ruclips.net/video/VnmQy0UMLtA/видео.html in this video it a prototype of this, it will be a long time until it evolve, but instead of be happy i fear for a lot of inbetweeners lose their jobs
I think there is also a problem that we are experiencing already without the AI: I'll call it content inflation. There is a reason many people think that the '80s were the best when it comes to entertainment. It was slow and expensive, but many of the things that were made back then have become an important piece of our culture, and still are today specifically because there weren't much of them, everything was important and remembered even today (that's why we only get reboots and remakes nowadays, because the studios know that this way the money is guaranteed). But if everyone will make new content every day, they will only have a very short window to become popular. Imagine a cinema, where you can see a new movie every day, but each of them will only be there for a single day. Nothing will become popular enough to grow into an important part of our culture, because there will be something else shiny and new next day. You can make literally the best movie to ever exist, and the few people who saw it will forget about it in a week. The same way as RUclips works, a new video has less than a day to stay relevant, and you will barely get any new views after a month.
Is like picasso, and artstation, or we all making our photos. We wil design our film in the near future. For instance I will ask for a saint seiya film, batman begins style. You are right with (less things, more popularity) but I think that is nothing to chase. We suddenly will be able to be artists like the crap voice singers of today.
I do not think this will happen or at least not drastically. There is for example, a bunch of comics created every day, yet good, gripping and special comics still emerge from the sea of mediocrity.
THIS!! This is made even worse by companies pushing out series after series,movie after movie,with a complete disregard for the art form itself. Art has become so corporate. Companies are aware of this,but as long as they get their quick cash grab they’re good. No company dares to try to make a good movie now,because then that would be the only one getting money for a long time,considering how many bad ones are being made. None of the cheap cash grabs would get any attention or any money anymore. So it’s this cycle of quick bad movie,quick small money,more bad movie,more small money. And people give in and pay because bad stuff is their only options these days. All of this could’ve been avoided if people that actually had a passion for the craft would take the real time that it takes to make good movies. Sure,we’d get very few at a time,but that’s actually a really good thing. This way people will cherish the few genuinely good works they have instead of settling for a bunch of soulless corporate junk. And companies will be free to milk the good franchises they have until the next movie is made. Things will still keep moving forward,but not at a breakneck speed that ensures every movie is forgotten within a week
This argument sincerely doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It's an absolute fact that fewer artists will be required, thus the viability of the profession will be lower. Don't get me wrong, I much prefer hand made art, but the fact of the matter is that AI generated art is "good enough" for most companies, and they might just have some artists essentially generating those images and touching them up, but it will still be significantly fewer than when they had to make them themselves from scratch.
True, and honestly this is a double-edged sword and might do more bad to the art industry than good. Artists like me will probably not be needed as much. But it might be beneficial for RUclipsrs and bloggers, like myself. T-shirt designers, too if the art is good enough.
Yeah, someone like Disney is making generic stuff even these days, but now, they'll be able to generate concept art for all their shows and movies on just one computer. :D It's crazy.
Then again the AI results arent just "good enough" they can be as good as best of art. But yeah it still requires an artist to look them over and do fixing in photoshop. Also extremely good for just giving myself some concept art for my own paintjobs.
companies will replace artists with AI because AI is free and will save the company ~50k yearly or more, and companies entire premise is to make money. I dont know why people dont think companies wont do this. they 100% will.
We will adapt and create new jobs, everyone will be an art director, sure, but like he said, not everyone are or like to be extremely innovative. I love to model, if a AI do it in a way it's impossible to live modeling, idk what else will bring joy to my life
This is the same problem that comes with every automation project, and it's fundamentally an issue with capitalism. If we didn't tie the worth and livelihood of a person to their labour, then replacing the need for that labour with automatic workers would be a perfect benefit for everyone! The way things stand, actual workers are being displaced through technology that ultimately makes its owners less dependent on people and their political leverage. AI can't strike for better working conditions and business ethics, after all. So the solution is to abolish working for a living, as a concept. Crafters won't be NEEDED to do their job anymore, if you NEED craft you can use an AI to get it; but crafters will still exist, because it's an occupation people take because they LIKE doing it! Because artists WANT to hone their skills and produce something themselves! Essentially "Artist" will cease to be a job description, and become a personal hobby instead. And while this would ruin millions of lives under capitalism, where you can't survive without slaving for a wage... that's not the only system we can choose going forward. From each according to their abilities (and personal interest in creation which we all share), to each according to their needs (which can be met almost entirely through automation). Such a society is the real solution to the AI Art Problem. Getting there will be hard, it may even seem impossible. But I believe it's not just possible, but the single system that maximizes human happiness and freedom, and we should do what we can to work towards it.
What you've basically described is "real artists are ones who feed algorithm until there's nothing more to feed it with" and "AI can only iterate on ideas that it's been fed" is exact description of ideation process, everything we make is to a degree based on things we've seen/experienced.
Of course. In the end its very similar to what humans do (or for that matter any animal with a central nervous system).. we are given inputs in the form of sensory data, our brains analysis the data, makes prediction for next data and if its not the same as the predictions it changes its synaptic patterns. In the end it just boils down to how many neurons and parameters / data there are/is.. compare a brain of a human with that of a mouse and then an ai with 1m parameters vs one with 100 and u can see why there is such a bit cognitive difference. tldr; the larger the network, the better the results for the most part
you are right, but AI doesn't have mental and social tools to use things like irony or social and cultural context for example. That's the stuff that allows artists to mend reality to create art, i don't think AI can really work like that. Recall any piece of art that made you cry or made you laugh or made you feel any other kind of emotion other than what you associate with the image and what it shows (not represents) and ask yourself if AI could do that
@@feliksdzierzynski1389 maybe not come up with such stuff itself, but defo imitating existing material.. and whats even more interesting is if two ais "communicating" in a way that influences their weights and biases such as reinforced learning could be a way to simulate culture and subsequent human and societal phenomenons in the future ;) EDIT: simulate not emulate :')
The difference is in how we experience those things. To an AI, the process is about rearranging data (be it colors, shapes, sounds etc.) into a configuration that most likely matches the requested output, with no understanding for the abstract concepts those data represent. It may be the same information, but humans are able to assign weight and history to a concept alongside it's literal meaning, whereas conversely, we have yet to develop an AI that sees art as anything more than numbers and trends containing those numbers.
what i hear him say is, an artist in context, is an ARTIST, not simply a skillset. An artist creates no matter the medium, and creativity can amaze you in any medium, and ARTISTS are going to AMAZE you no matter what because they bring forth new ideas, and basically anyone who has learned digital art, is a human AI for the company they are in.... anyway if CREATIVES want to evolve the craft of creating, then we shouldnt be purposefully stagnating like planned obsolescence in phones.. I get it people want jobs in what they like, but then in the bigger picture that is neglecting expanding creativity...
I think companies will just expect more from less artists with this technology, like instead of hiring a big team they will expect 5-10 people to do the job of hundreds in these big budget films/games.
But then the artists might be like "Why are we working for these guys? We don't need them. We can just go and create what we want to create, and become our own independent studio." You're going to have more indie movies and games with more fresh ideas than Hollywood and big gaming companies. Big companies are going to be competing with everyone, not just other big companies. Unless they somehow make the tools unattainable for smaller artists; that would be depressing.
@@aharrypotterfan5951 These hypothetical people most likely would already have a big following, because there are so few working on the team versus the hundreds that currently work on productions. They will have the time and resources to not go homeless, people will want to see the work continued especially if they were already working on a big series. However I think the more likely scenario is that they will have some kind of ownership to the company and make a lot more money then previously, so in that case they wouldn't have a reason to leave. But there's also the chance because they are competing with the rest of the world the company is going out of business, so they're better off jumping the boat. But imagine working with a team of artists and they create something successful, then all of a sudden a bunch of people in suits that had no hand in the creation walk in, and because they own the company they take 99.75% of the profits. Still, there are a lot of hypotheticals to go over for this kind of world. We have no idea what would actually happen.
@@Crickette if they’re in the situation to be able to risk it then their jobs worth staying at though? The only reason for them to leave is being underplayed and under-acknowledged, and how are they going to be able to make there own new hip seriös if no one knows who they are and they don’t have the money to start?
Doubt that very much. The only difference between digital art and traditional art is the medium used, good tradtional art supplies l are expensive and have a use by date, digital art supplies are far more cost-effective and versitile! Most digital artists can use traditional media they just cant afford the medium or to spend so much time on one piece that will then have to be phyically housed and cared for till they can sell it for enough to actually make profit. The skills are more or less the same, the medium and risks and needs for things like space and time to hold the art safely why in progress and selling is just diffrent.
@@MizziTheFoxdragon i agree, digital artists are still able to do traditional if they wanted, they will only have to get used at the first week or month, after that they are a natural. I'm a digital artist solely because it is convenient and my house is small. But i have tried painting for school purposes, my skill was pretty much the same.
