel like there needs to be a way for current artists to opt in or out of commercial AIs and the like of being able to use their art in training, so that certain artists don't feel like their art is being used without their consent.
Separate categories for AI-made art and for human-made art in competitions and things like stock art purchasing would help out as well I feel, that way it doesn't feel like AI is intruding and pushing people out of art.
The problem is the fact that AI takes thousands of artworks from real artists and there is no credit whatsoever.
@@TerraVulture That's why I said there should be some sort of system for artists to opt in or out of having their artwork being used in these AI algorithms, so that at the very least it only uses art from artists who approved that theirs can be used
It's a whole complicated thing and I don't think AI is completely evil, but there does need to be a system so that artists are protected from their art being used if they don't consent to it
@@AshenDalia I don’t think it’s entirely evil as well, and I guess I missed that part somehow, but good to know we think alike!
@@TerraVulture Yeah yeah! I think it can be a great tool, but it just needs a system to protect artists who don't want to be part of it before I'm totally comfortable using it.
@@AshenDalia even if that system is already made. It's probably too late now since the training already started at 2015. When initially it was just annotations A.I to describe Images to people with poor eyesight.
I can actually see that your art gets better in every video! Keep going!
I am an art student, I personally use AI art when i have an art block to look for inspiration. But i can also see how it can discouraging too. i think it is how you use the app ..
I feel like with AI art you are using your imagination and creativity to come up with unique/ original prompts and essentially collaborating with the AI software to execute your vision. I think with some rules/ regulations it can be a beautiful art form.
Or most people will do what Thumin did and just copy others prompts. There's really no creativity there :/ (and again, the way it makes art is by stealing others art, it isn't actually making them from scratch itself).
@@DogsandPennies right and that’s why I mentioned having rules/ regulations to prevent plagiarism or copying other artists’ work
@@mimijae9154 oh I didn't realise that's what you meant by rules. ..however with no copying or plagiarism allowed how would ai art even work? It's entirely based on taking others art without permission
@@DogsandPennies maybe if the software takes references from real life images instead it would reduce the chances of it replicating or artist’s work? I’m not an expert on this but that’s just an idea I had it most likely won’t be easy to completely avoid plagiarism but that is a problem that exists within traditional art even with AI art being used.
@@mimijae9154 this issue is that if it took from irl photos the ai would look like real life. It has no artistic integrity of it's own (because it's a machine), which is why it needs to use others art and then simply mashes them together (hence why some images have peoples logos in them). It at the very least need to learn from other peoples art first, and given how that's always been done without artists permission, my hopes aren't high.
thumins videos are always relaxing bg noise
🥺💖
This is the end game of the nft/bitcoin saga
Since Ai art it inevitably gonna be apart of our lives from now on, I’m taking full advantage of it as an artist! It’s a great tool to figure out compositions, create pattern backgrounds for art, and color palettes, that’s the extent that I have used it in my own work.
Just dont complain if thats youre career and you dont make even a third of what you used to make anymore. For some freelancers that was a dead end and a LOT already quitted. Soon youll work will also be put in an AI and just be copied with some words
@@merfyn4838 Someone's angry. Ai art has provided even more room to be creative....
i think ai art is cool but it doesnt feel the same as hand made art
also ur art is so fricking beautiful
I don't hate AI art, but I hate when people uses this to shit on actual artist or uses AI for art in a contest against non AI art and winning money for it.
AI art can help certain people. Like me personally, I have trouble putting lighting and shadows in my art so AI art might help teach me for it because I can't understand with like RUclips videos or an article with pictures
I think AI art should be allowed to exist, but it NEEDS to be regulated because it's taking elements from multiple people's art without credit or payment. A potential solution I thought of was for artists to grant permission to their portfolio for these programs by signing up for it in exchange for royalties everytime their tag is used. That's easier said than done, but something like that is probably the best way to go about it for professional artwork. There should probably also be a royalty free equivalent that people can use for fun, similar to music, but I'm no expert on the topic.