Yup that's what I think too. I think that "100% hand-drawn" is gonna be the skill of the century and the prices for traditional art will skyrocket, while people who claim AI drawings as their own (which is totally legal btw since AI is not a person and has no rights) will be branded lazy and unimaginative.
@@maomaomi5434 I understand what you mean, but doubt it, as it won't be possible to differentiate between the one made by a superskilled human or an AI. That is why the price wont skyrocket. Although, corrupt people will keep on buying "art" from a name(brand) skilled or unskilled to wash money
I agree with your vision HOWEVER the number of people who are that innovative is extremely small. Not to mention that bringing innovation to a field only happens when you are extremely well versed in that field at least. How does one get extremely well versed if the job they are supposed to get good at is basically nonexistent anymore....
it is gonna be like youtube , the threshold of the work needed to put out content , will decrease drastically granting dumb people to put their dumb shit up
exactly. and that "innvoation" i would imagine not to be so suitable for game and film industry. "innovaton, somethin no ones done before" i dont think of that as concept att, characte design. because those are all done before but we work to master it and take ou own takes on it. this video doesnt make much sense to me.
@Ebola No, it means there will be more competition and companies that are dominant now will probably lose some power or relevance since the oligopoly over the means of production they thrived with will no longer exist.
I don’t think so. You can argue AI does quality work but I don’t see it at all. I’ve used the popular generators and the results are crap imo. I think this will get better over time but still. An artist knows when he is making a bad painting, AI doesn’t know what good or bad is. Art is subjective but a computer, it is not.
@@donhoolieo4896 Dall-e 2 is only accessible through waitlist currently and the results look really good to me at least. Give it another decade and who knows
There is one caveat though. The total number of games, movies, art pieces, songs, and so on. I fear that if there will be hundreds of thousands of movies, games, and so on released every day - only marketing will differentiate them. It slowly happens right now even without the AI revolution.
marketing and community! we are becoming local artists world wide, we need to pull out what the internet can provide and bring it into our smaller communities to tell stories that people want to hear.
I genuinely hate how much this stuff undermines the process, which in itself is part of what makes art interesting. I also think you guys are insane if you think Companies won't find a way to monopolize AI in a way that benefits them, be it by licensing the program or greatly limiting how it can be used. What if through AI you arrive at a piece that resembles someone else's, what will companies and artist do to protect their intelectual property, and what would be the defense someone would have against being sued over copyright violation. Right now this stuff is on it's infancy so it's all fun and games, but do you seriously think this won't be regulated up the ass once it's done and ready to be used in actual products? Just look at crypto currency, something created to have a currency that isn't owned by centralized banks, now is pretty much monopolized by early adopters and people who already have a fuckton of influence and money. What actually makes you think that the same won't happen to AI, when you account for the fact that powerful companies will be able to fund the best pieces of harware that will be able to generate better sollutions before anyone else? This is seriously the most gullible worldview I've seen someone have in a while.
You're saying that like pirates and nft screenshotters don't exist. As long as rules and regulations exist, people will always find new ways to break them.
Value the time and effort it takes for artist to do stuff and wait and everything should be okay. Most people want stuff to be fast and come out how they want and most humans can’t do that.
My problem is i like being a Craftsmen.. don't really want to be an artist.. And with every year everything keeps getting easier, so being technically skilled becomes less important, but that's what I'm actually good at and enjoy 😅
I think innovative comes from the busywork kind of tasks. You learn the basics and then there is a developmental process, and there's such a value in that. It's like photography. It's really easy know to take beautiful photos. But the best photographers, imo, really understand the craft of how photography works and have an understanding of the history. Same with writers, etc.
Yeah, this video is kinda shitty because he's acting like craftsmen are inferior and it's justified for them to lose their jobs. These are real people who have invested their time and money into developing a craft and are trying to make a living off of it only to have the rug pulled out from under them.
@@NihongoWakannai and I don't really agree with his argument for definitions anyways. Sure it may be somewhat sound, but I just don't agree with intentions and thus I reject the concept. I think it's far too vastly limiting on art as concept too. It just doesn't feel true frankly.
There's a problem with your statement though. Some of the best designers admit one thing; nothing is truly original. Even I can see some of my art is somewhat 'inspired' by what i've seen before, something AI wont have a problem doing.
Art is a copypasta in some ways, and nothing is truly original. What's truly original in the artwork is experience - this is the selling point. The human can develop art style through the experience, and AI cannot. AI could be inspired by other artists' and try to copy their style, but isnt able to develop itself. MidJourneyAI, for example, generates impressive pieces, mainly because it has unique architecture designed by human. So, to rephrase, human copypasta will definitely lose its value in art.
@Anna Voigt We've all been fooled before. AI can fool us by replicating that human touch in just about anything. It will be taught to imitate facial expressions and composition in famous paintings, writing techniques and plotlines in emotional stories, and musical breakdowns from popular songs. It isn't a matter of the AI becoming sentient. Long before that happens, it will still have achieved the ability to mock us nearly perfectly. As deep as we are, we're not perfect. And there are a hell of a lot of brilliant people out making sure that AI will one day achieve at least that. What we can only hope for is that AI will have fooled even the scientists creating it to the point where it stagnates before becoming sentient.
@@Roboartist117 everything that works in a work of art, if it is used as a formula it stagnates and is boring, If an artificial intelligence manages to create the Lord of the Rings movie from 0, It would has been late, because the lord of the rings already exists, artificial intelligence cannot innovate, and that is the true essence of an artist
I'm working as a 3D artist for the same indie studio since 2013.. when it comes to this topic i always end up with the fact that.. one day. When AI has the ability to make "art.. games.. stories..etc" so well that we ALL are aware of it. There will be a "new" genre simply called human. Even AI will make the distinction. Because its not going to want to be or even HAVE humans. So.. In a few years you might have the situation where a product is marketed as "no AI" or completely handcrafted (As we already see with procedural generated worlds vs "handcrafted") Rather interesting. And as artist on the brink of it.. well staying true to who you want to be might be what makes the difference at the end.
One of the most true comments I've seen. When something is made from 2d animation or a game/show has a unique style rather than realism, I'm more amazed and want to buy/engage with that content. A lot of ppl hate nfts and comission artists rather than nfts. Sure, some kind of job will be replaced by it maybe some concept artists or not but will AI ever have the creativity that I or humans have? (I think not). Yes we are not "really" creative too and we do everything based on past experiences. But we have soo many experience that AI or computers can't store. If I made a piece that conveys my sadness from a childhood memory let's say, can AI do this? If AI ever comes near to feeling or conveying emotions it won't be just end of artists, probably end of humanity. Just so some AI can generate somewhat of a character doesn't mean you'll lose your job. There will be collectors collecting "human art". There will be a lot ppl like me who would rather support a team of artists who put their heart into their projects rather than supporting a big company with AI. Some jobs may suffer from it. But I really don't think no AI will end artists. Photography didn't kill artists. Digital art didn't kill traditional. AI won't kill artists, imo.
"Hand crafted" is very much a spectrum. I think you would be hardpressed to find a high budget game with a big world that has every vein on every leaf on every tree created and placed by hand.
I don't mean to be rude but I don't think the "we'll all be art directors" argument holds up too well. I don't know the numbers but I anticipate the ratio of art directors to art staff being quite high. For argument's sake, let's say 1 director: 20 staff. That single director probably worked his ass off to get job because it's competitive and scarce. Having AI drive the staff into director positions assumes that there will be 20 vacant jobs for them to fill. Dunno if this makes sense. But I think cases like this are when we really need to have a hard look at what sort of genie we're letting out of the bottle. Artists already have a hard time making it and competing against cheaper and faster computers is going to make it worse.
I have been both an Art Director and a film director and I would never dismiss the talents of the people who assisted me in the creation of the final work. A team of artists AND craftsmen work to make things that an individual could not produce alone. That does not make the subordinate people less creative. A director ORGANIZES that combined creativity and craftsmanship.
@@pedroantonio5797 Yup, I am not saying that the handful of short films and the couple of TV commercials I worked on would impress many people. I am much more proud of my music that I produced and released over the years. I was in several bands but that didn’t seem relevant here. The work that I did to earn most of my income came from being an art director and creative director for a sizable retail chain (in house) and later a design firm that had some notable clients. After that I spent many years working as an independent doing mostly product photography and digital photographic illustration. Nothing to fancy mind you, but those are actually my credits. It feels like you are dubious, but I don’t feel that’s an uncommon career for someone my age. 😀
5:48 Brandon Sanderson uses the analogy of cooks and chefs for a similar idea. Cooks follow instructions, repeat what they've done before, little innovation. Chefs know what each *element* does, and combine the elements as they please to get the result they want, high innovation, high experimentation.
Hi, I am an independent musician visiting here from the past to warn that technology can destroy creativity if used poorly. Tech that ignores or does not respect the artist is by its very nature likely to remove the ability to generate income from countless unique and original creators. If we had chosen to use the tools to honor and support ALL music creators, we could be living in a world where so many more creative people could support themselves and their families. Instead, we are left with a culture that assumes music should be free and platforms that do not fairly pay artists for their efforts or hard earned skill. Plus, the sound of music being created gets driven to a dull average by algorithms as people try desperately to gain advantage fighting for the tiny payments they receive from streaming. Instead of humans recommending new music based on life experience and emotion, They are fed selections based on what a formula determines will give them the largest hit of dopamine and keep them listening to advertising. In the example shown in this video, two works of art were “combined” to make something that was referred to as “new” the insinuation is that the resulting output would be free to use and exist as an original work. Why do we think that? These AI systems are trained by feeding in countless works of art that in my opinion are stolen from their creators for an eventual commercial purpose. Every single image used to train AI or generate something “different” (not new) should respected and the artist who created it should be compensated. Actually, I think they should all be asked if they want to participate in the first place! The researches (who will eventually become companies as they monetize their products, don’t kid yourself) are forcing millions of artists to be unwilling art teachers to a algorithm that doesn’t care one tiny bit about being human or feeling the things humans feel. Imagine your favorite avant-garde or seriously unique piece of music from 20+ years ago and ask yourself if you can imagine a brand new work as that was as unique becoming popular enough to be discovered by as many people now. Most people would say that it doesn’t happen to the same extent. That is very sad because it could have been the other way around, if we had used the tools differently and focused on the artists.
you were the one historical figure in the past who went extinct from their inability to cope with change and embrace it instead stubbornly crying your way into extinction. meanwhile actual history has refuted every single thing your long-winded blob of word vomit decided to waste everyone's time with. thank God we have one less stubborn bitter drama queen to worry about while the rest of people continue to create and innovate a new fresh and exciting ways where stodgy and mobile untreated types refused to do so. Good riddance historical outlier.
In my opinion AI is simply a tool for people to use and there are fields where it makes much more sense to deploy neural networks like research or as you said, tasks that are way too time consuming for people to develop. A simple 5 minute scroll through any art platform shows you so many different ideas and art styles and themes and what not. All those variables and many more, simply couldn't be replicated in the exact way someone wants it to be. Even completely speech or text based algorithms from 10 years from now couldn't give an art director exactly the artwork he's looking for. People are remarkably limited in their ways of communicating precise artistic ideas so there will always be flaws in the AI's output. A much better application for an art based AI, is for art directors to use in order to compile references of what they want and then to provide those outputs to the fellow illustration team who then, refine and change it up to fit the particular needs for the project. That won't "steal" anyone's jobs but just make vast improvements in the workflow and quality of the product. Thanks for coming to my TedTalk.
@@Iamwolf134 What's the difference between human-made stock images and AI-generated stock images? And why it's causing 'slow death'? Because of people with an outdated approach losing money? Why should we worry about that?
Imagine I'm running any company hiring 20 artists doing.... artwork for cards. I can literally replace them all by typing in all text and getting the artwork done a million times faster at zero cost. Yeah, artists SHOULD fear, most of them are doomed, there's this one in a million who's irreplacable, sure, but for 99% of people A.I. is gg.
You are not taking my dream away from me, my humanity will prevail, AI has no story to tell, AI never experianced hearthbreak or hilarious moment with friends, chill night sky above the forest, disapointed father, being proud of yourself after pulling trough hard times... Soulless corporations can use AI to create preaty pictures but only real people can be artists and tell stories, and I refuse to believe that my blood and sweat are futile, I have hope
If you say that the real artist are actually innovators and the rest of us are basically craftsman, then we should be very scared of AI. Because if only the real artists are able to come up with quasi original ideas (and those aren't many people), the rest is going to be pushed out of the market because of AI because all we can really do is repetitive work, which the AI is so good at. If everyone is able in the future to just talk to blender or photoshop to create whatever they want, the thing you create will also be valueless. Doing this ''repetitive yet highly skilled work'' is exactly what people pay artists for! Most of the time. They don't pay them to be groundbreakingly innovative. Therefore, a LOT of artists will lose their job or aren't able to make money anymore if an AI can now do their job. The fact that you conveniently redefined the word ''artist'' is irrelevant. People are gonna lose their jobs anyway.
Hopefully AI will just be a tool for artist, not to replace artist, but I can really understand your fear, with stuff like Dall e 2 coming out, it does feel like your whole entire art journey has been all for nothing, because you have done so much only for some AI to do it far better than you can, but I guess the best you can do is take advantage of the things that AI still hasn't taken over yet, like Animating.
You can work on other skills too, it can be reassuring. (for me it's languages) But one job that AI will never take is teacher, so remember that art teachers exist (for illustration, animation, design ect) Edit : if your profile picture is one of your drawing, it's pretty good
I think that AI won't fully replace art made by humans. It is similar to how photography eventually replaced a lot of illustration in advertising, packaging and book covers when it got cheaper and easier to print multicoloured pictures in the 80s. There are still illustration jobs in advertising, packaging etc but there are far less because companies may prefer to use photograpy instead. Perhaps the same thing or similar would happen in the future?
I believe things will definitely change, and big studios might cut off people from the most repetitive tasks, but I'd like to add that at the same time, after the 80's, videogames, animation and a lot of indie endeavours absorbed (maybe even increased) the need for visual artists that previously would work mainly on advertising, so there is always new industries coming up, which might also employ those that coul potentially be replaced by AI. Besides that, internet culture opened so many possibilities for working in niches, and even creating a following for one's art, that the originality or singularity of any given artist is in itself a very reasonable competitor to the speed and capacity of mass production from AI. So I think artists will be fine.
Yeah, so we'll see a shrinking amount of jobs in that area. That's precisely why people are worried. Companies don't give a shit about giving jobs, they only care about getting as much as possible for as little as possible
Companies don't always prefer to use photos for their press. Boring companies do. Companies who have a specific niche have always been using different illustrations and design pieces for their products.
when everyone is special, no one is anymore. syndrome, the incredible. the issue here is, we don't pay for ideas but for good products, if more people with less effort can create a good product of the same industry, the value of the product and consequently the value of the person doing this activity will be lower.
Or, it will make possible to make bigger productions to independent artists (lone wolves, etc) and tiny studios. Also, great creativity won't "grow", this is part of our human condition, and we are not being "upgraded with AI", although we are the final responsible ones of true creativity happening. This is only yet another step to ease the way of developing that creativity, better said of generating a product from it. Those only applying scripts and touching buttons for the AI to be applied will have quite fewer sells, imo.
I tell you something, i like videogames, and this is something that kind of happened in that media, long ago you need not only a whole company with millon of dollars to make a simple plattform game like sonic, you need tecnologic developers that create the consoles or the cardriges. Today anyone can make an awesome game in any old computer, and distribution is not even a problem, we have steam and other platafforms like that. And the result of this is the new golden age of videogames that we are living, today we can see a lot of really bizarre but awesome games that in other times will never by aproved by any studio. Is really amazing to see games made by 3 or 4 people selling thousans of copies. In the long run the only ones that lose with it are the big companies of videogames exactly like boro said. Think about something, did not computers kill the tradicional paintings? Or this mute in something more better like the digital painting era that we are seeing? Picasso will be pleased to see that today you can fix a painting with control+Z
@@WididoR Actually traditional painting is pretty strong, currently. Not only in the big market, the big galleries, but also as a service by humble individuals, small platforms and low/medium budget buyers, distributed now world wide by our now much more efficient and faster package sending than 30- 40 years ago. From payments (waaaay cheaper now than in the 80s-90s, it was out of my scope to be paid or pay overseas), to shipping costs, and times for deliver (making the business actually possible). For any traditional painter today is way easier to make business than before. Even for small clients that want a pure watercolor (and nope... that type of client does NOT want digital, not even the mention of it...and it's quite a crowd) portrait of their dog or family member, the operation is cheap enough that still what they pay it's worth it. Much harder before. Games...ironically, when I started (as a game artist, as I've been in every field, almost, lol) you could make a game with two or three persons and a computer or two. So, pretty similar to indies now, and indeed, they are using the pixel art style in many cases (and low polygon count 3D, which makes me just as nostalgic as with pixel art, I edited many Quake 1-2 mods), not only because it's more efficient for them, and the aesthetic is cool and very trendy for the masses... it's also because they know nostalgia is a factor, and there are players in the range of 30- 50 that might pretty well be avid buyers. But like in comic and in illustration, what I did not have back then, none of us did, was ability to publish so cheap or free as today (in all. Graphic design, illustration, comics and games). We could produce very cheaply (comics were made on paper, fully), but we ultimately needed the approval of a distributor. It is very well depicted in a amazing episode of a recent TV Show, still on air I think, "Mythic Quest", in which they dedicate a full episode to the story of a developer of those times. That one alone is worth more than the entire show, and it's a very good show, describes many things of game dev pretty well. Ubisoft is involved, btw. It was omega expensive to publish. A friend of mine was the total pioneer of those times, developed one of those games with two other buddies (when very few games were being produced in the world), distributed internationally. Illustration? Similar. I had to be a cousin of somebody to publish with any of those large publishers. But I wasn't.. :( . Today, anyone with skills can upload an illustrated cover for a book writer on Amazon, it costs zero. Or directly sell your art in a gazillion ways. Or actually publish your own ebook, illustrated or comic on Amazon. Or publish to be printed on demand in Lulu. Zero cost also, it's charged per copy. Or in webcomic platforms like Tapas, Webtoons, etc, or your site. I remember having to pay with some friends 5k euros to publish a extremely reduced run of a comic magazine, in B/W of terrible copy quality. The fantastic moment of today is now you (we) can make ALL. Traditional, digital illustration, comic, films (short movies, for now), games (small productions, until AI and other tech helps). Even better: ALL of those is actively being produced by people without any budget, and generating them more or less income. One of the several things I can't agree with the video, though... Is that... well, although we are more and more gaining access (that's super great for poor artists, musicians, designers and developers...and etc), the big companies will always have more resources. So I don't know if I can make that logic work... Yep we will be able to make movies almost like what is done today in top movies (I see an extremely long way till that), but what will they be capable of then with much more money and resources? They will have access to the most expensive AI software, we surely to more mediocre one. The music generation, etc, no matter how much AI can automate, still needs to be made. Human made art (voices, etc) will still be more valued over synthetic. I think the power behind those huge companies will still always win. BUT we will gain more access, and the indie market will become very strong, more even than today, hopefully. And I don't see traditional painting ever disappearing.