That's not possible, since that's not how the AI works. When producing an image, 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 single art piece in the dataset has some influence on the final piece. But what is possible is to divide a portion of the AI's profits among artists who's art is included in the database (maybe you can composite artists who have their names used in the prompts more but that's about it). Also there can be no backsies if an artist changes their mind about having their art in the dataset because the AI is only trained on the dataset once (unless the AI is improved and thus has to be retrained again) because it is very expensive and once the AI is trained, what is in the dataset does not matter any more because what was in the dataset has already had an influence on the AI's brain (neural network) developed and it's impossible to undo that influence because how the AI's brain is wired becomes far too complicated for any human to understand them.
They did a similar thing for copyrighted works, so why can’t they do that with non-copyrighted works? If any other AI can take inspiration without using google, why can’t it?
@@kurapikakurta1997
1. "They did a similar thing for copyrighted works, so why can’t they do that with non-copyrighted works?"
This is a good question. These AI can't be trained on just open source material because current AI's need 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘵 of data to work off of (for example stable diffusion needs to be trained on over 2 billion images, or 6 times more images then there are on deviantart) I'm not sure if 2 billion open source images even exist. There are more specialized AI like novelAI that need a lot less but then the open source images also must be of a specific type. These AI need this much data because humans are very complicated and all of the small unnoticeable nuances that make something aesthetically pleasing or even just coherent to humans is also very complicated.
2. "If any other AI can take inspiration without using google, why can’t it?"
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. What other AI are you referring too? All machine learning AI need a lot of data to learn from. There are some like the Alphazero that don't need to learn from external sources but that's because it generates it's own data to learn from by playing 44 million chess games against itself so it can learn from it's own chess games but you can't really do that with an art AI because the AI needs to learn what astatically pleases humans.
@@wynnnova7706 let me clear my second topic up. I’m assuming each artwork the AI is inspired by is taken off of a google search, as we don’t have any evidence that most of them have only a certain few images in their databases. All of the research from other AI in fields other than art can be taken off of studies they didn’t pull off of google images or Wikipedia or anything similar, but rather off of studies that researchers allowed the developers of the programs to use (and in some cases- even did specific tests just for the program)
@@kurapikakurta1997 - your assumption is incorrect. Good was not involved. A non-profit organization used an army of computers to crawl the internet and build their own database. It's over 5 BILLION images large. It's free to use for anyone who wants to try their hand at making new AI software.
As someone who work in data field and also love drawing, the scene with AI "art" right now has more to do with data protection law and not just ethical reason.
We all know nowadays, company can use your info to feed to AI for multiple business usage. The problem with it is that some private info can be traced back to the owner's identity which expose the owner to multiple dangers. This is why data protection law was born, depend on the country that the gov either forbid company from harvesting "info that can trace back the identity" or the info havested has to be modified/decoded so that the identity cannot be exposed. The using of some info also need to be consent by the owner, just like how they put cookies everywhere and ask us to be consent of giving our info while surfing a website.
Now back to the artwork that was feed to the AI, obviously, no consent was given, plus art style or position can be traced back to the artist's identity which is against the data protection law.
Related to copyright laws, AI company are using your artwork to make money, from what i know there is a membership payment on midjourney, so yeah.
I hope that art community can reunite and hire a lawyer to take this to course.
being an artist takes so much perseverance, curiosity, creativity, and effort. the fact people are taking ai's and creating art without learning anything is just frustrating. maybe artists have fought hard battles to get where they are in their art, whether that was thru classes, art school, youtube videos, or just teaching yourself from life, learning to be better at your craft will always be hard. this goes for all craftsmen, even though we are all different.
the ai robot can recreate art from years ago and the person who claims it is theirs makes it even worse. multiple tv shows, graphic novels, movies, etc are mostly hand drawn at first, before using an ai to help animate, not create, animate. not only is this just detrimental to the artist's name, its flat out horrible. why would someone want to do such a thing? art is an artifact of culture, inspiration, and emotions. an ai will NEVER come close to recreating that.
in multiple studies, ai are tested to read human emotions or to try and recreate them however its always unsuccessful. art is meant to pull your heart, to bring emotions to you, to inspire you, yet people think an ai can accomplish that which spoiler alert, it can't. you can find artists who are BETTER than the ai because they can properly visualize a human emotion and create it. the ai machine isn't "art" what you're getting are google images.