@@WididoR In this metaphor/comparison I think its worth pointing out that even with advances in technology and accessibility most people still dont have the mind for making video games, the same applies with art. If you give the average person a half formed painting and say "okay now finish it" most will probably not know how or simply not want to. And the inverse, Outsider Art has always been a thing, and it's weird to be scared of it being more prevalent imo.
@@3polygons Is good to know that traditional painting is doing well. In your argument about high budget, you have to take in count that high budget is also high risk, the investors of this companies often harm the creative freedom of this kind of projects. The more big the project, the most hard to handle and riskier is, and this is a problem that we can see in various triple A games and hollywood movies, they are so restricted by investors that they are bankrupt in the creativity department. We often see the high budget success but we rarely think in those high budget failures that destroys companies. And we are seeing a lot of giants fallings lately.
Hello, I come from an AI research field and I would like to offer a different perspective. What humans have an advantage over AI is that they are super good at generalisation, like translating experience from one field to another or getting inspiration for art from something seemingly unrelated. AI can't do that now. AI usually is only trained to do a pretty narrow task and in that narrow task, it often outperforms people. However, what it all boils down to is that people don't ever have original ideas that AI couldn't have. People just get inspiration from so many different things, essentially from all of their life experiences. If AI would be able to be as good at generalization as humans and be able to experience and learn all the things that we do, then It should be able to come up with all the ideas that we could come up with. So if we ever have Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) then there will be no task, not even art, that we will able to do while it won't be able to do. We probably have a long way until we get an AGI but there is no rule in physics that says that we won't ever get one so it will make it at some point. It may be 10 years from now, 100 years, or even 1000, it's really hard to tell because for all we know it may require much better technology than we have today or it may only need a simple little breakthrough that we haven't got yet.
Well, isn't it precisely that creativity what DALL-E 2 is leveraging? The entire point of deep learning is to learn through repetition. Humans are terrible at generating random actions. It will learn to read our patterns, and eventually learn to output them as its own.
@@FlockofSmeagles huh..? I meant that you can generate AI images and claim them as your own and sell them, and it'd be 100% legal since copyright laws apply to "human authors" only. AI is a machine and therefore has no rights. Btw until AI learns how to make actually good rule 34 pics, it's so-called "power" ain't sh- t.
Saying only the idea source can be the "artist" implies that everyone who worked in a Miyazaki production other than Miyazaki are "craftsmen" and the only artist is Miyazaki himself. He might have been a shitty boss and someone who seemingly had most of the creative control but something talked about (in like an interview about Howls castle i dont really remember) sticked with me. He really does see everyone in his crew as artists and talks about how they all have some personality they contributed into the film. That's because people who have a long and hard journey of learning how to draw create uniqueness to their craft and that is where the originality that makes all drawings art comes from.
My artist friends are losing their minds currently about this. I'm wondering if you still feel the same way a year on since AI has REALLY leaped forward. I am not concerned as I think that people will always want human artists. It will unfortunately damage entry level jobs and jobs where young/new artists usually cut their teeth I think.
Here's something to cheer you up: AI generated images are 100% uncopyrighted so you can copy the whole thing as a reference or even trace over it and then claim it as your own and it'd be perfectly legal. You can even legally sell it, and no one can do anything about it! I fully intend to use AI for my art references. It's so tiresome trying to make the perfect poses in 3D model software, and even more tiresome scouring google images for a face that'd go with it and then having to alter it so that it won't be considered plagiarism.
@@maomaomi5434 I’m not concerned about it personally. If I need ref I usually do it myself anyway. The fact Ai is not copyrightable at the moment is problematic for all the artists who’s art is being stolen the likeness of.
@@maomaomi5434 I thought of the same thing actually, as an aspiring game developer, this AI stuff seems really good for looking at concepts at a face level value that seem cool, kind of like filtering bad ideas out fast
"AI can only combine and fuse things that have already been done before" But don't we work the same way? Isn't it what creativity is all about? Combining old things to make something new.
Look up OpenAI's DALL-E. They trained an AI with tons of images and text data, and it's able to make images of novel concepts from just a single sentence. A similar model named Cogview just got opensourced, and yet another program called VQGAN + Clip can make convincing images. I expect the future of art will just be telling an AI what you want it to draw.
You're kind of right. But AI is directionless and on it's own, rarely produces images we would find appealing. It's kind of like the difference between a healthy embryo and a mass of cancer cells. Sure they'll both grow and turn into something made of flesh, but only one of them is the thing we want.
@@shoethief Haaaaa... But what is it that we want? Can't an AI take in to consideration our preferences? Like the rule of thirds and so on. So that it can filter out the unfitting combinations and only show the ones that we would in theory find appealing. Anyway, to summarize it all up, i have very little knowledge about what AI can do and no clue at all about what it will do in the future😂
@@bogdanavramenko9872 It definitely can. Individuals aren't as unique as they think they are. You were spot on with your first comment. I recommend you to look up the term "mimesis". It encompases that idea of creativity you mentioned. And sure, there will always be the one or the other person who will create a new form of art or art movement (even though I feel like that has become more challenging, too) but they're the vast minority, a handful of names in the sea of artists out there. And it's not like AI won't be able to learn how to adapt the patterns that make images appealing to us and even to create new patterns.
anyone can replace a gear, it takes years to learn which gear needs to be replaced. I definitely could have never imagined the stuff that some creatives come up with, even if just saying what I wanted would make it appear in front of me.
Yeah? Well I'll be honest. Get help all the same but I know what you mean exactly. I don't care about so called positive arguments. If anything is sacred art is, and this stuff shouldn't exist. It should just be abandoned completely.
@@apeture_explorer4810 what scares me is that many jobs are turning into AI and not just art. If AI is doing everything, we are gonna be jobless with no money and also we will get depression from being just empty and jobless. Getting psychological therapy is not gonna enhance the situation. I'm not suicidal, but it just freaks me out.
@@metaknight859 once again I know what you mean. At first I advocated for automation. I wanted a world in which all thing were automated and obligate labor was a thing of the past and humans were free. But then I began to realize, free to do what exactly? What could possibly be fulfilling in a world like that? Perhaps it is my lack of imagination, but I cannot conceive of that previously utopic vision being anything more than some pretty hyper efficient monstrosity that attacks the human condition on all fronts. It seems I am learning to be more picky with what I wish for. I see ai less as an idealistic useful tool to be developed now and more like a mistake that should have never been created in many ways.
You should change your title from companies to “craftsmen”. You’ve explained perfectly why craftspeople should worry. You’ve failed terribly at explaining how companies will have to worry, especially when you’ve perfectly explained how much less they will need people.
He's talk is about craftsmen becoming more than craftsmen looping daily in a job that is not really creative but turning artists into machines. He's saying we can earn a living in a different and more creative way.
I fully agree with Boro here - however for me ai is not that different from 3d + photobashing. Listen to shaddy safadi from one pixel brush. There is another, economic reality: Companies hire you because you will create something new that gives them an advantage. If every company is using the same ai, they will never capture the market.
bro have you seen your average google/corporate art? Modern companies don't really have standards for good visuals or creativity and they will absolutely use AI to their advantage to avoid hiring people. Maybe the saving grace will be the ESG rating (that diversity rating investors use to rate a company woke) which requires companies to hire certain people of ethnic/sexuality backgrounds but I wouldn't count on it. The only artists who will be safe and make money drawing stuff will be the nsfw furry artists because corporations don't touch naked people with a ten foot pole.
@@asandax6 Have already lost. Even one big studio, has almost all offshore animation work. This has already happened to animators. It is going on 5 years. The same studios, will now have slave workers, maybe making less that 0.65 Cents USD, typing in words prompts. Most people now can barely understand 3d Scanning apps for Iphone. I recently got a 13 Pro Max, because it has multiple amazing features. Lidar, Cinematic film mode, to name two. Every single person that I have shown, a 3d app that I am using, had no idea that the phone, was able to do it. And all I showed it to, said they don't see any kind of use for it.
@JoaK And it will no doubt look corporate and soulless just like all the "art" they force their creators to create. A lot of that is conscious, terrible decision by clients of most visual mediums that wont listen to the actual artists trying to inject any amount of life, so they just give up and do things exactly as requested and then you get that empty artstyle we're all used to seeing in "professional spaces". The only people who like that stuff are those clients who it appeals to. Those who are artists given these tools to cut out a lot of the tedium to create stuff from scratch and just get to the bits that show our actual personal tastes and unique take on things will add novelty and interest that adds more variety to the market of artwork. This isn't talking about being "drastically unique" in the same way Picasso is, but putting our own subtle unique, human take on it. People appreciate that unique take more than youd think. Plus it'll be excellent for illustrative, story telling artwork. Suddenly being able to create custom images on the fly to tell a story would be *huge*. Not to mention to train an AI in *your* style you'd still have to feed it a lot of artwork in specific styles, you know? So if youre not still generating art to feed into your AI machine or heavily tweaking what comes out of it it'll only have so much variance. The skill and time and training needed to become a visual artist will still be valuable and give you a unique edge against a CEO who thinks neon green noodle people speak to everyone and inspires them to be more motivated
@@NeekoKarina Liked neon green noodle people. Easy to use Music mixing software has ruined music. I am long time fan of EDM. Used to be nice to listen to. But now it all sounds the same. Everybody copying each other. Same happened in rap. 808 kick and rolling high hats. It all sounds the same. Change the person singing and that is only difference.
Yeah and some digital artist sell their stuff for cheep. Only real problems to start in digital art . It's well you need at least a good computer who can handle the graphics in the project
I was introduced to the concept of having a digital tablet by one of my college professors. It was awkward at first, but it's leaps and bounds better than using a mouse for digital art.
"AI will cause you to lose your, job you're not going to miss it, because now you can create a great movie all by yourself" Hope you have lots of energy left after flipping burgers all day to "make the greatest movie" by yourself with your amazing AI tools. Then it will get lost in the sea of 1,000,000,000 movies created that day. Then you go back to flipping burgers tomorrow. Amazing utopia. Can't wait.
I think this is an ironic time we live in. You don't know what a plague is like, well then have some. Never thought you would live during the uncertainty of wartime? Well, think again. Always guessed why craftsmen during the industrial revolution were so upset? Guess no more, it's almost your lucky day too.
Ah, looking at the date I dunno if I can say these assertions aged very well, even just a few months later. When we have people submitting AI art into competitions, and taking first place against legitimate artists, I'd say there's very valid reasons for digital artists to be concerned about their career viability down the line.
Here is my theory as an artist myself. AI can do some crazy good stuff but it has limits. Lets say someone comes to you with a specific commission idea. Draw my original character in this pose, holding this object, with this background, this facial expression, this outfit, add some moody lighting. These are all things a human can do well, but an AI would first have to take this original character, recreate it exactly in a new pose, put the desired outfit on top, with the desired object, generate the desired background and lighting. and spit out the image without any of the funky inaccuracies AI is known for. Then lets say they like the image, but they want to tweak one or two things about it. Can the AI produce the exact same image with those one or two tweaks made, or will it spit out an entirely new image using a different set of data? I believe this is where an artist will come in and touch up the image to make the desired changes. Maybe the client wants to make some tweaks to the character's outfit, change the hat, add a space helmet, different bracelets in a style that only exists in fictional media. At the VERY least, Artists will still be needed to "touch up" the images AI spits out and tweak them accordingly, and all of this is just for photo realism. Things get even harder for AI when it comes to stylization. Stylized images are not meant to mimic reality 1 to 1, and every artist's style has its unique quirks. An AI trying to generate an image in the desired artist's style won't have the huge amount of images to work with in order to make the image, beause it only has the artist's work to work with. It'll have to start pulling data from other work to "pad" things out, and that'll lead to a mixing of different styles into the final product. This also requires the artist's work to... y'know, EXIST in the first place. And there needs to be enough of it to generate an accurate image. When it comes to making good general purpose images like "Draw a lady sitting in a chair" AI can replace a human for that task, but when it things start getting detailed, or the creative part of being an artist comes into play, or specific changes need to be made to a piece, or a stylized image is desired, that's when you'll need us humans to step in.
"don't worry guys! Artists will be fine" "Oh btw, all those years you spent honing your craft and the money you spent on a degree will be 100% useless and wasted, but I'm justifying that as being ok because you're not a 'real artist'" As long as you have good ideas, then you'll be fine... Except for the fact that ideas are cheap and anyone can come up with them, the hard part has always been the implementation. Why pay an artist to make something for you when you can just come up with an idea yourself and then just type some settings into an AI and have it do that for you. 11:25 this is exactly why you are wrong. This is your biggest misunderstanding. AI is not just a normal tool, AI CAN create new ideas, you say it can only create iterations, but that's literally what creativity is. New ideas are simply the mixing and matching of already existing ideas and concepts. There is nothing magical about the human brain, we are not special, we are not unique, we are just meat computers. Anything we do, a computer has the potential to do that, and we only get closer and closer to completely replicating human behaviour the more we research AI.
idk about anyone else, but I don't think that a new game/movie/image coming out every day/week/month would be a good thing (as I understand, i think, in the context of this video. One individual can produce a new piece once a day or week or whatever). I mean I have a hard enough time keeping up with all the new games, movies, etc as it is right now. Also, maybe this is just the filmmaker in me talking, but I feel like it's about the journey, not the destination. Like, it''s not just about the finished piece, but the process you went through to make it. When I see an animation my one friend made, it looks great, sure. But I also know how much effort he had to do to realize that. Having an idea for a film and then having an AI write out a complete script for you just trivializes the whole experience to me. Lastly, to me, filmmaking (the onset part) is a very communal affair. Reducing the number of people on set from, like, 30 to like, 8, sounds mad depressing. I won't lie that I can see massive benefits for video editing and VFX, tho. But, why would companies be afraid? If they only have to hire, like, 4 creatives to come up with ideas, rather than 20 to come up with them and implement them, that'll save them a ton of money. I remain unconvinced. If we are still under capitalism in, like, 25 years, I think a lot of people will lose jobs. Maybe a bit longer for creatives, but idk.
This feels like a rather pretencious conversation... while I do agree that not everything is art, it feels very self aggrandizing to imply that one is able to determine what is and what isn't. Is there no artistic value in such productions as videogames or movies just because their purpouse is to be comercialized? I disagree, there are plenty of great artists working for the industry, and you see people need to make a living.
^^ This. Many of those "craftmen" (and many women) do put their very special touch and style that no advanced AI is going to be able to "feel" in the same way. Not that it worries me, as video games is a bit of a job type I did run from (no way to be known for your work, and at some companies is a bit of abusive). Art is expression, in an own, personal way. It does not have to be the work of a Picasso or Rembrandt to be considered such.
I agree with your sentiment, the problem start because we use the word art for thing which are not the same, so to say that craft is craft and art is art is less wrong than to say that both are the same, anyway experience count doesnt matter if is in art galleries or craft ferias
Neural networks don't just copy and repeat things. You're thinking of hard-coded classical computing before AI. Neural networks are inside your head. They don't just learn how to style-transfer picasso, they see enough examples of styles and learn the concept of what it means to create a style. AI is simply using the same process that's used when a human brain creates an "original artwork". Even if it's the first acrylic pouring painting or someone covering themselves in paint and having sex on the canvas, that's something an AI can come up with. Even if there weren't existing examples of body painting, it knows what bodies are and it knows how paint transfers onto a canvas from objects, so it combines the 2 and produces something new. All imagination comes from combining existing things to generate new ones. Nobody can create a new colour, because they haven't seen anything they can copy from. They've only ever seen the existing colour spectrum. All UFO sightings resemble existing aircraft and laws of physics, and the aliens inside them tend to resemble humans or insects or things we know, because we haven't seen any to imagine them, and a conspiracy theorist can only claim to have seen something they saw in a movie. Take any example of someone you think created an original artwork, and imagine they grew up in a white room knowing no content of any kind. They never read any books, they never watched any TV, they never saw another person, never got shown examples of language. i.e. their meat-based neural network had no dataset to learn from. Could they still have produced the work you're talking about? Of course not. They don't have any examples to learn concepts and combine from. Artists get cognitive dissonance over this at their peril. AI is coming for all of us because there's nothing an artificial neural network can't do that a human brain can do. There's no magic inside our head that differentiates us from computers, we just use a different substrates. The only solution is a UBI. We can go on creating beautiful artworks and collaborating with AI so long as people aren't dependent on it for survival money, because AI will always win. Whatever you think you can do with AI as a tool better that AI alone can't is merely proving a dataset for AI to train on and fully automate.