This was honestly a great video, with a very balanced outlook and presentation of the subject, and I think you presented the information quite well! I, personally, as an artist, think it's kinda worrying that people so readily jump into the idea of it not being art. A lot of the definitions of art people who do that use would exclude very historically important art like Duchamp's readymades and his reappropriation of pop imagery, and I think we'd all be poorer for it. I do think the commercialization of AI artwork is concerning, though, and that having the option of being able to opt out of AI training sets is a really important thing. I agree with the person who pointed out it's like a paintbrush - a tool, that can be used for purposes good and nefarious.
I'd also like to really reinforce that I see a lot of the opposition come from the very persistent misconception that AI art is made out of the original images. It is not. To greatly simplify, the way the original artwork is used is to train the AI: it starts by adding varying amounts of noise to artwork and then removing it, through which it "observes" how the pixels tend to cluster in those paintings. To produce its images, it "de-noises" an image of randomly generated nonsense color noise in the way it would if that was an existent picture noised to all hell, and does that in steps until it gets an image. It does *not* modify the artwork of people for its output, it does not use specific images in the process, it does not mash them up. It "learns" in a rudimentary fashion and creates from what it "learned", which is why some people use the art style comparison. If one uses a generator that lets you see the process, you can actually see the algorithm start from color noise.
I wish I could like this twice, because you get it.
This makes me sad in sort way, I'm invested my time for two years to learn art, some art i make take hours of my day... And see a algorithm makes this, to me the worst see the '' Ai artist " talking bullsht about artists, literally the guys who never have courage to trying to learn art thinking now they're artists... Anyway, I'm frustrated for real.
I don't hate ai art because I see it as a tool
I hate it's usage, it's completely fine if an artist uses it for reference or someone tries to use it for fun but there are people out there with 0 artistic background claiming to be the new Picasso because they wrote 20 lines (half of which were the name of an artist/filter) on an algorithm
Also let's be honest, it's not going to take over artists, most of it looks ugly and anyone with an understanding of art beyond surface level can see the mistakes, it looks soulless because the algorithm has 0 intent or passion when drawing, it just grabs whatever pictures that link to the words and then print out the least ugly results of the meshed up photo
Example
0:10
Okay this looks pretty at first but then I ask you
Why is the circle fucked up?
How many people are there?
And most importantly
What does it mean?
It is just a denoiser, it can't grab any pictures. It has a lot more parameters then a regular denoiser, but nether less in many ways it is super simple. So simple that it can't even do something as simple as actually grabing a picture and linking to a word. Would be nice for vram usage but no matter what words you type you still end up having to use the whole model all at once. It also has no clue of what is least ugly, all it can do is attempt to denoise what it thinks is a noisy picture back into the orginal it can't even tell that the noise is just actually just random noise.
I feel like art is something you work on and put your creativity into something and if a computer makes it for you, you aren’t really doing art work
It I so outrageously funny that people are blaming the AI itself and not the AI user
i blame the corporations that stole the art of millions of artists without paying them for it.
I think it should have its own category when it comes to competitions. I'm surprised we haven't had conversations about AI art before hand, it was inevitably going to happen.
this remind when people in the past where like "ahhh the camera is gonna replace artist"
this is where art starts getting devalued, why would anyone give value to art if any random with no art skills with a computer can easily make it. It's sad :(
Ai can be such a nice tool to use to help artists in the long run but it shouldnt be dependant on 100%. The physical work that goes into pieces is what makes the artist and their art have this deep personal connection that typing in words into an algorithm just does not have. Typing in words doesnt really compete to the accomplishments of learning how light works or how the body bends. If art was truly meant for you then you wouldn't give up on it if your first piece isnt a masterpiece.