If we get rid of the repetitious portion of creating art, doesn't that get rid of the practice behind it? If practice makes perfect, and we make practice obsolete, then are we really the ones creating art? Or is the art being created for us?
We may see an increase in the interest and value of traditional art, and a decrease in the interest and value of digital art. Everyone will be able to be a digital artist. Art will become over saturated to the point where there is just so much of it everywhere. What will really draw someone's attention will be the ideas, the stories, the themes. The technical aspect will be less important. Creative individuals will still thrive, but those who rely on technique alone will suffer.
Doubtful! The only actual difference between digital art and traditional art is the medium used, good tradtional art supplies l are expensive and have a use by date, digital art supplies are far more cost-effective and more versatile as for example oil pastel can only really look like oil pastel why a tablet can recreate alit of diffrent looks. Most digital artists can use traditional media they just cant afford the medium or to spend so much time on one piece that would be easily ruined so will then have to be phyically housed and cared for till they can sell it for enough to actually make profit. The skills are more or less the same, the medium and risks and needs for things like space and time to hold the art safely ,why in progress and selling, is just diffrent.
@@MizziTheFoxdragon nice copy paste. Also some traditional art supplies last years. Good quality ones are expensive yes. But there is also mid grade stuff that works fine if you are on a budget. You just need to look.
@@ghoulchan7525 Missing the point a bit, I think. Digital art uses the same techniques as traditional art. Everyone will not "be able to be a digital artist" because the way AI builds digital art is fundamentally different from the process of how a human being builds it. What we currently know as digital art and what AI does are as comparable as printing and painting are, in that they're both "physical" art forms. Digital artists (or digital painters/illustrators, to be more precise) use pixels to paint, AI just generates the pixels in place.
I often call myself a "visual engineer" because, like you say, most of the things I do as a "3D artist" are more of a craft than an art. However, when I'm sculpting or illustrating that tends to shift again towards art.
Sorry about this but I have to make two counterpoints: 1. AI can in fact make new and novel creations at this point. 2. When everyone got really good cameras, photographers became less valuable for a wide variety of scenarios.
It's because an actual human who experiences life much like I myself do created it that it has any actual value or meaning. A Hollow replication no matter how fooling or convincing is fundamentally in absence of the core of art in my opinion.
Amidst this ocean of long-winded comments (including one or two of my own) going back and forth on this issue, I feel this one simple line you've typed down here is the most convincing and succinct argument for why artists do not have to fear A.I. Thank you.
Wrong way around. AI as a collaborative tool allows the same artists to do more work. More work done per artist means less artists hired for the same work. This is how companies think. Jeven's Paradox is not a thing where company spending is concerned - especially in the VFX world where profits are so hard to achieve consistently due to the antagonistic and predatory job contract set up designed by the film studios to take advantage of the VFX industry.
That concept of what art is makes absolutely no sense. This idea of being "creative" and "original" for the sake of being different has destroyed art. Most things that are "hanging at a museum" are total garbage. Innovation does not mean parting ways with tradition. Grabbing hair and sewing a human silhouette is just gross - and yes, that exists and people think it's cool because "no one has thought of that". Or is that no one would want to think of something so pointless and ridiculous? The idea of art has been totally destroyed in the 20th century. That is why people used to tell me that "art won't take you anywhere" as a kid and I believed it and only now I've decided to go back to it. What they call "creativity" I call "desecration of art". I'm not saying that things won't change. The world is already a total nightmare and of course, art follows. Everything is more unnatural, artificial and disgusting, and people wonder why they are more depressed. Then, of course, everyone will put an artificial yellow ribbon emoji somewhere, that doesn't really exist, and say they are raising awareness to the problem. Crap world. How can anyone be happy in a society like that, where your only refuge is consumerism, fueled by those who envy it?
I remember when wordpress and Squarespace were meant to "replace" web designers. It never happened, yeah it made it easier for the layman to make a quick website and start selling their stuff but there is still a need for bespoke websites. The same applies to art, maybe for those in game development that need concept art quickly this AI may benefit them.
To me, what you're describing seems like a dystopia. I love the craft. What you call "repetitive" I see as an art in its own right. I love admiring the hard work of humans. I will be looking down on what some bozo makes using an AI in a day
As an artist, I find far more satisfaction on the actual process of learning and creating. Also I admire far more artists that create something that is not too clean or sterile like CGI. Yeah, maybe artists will be replaced in the future by a computer, but at the very least, I can live and die happy to know that I got to learn and create art.
Why do you think CGI is clean and sterile? Do you think the computer just does all the work? I'm both a traditional artist and professional CGI artist, and it took many years to develop my skills in both mediums
I agree. Even if my art is technically worthless thanks to ai, I'll keep making it because I enjoy the process and a good piece that you have made is infinitely more satisfying than someone else's masterpiece.
@@MizziTheFoxdragon I dont do art for a living, I do it because I love it. If you go back and look and some of the most famous artists and musicians, their works got recognized years later after their death.
@@Weewoo5562 I'm referring to art created by a computer. But now that you mention it, I prefer art that is less, "perfect" and "clean". Is just a personal preference, that's all.
While I appreciate what you are talking about in regard to true artists, I think one thing I’d like to hear more about I. The conversation isn’t the supply side of the equation, but the demand. Even now artists are begging for attention, giving their work away for free. If you can do a whole movie on your own, even if it’s great, who cares if it’s just lost in the endless stream of content, of the thousands of great movies released that day? We are getting to such a point of saturation that it is time, and not money that is the limiter. And someone will say, “make the best work” but the best doesn’t always rise to the top. The gatekeepers choose what rises to the top, what sells the best, and true art doesn’t. I think the biggest problem for artists will be limited demand. Limited attention. Because it already is.
I might be wrong, but I dont follow... won't AI be nice for big companies? They can hire less people, save money and therefore gain a bigger profit? In return less people can become an illustrator.
@@Candy_McK you mistake talent for arrogance. First, you have to define ‘repetition’, if you’re doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result, then no, he’s not eh we are talking about, I’m talking about when you need to hone and improve on something you have a talent for, there is always room for improvement, then you hone it by training yourself to repeat certain elements until you improve. It’s the old concept of a thousand hours anyone can master something. Look at Leonardo Da Vinci, do you honestly think he became a master at his craft without studying one,form, shape, colour, or it was just instinctive talent alone fully formed? No. It is through graft, repetition and time that honed his existing talent into perfecting his craft.
Yes. You’re right about there being a distinction between draftsman and an artist. I think here in the US, people use the word- Fine Artist to describe an innovative artist like an abstract artist or conceptual artist and anyone else is just an artist, which would be a draftsman.
I know nothing about Art. But I know about how AI has replaced sysadmins and some coders and analysts: 1) you're just redefining 'artists' and separating out 'artisan'. 2) i disagree, you artisans ARE dead. 3) you say you will 'specialize' and evolve to 'art directors' and let AI deal with 'craftsmanship' 4) without craftsmen, how will new 'art directors' evolve? It's like saying without drivers - how do you become an F1 racer?
Finally someone brought up the artist/craftsmen distinction. We seriously need to revisit this American model of everyone/everything is artist if we want to advance our medium.
And it starts with storytelling and human connection. It's mean, in particular, composition and design. Everything modern art movement try to delete since the 50's.
I still don’t get it clearly… for me it seems like both are (re)producing patterns, but artist’s ones aren’t as noticeable as the craftsman’s, meaning that AI might still learn the “creation/new things pattern” that most stimulate our emotions. Basically, I still can’t see what probably is the most fundamental aspect that lies between artists and craftsmen (other than the obviousness of the patterns, of course).
@@Genitalio artists are story tellers and idea men as well as craftsman. craftsmen are good at a specific task but not really thinking of the why something is being done on a large scale.
@@vince-1337 there is a place for abstract art its more like visual poetry. its not either or. the future is both and. their is no conflict just difference.
@@Genitalio (love your nickname) the main difference between the two is in capability to conceptualise and to establish an artistic vision/direction. That’s something an AI could never simulate (in its current form at least), cause these things blossom exclusively from various cognitive processes often labeled as ´abstract thinking’. The best example is the google translate. Even if it’s performing quite well with various types of text, it could never correctly translate a novel, it would take a professional translator to transpose writer’s voice into another language space, taking into account all various contexts and aspects of both languages - from historical to cultural and social. In resumé - The AI can get more intelligent and performant, but it will always lack our god spark.
The video tried to interrupt for an ad for me right after he said "probably!" at then, and for a moment I thought that was just an intended perfect cut.
This video overlooks one very important detail: using AI doesn't come free. It looks like the most potent AI assistants will basically be controlled by one of ~5 large companies (Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, NVidia, Facebook, maybe Tesla). Using their assistants can safely be assumed to be more expensive than "pro" tools and props today (at first), because they provide much more value than those. So while yes, it likely will be *possible* to make whole movies or AAA games all on your own, OTOH it may take much longer for that to be *affordable* on your own.
@@midnightsnack1306 It isn't a good point at all. If anything the digital revolution has shown us the opposite. There is an abundance of cheap or pay as you go software that is orders of magnitude better and more productive that extremely expensive solutions less than a decade ago.
@@monsieurLDN All models are open source, that doesn't help you one bit. The source code allows you to train the model IF you have millions to spare for the compute (not even starting about training data). Even IF the model parameters themselves are open (which often is the case), you still need hardware equivalent to 10-50 modern PC to just RUN a state-of-the-art model. Maybe one day this kind of compute will be at everyone's fingertips, but in the near future, open source won't be enough anymore for free software.
@@cmilkau That's what servers are for, you don't have to buy a new computer to run the model if you can just run it on a dedicated server and pay some cents for the time you used it
The thing is I think there will still be a market for human created stuff, people like seeing human skill on display. AI will probably be seen as cheating in a way because it wasn't your skill that made it come to life, rather it was some algorithm that did it for you. I see this emerging AI art as kind of like the advent of photography. Portraying people and landscapes was more accessible due to photography so artists started moving away from realism into more abstract stuff but that doesn't mean realistic artists went away. There is still a market for artists who are able to paint realistically because people are impressed by the skill involved. Sure it's easier to just take a picture but being able to paint something that looks like a photo is something people want to see. It will be the same way with AI art. It's similar with 2D animation vs. 3D animation. 3D animation might be easier but people still enjoy hand-drawn animation because they like the way it looks and appreciate the skill. AI art is a new art-form, not necessarily a replacement.
Very controversial and unpredictable topic. Just a few ideas 1. Possible law change. Imagine, that every piece of art or photo used for AI training and education has copyright so that gamedev companies or software developers will have to pay artists for using it. Once? Everytime, when it is used for commercial products? We are accustom to reality when much of the data used is "free". That might change with time 2. Imagine youself 10-15 years ago. Could you create art or artstyle without the knowledge you obtained for the past years? Even in your previous video you mentioned changes you would like to make in your own work made several month ago. That all wouldnt be possible without constant practice and struggle. Your ability to see color, value, shapes - all will be gone. What would you create without it? You cant learn by just looking, othervise art historics and critics would be top creators xD 3. Do you remember worries about 3d completely replacing 2d? The one Adam Lucidpixel mentioned it his videos. I belive now 2d is as much in demand as before, even more possibly with all that indie game dev companies around the world @ Adam Duff LUCIDPIXUL would be great to hear your thoughts about it )))
O worked with illustration and agencies. When we use photos we need to pay for the photographers, we need to pay for the illustrators and models used, but now models and photos are stolen for the AI learning...
@@cbsgaduoscbsgaduos8513 But that's using the literal image for your work - I can't help but feel this is different in that the only thing the image is used for is collecting data about the image to feed and train the AI
@@DanknDerpyGamer AI is using literal images for their work too, deep learning is creating img2img with no ethic involved. Just stealing and replacing with "slightly changed images". The image preset is very little changed. At least illustrators pay for their models when they use images. There is a difference here, and it is a huge ethical problem.
1. To create something new you need to have a journey of finding yourself. Beginner artists generally either don't have a "style" or their style is just a combination of their favourite artists. Artists who really have an original style create it trough their journey of learning art. 2. Art isn't just about the product that you put out. The whole process of creation is what makes it truly unique. Its not just a language you speak, its an instrument you play. I feel like a lot of digital artists can especially forget that (I'm a digital artist too).
My favourite internet artist Plastiboo is someone who is pretty far from making "traditional" art. But they do have a unique process that screams personality and its not just imagining an original idea and printing it out like a robot.
The reality is that if you have the ability to adapt to different tools, you will be able to make "art" out of it. But that doesn't mean if the Ai creation takes over and becomes the norm, this branch of art we right now love will not be killed in a brutal and cruel manner.
Every time something gets automated, people are like: "Oh no, this technology will replace me" instead of "Hey cool, I can now produce the same value with much less effort, more time to make it more sophisticated/to develop sth new/to have more free time!" People have this mindset because of one big problem: the surplus value doesn't benefit everyone, but only those who have the means to adopt the new technology early on. And if AI gets to the point where you can easily produce a movie in a day, I'm sure the big companies/studios will be the first ones to have access to that. And if we're still in late stage capitalism by that point, they're gonna try to milk it for all it's worth.
Euh, not that I am an anti capitalist... I'm mostly for a society who cares for the poor and sets up structures (many EU countries are close to this model, with enough social structures) to care for them and builds accessible (for them) education and health. Not necessarily out of the current capitalist system (basically, because it'd be unpractical, every try has ended really bad, with gross loss of so many freedoms, and in the end the adventure is suffered way more by the ones in the lower layers, which is sadly ironic. I believe in the freedom of business initiatives, specially small business owners; indeed, it's the key, and the reward for the effort culture for those who do break the ice, etc. But mostly, the importance of ethics and morals of each individual. But I digress.
@@3polygons Capitalism is what has taken most people out of extreme poverty and allowed the surplus necessary for social programs to exist without grossly limiting people's freedoms. Interest banking is what keeps so many still in peril of losing everything at the drop of a hat.
@@Stroggoii I am not against capitalism if social structures are provided (ie, free health care / basic education for the lowest layers in society...that does not require to restrict anyone's freedom; I've seen it done, nicely), and it is kindda constrained by some "survival" common sense, like investing in clean energy, preserving the environment, etc. All this is perfectly compatible with capitalism (as happens in several EU countries and other parts of the world (first world, mostly...the challenge is to "port" all that to the second and third world)).
people will not be paying much for a movie with no effort, and if every job will be lost, people are not going to have the money to buy things and support the economy, just buy necessary things or buy and use ai to produce their own survival or something, automation, alongside with corona virus, is one of the reasons why some governments are considering a basic income
1. I have a stake in this not only as an artist, but as someone who cares about the environment. The carbon footprint left by the AI generation (in combination with NFT minting) is troubling. 2. I LIKE drawing. The simple repetition and process is extremely relaxing to me, I'm proud of my skills and I'd like to make it my job. 3. Innovating is fun too, but the idea of constantly creating images "never before seen" in this saturated market is delusional. 4. People don't always want original. Sometimes they DO want "Art Picasso Would've Made But Didn't". It would be more of what they like. 5. We can't predict the limitations of AI
Your first point should be separated into 2 separate points: The carbon footprint of NFTs - You have a valid point here. So much energy is wasted in the crypto space. Carbon footprint of AI generation - Is absurd. If you are a digital artist you can create art at a certain, limited pace, all the while you, just by eating and existing are adding to greenhouse gases. In addition you are using electronic devices to create. An 'AI' on the other hand could create millions of images in the time it takes you to make 1 complicated image. Therefore you are MANY orders of magnitude worse for the environment as a human artist than an 'AI' generation algorithm.
being an artist is one of the safest jobs going forward, as I have some education regarding CS and AI, I can assure you that all forms of AI revolve around optimization (shortest path, evolutionary algorithms, etc.) or categorisation (decision trees, image recognition etc.) the most feared form of AI is artificial neural-network, because it's complex, difficult to understand and control and by design resembles human brain, but it doesn't work like human brain, it will do random stuff unless you "train" it to do a specific task making AI capable of creativity is a monumental task, requiring years of research and investments
@@Ruebler1 you know, just like it was said in the video, AI will have no problem doing simple repetitive tasks, so making AI which generates a 3D model based on a prompt input is relatively easy (I stress the word relatively here), you know kind of AI that generates a generic tree model when asked to generate a tree, and maybe someone is already working on such AI, but if you want to incorporate some lore or specific feel to that 3D model, maybe some fine details or original cretive features, that would require AI to understand concepts like beauty, lore, aesthetics, metaphor etc. and we don't know when (or even if) it'll be possible, I wouldn't dare to predict what technology will look like 50 years from now, just look at 70's and what technology used to look back then
@@WhnPgsFl Okay, I dont like this risk (losing basically everything you have done in your life and being left with useless knowledge) but I cant imagine any other job and I love it so I am just gonna hope not to be replaced and maybe getting to the heigher positions over time. Good luck to you too!