As a personal hobby yes as a career forguet it
I CANT BELIEVE UR GONNA HIT 300K NOW, I FIRST SUBBED TO U FROM THE BLACK EDITS DEBATE BACK IN 2020!!! ur content is enjoyable ❤❤❤
A voice synthesizer software user isn't a real singer, but it can still sound good in the right hands. Autotune is a tool that can be used to help musicians correct mistakes and make it easier. A professional singer is more flexible and sounds better than a vocaloid track, which is why in professional settings they use singers instead of Miku.
I wouldn’t say I hate AI art, but it still p1sses me off a small bit. Don’t get me wrong it can be f*cking hilarious at times but there’s people out here creating f*cking masterpieces and it’s so easy for someone with no actual talent to use an AI art generator and play it off like it’s theirs, even charge money for it.
I’m glad I learn something new. Never heard of AI art until today 😅
I think I have by Aki and anime man 🤔
AI art would technically give commission artists less money bc people would just make their own stuff, and then it could discourage other people from making art bc its like, “what’s the point of me doing this if AI can do it better”, so then less people will do art even if its their passion bc their art might not get noticed bc of all the AI art. I dont like the idea of having a robot make my art for me bc that takes the fun out of it, and i probably only think this way bc of the fact that i had stopped drawing for like years and only started drawing again recently, since actually drawing it myself brings me joy, I’d rather not let an AI do it for me.
Someone I was arguing about AI art with never really acknowledged the potential concerns about how it could be misused. They just rattled off platitudes about how it could be beneficial (which I didn't disagree with but come on!).
something i have figured out that helps me with my art, as well as lets ai art coexist, is visual novels. usually, visual novel backgrounds are hard to come up with and even draw if you arent experienced, but with ai art, generating a background is so easy, that you dont have to stress about having to draw a background if you arent confident in your scenery drawing abilities.
I hate AI art becase people can just make "art" without any work, that looks like it was made by someone with a lot of skill.
Well it can be used as a Tool but it can be obused So eazaly
i have a problem with some of the AI 'artists' not the bots themselves (hey, my pfp is a photo i took of me holding a plush frog i own put into a AI app thing) because i saw that whilst a streamer was doing some art (idk if it was a commission) on stream then someone too a screen shot of i think the line work, put it into a bot then had a completely finished piece. they posted it on twitter i think. but yeah- that streamer put hours upon hours into their finished piece and the other dude took him like a few seconds maybe a minute. but hey thats just my take
I feel like ai art can be used for good in terms of creating reference or concept art that the artist can use to improve their own work. For example, I'm currently working on sci fi comic and I am not good at backgrounds or transferring my mental image of the world I want onto the screen. I used Dall-e to generate a bunch of backgrounds and assets and it gave me a lot of ideas for the world I want.
I am by no means defending or condoning people using ai art to replace the hard work we artist have to go through and steal our jobs and hobbies. I'm just saying it can be used another tool for artists to improve their own work.
Exactly. We gotta find ways to use it in our favour. I'm not an artist but a writer and I abuse of AI because helps me to put all my ideas into images that i collect to have a better understanding of the atmosphere, characters and concept in general. I think is a great tool
Eugh...
I don't hate ai art, I've used it here and there for memes and it can be fun! But Im ngl, I'm terrified for what this means for artists. Because art is probably what I am best at! I've been building my art skills since I was able to hold a pencil.. so I'm certainly worried🥲
I'm also scared ai is gonna be everywhere in all forms of work... how are people supposed to make money anymore?
Honestly, you could use this for inspo. But this is problematic too.
Edit: I’m frickin scared
AI will never replace artists. That's just how it is.