@@Ruebler1 I wouldn't worry too much about it, there are still many years before AI will become real threat to our jobs, and when it does, it will put every job in danger so you won't be alone in this, but good luck to you too
@@Ruebler1 And I mean, really, if AI becomes so sufficiently advanced that it can essentially think creatively without human prompts, what job is safe? At that point AI could write code itself to address any task imaginable putting literally everyone out of work, never mind just artists. As it advances, AI will continue changing up the art industry just like it is changing every other, I just think people are more shocked at AI creating art because it's much more flashy than things like AI-based translation, consultation, surgery, manufacturing etc. But those associated professions are all changing as well. If AI ever completely takes over everything (and society remains stable), people will still go and watch a skilled painter or musician perform their craft, simply because another human is doing it and these are some of the things most beloved by humanity. I say just do what you love, if AI "takes over" art there isn't anything it won't.
the thing is that if an ai can just take a description and create a piece of art then why would anyone ever hire an artist? Why would anyone consume your media if everyone is making their own with simple button presses? Also the idea that somehow ai won't be able to create something completely original that a human could is just wrong. Picasso didn't come up with his style in a vacuum but instead mixed multiple different ideas, that is how human creativity works and that is also what an ai does.
AI can be creative just like humans, it's not just a bunch of sliders. You can give a very vague prompt and the AI will creatively interpret what you are asking for. It's not just replacing people who copy paste content, it's going to replace the creative artists that create unique work as well. Yes you can tell the AI to create art in picasso style, but the AI can also create its own styles by extrapolating what it has learned from others, just like humans do. And this is just the beginning, as AI gets more advanced and smarter and more creative it will be able to make even "deeper" art than humans are capable of.
I’ve been deep into MidJourney for a few days and it’s already creating amazing compositions, mind boggling because the people putting in the prompts are fine tuning and experimenting. Borrowing prompts that work and improving them. I think the future is already here.
to be honest if you need to be adjusting sliders to make a image when you can do 5 min sketchs to get a concept right i doubt ia will replace you , you can reach the final product using ia later anyway art nowadays is about the final product. By this thinking 3d should have ended a lot of art jobs, but it dint it just make more job entries.
I discovered ai software called midjourney and love the outcomes people are sharing. However as artist (drawing new concepts, satire, caricature, portraits ) and craftman (making said ideas as paintings/drawings on digital or traditional medium for others to have or just to see) I'm concerned will be there a clientele willing to support or hire the artist? If anyone will be expected to churn 100 images per couple of days, will be there an audience? Like everyone can start their own church but it will be an empty building in the sea of other churches. It is all brand new to me and lot of to think about... Because there is abundance of things and yet cost of living skyrockets and middlemen like print companies makes really best deals out of it.
I don't think this video aged very well, check out the AI scene today... for example what Imagen can do, and that Stable Diffusion just went open source... it makes you wonder what next year will bring...
I find it hard to believe in these high tech utopias...I dunno seems just too good to be true. It's hard also not to be scared of new things. But we must keep on, the future will always be kind of scary. Let's learn and adapt best we can.
Thank you VERY much for this video🙏🏽🙏🏽. I was thinking the same thing. I have been creating art part time for about 20 years and I have only created about 15 pieces. People ask me why I haven't created more pieces. My response is always "For the most part...i am creating images that have never existed. That type of inspiration and creativity happens every year or so" To that end any suggestions on what AI/Program would you suggest I can use to ENHANCE my unique creating with AI??
Is art even still art if it takes no talent and skill to produce it? If one day, I could create a "visual masterpiece" just by letting an AI interpret talk to text details to create an image, to call myself an artist would be just as ridiculous as calling a social media influencer that just takes tons of selfies a "model." Just like how having 1 post go viral on tik tok makes you famous for a day, you aren't a celebrity.
Nothing you said makes any counter argument to the fears we all have. Sorry maybe I’m just not getting it but the creative process will be flipped on it’s head and that is not a good thing.
You are one of my favorite teachers ever. Your work is great and you are soooooooooo generous. Thank you for all your work. Eventually I will support with more than words.
The line between scientist and engineer is also a very blurry one, outside of like mathematicians and theoretical physicists pretty much every scientist will be an engineer to some degree. Data science and data engineering are the exact same thing like to 99.99% I imagine.
When Photoshop and Illustrator came out, magazine illustrators and designers thought it was the end of their careers, as they would all be replaced by in-house amateurs that could knock out design work and graphic illustrations effortlessly, in comparison to the painstaking methods used before the advent of these digital programs. Of course, what actually happened is exactly what you describe here. Those who were just cranking out the same old same old were replaced, because the programs were designed to make standard design and illustration jobs far easier. Still, it immediately became clear that good design was more than just knowing the tools. When the tools became relatively easy to master, what ended up happening is that bad design proliferated, because all the tool did was make people who didn't know how to do it think they did. But even to the casual eye, the difference between a beautifully designed or badly designed magazine, or product packaging, or whatever else, was instantly obvious. It's the same with illustration. Using Photoshop didn't make bad illustrators into good ones. It very quickly became apparent who was using Photoshop with skill and craft, and who thought it was a replacement for skill and craft. Photoshop was merely a new art medium, and required an artist's skill like any other. Just because you could ctrl-Z your way out of mistakes in a way you can't with paint doesn't mean you don't have to be an artist to make art with it. In short order, the bar was raised, and skillful artists learned how to get ten times more out of Photoshop than anyone else. Meanwhile, we value the tactile quality of traditional media far more than we did before digital became ubiquitous. This is nothing new. Once upon a time, a new technology called photography made every portrait painter quake in their boots, thinking they were about to become obsolete. In many ways, they did. Portrait painting stopped being the only way to record people's likeness. But it also kicked off the beginning of the modern art movement, which I think we can all agree was probably a good thing. Change is inevitable as it is scary. We get to have our feelings about it, but then we all have to buckle down and adapt.
There is something you're not saying (in fact, any youtube artist guru say this), but don't care if you're a Good or a bad artist, the only real value is getting good contacts in the industry to have good jobs in big companies and so get recognition... and well, since companies hire artist yes, AI will kill our job like robots are killing big amount of factories jobs since 1980's
Guilherme , Não , its not going to turn our IP into a commodity. |For now at least because they way i see it it only creates as many variants of an original IP just like the corona virus does pretty much. companies creating 10k variants of a sweet donut , all it means is that they will battle it out in advertising and unique craftmanship. we don't need to be depressed. fast fashion did not kill quality clothes.
@@PHlophe Of corse it will not happen now, Like I said, when I was a kid in the 80's was big news robots doing the job of 20 men in factories, this don't kill job for men in factories, but since the 80 the job are less and the pay lower a lot... I'm not depress about that, I think it means the human being must think in a new way to live a life, maybe more equal for everyone. About the variant thing, If you watch video game designs (even movies for kids nowaday) are all almost the same, with little variants, like AI can do... come on, a horror game, just put a little girl in a white dress and long black hair all over her face, hahaha
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Tbh it would be nice if in animation we draw the key frames and the AI does the in between. THAT would be amazing.
idk
that actualy already exists but
it doesnt look that nice
but i know what u mean i would love that if it didnt look like it was made by an ai
ruclips.net/video/VnmQy0UMLtA/видео.html in this video it a prototype of this, it will be a long time until it evolve, but instead of be happy i fear for a lot of inbetweeners lose their jobs
I think there is also a problem that we are experiencing already without the AI: I'll call it content inflation.
There is a reason many people think that the '80s were the best when it comes to entertainment. It was slow and expensive, but many of the things that were made back then have become an important piece of our culture, and still are today specifically because there weren't much of them, everything was important and remembered even today (that's why we only get reboots and remakes nowadays, because the studios know that this way the money is guaranteed). But if everyone will make new content every day, they will only have a very short window to become popular.
Imagine a cinema, where you can see a new movie every day, but each of them will only be there for a single day. Nothing will become popular enough to grow into an important part of our culture, because there will be something else shiny and new next day. You can make literally the best movie to ever exist, and the few people who saw it will forget about it in a week.
The same way as RUclips works, a new video has less than a day to stay relevant, and you will barely get any new views after a month.
Is like picasso, and artstation, or we all making our photos. We wil design our film in the near future. For instance I will ask for a saint seiya film, batman begins style. You are right with (less things, more popularity) but I think that is nothing to chase. We suddenly will be able to be artists like the crap voice singers of today.
But I keep getting 4+ year old videos in my recommended...
I do not think this will happen or at least not drastically. There is for example, a bunch of comics created every day, yet good, gripping and special comics still emerge from the sea of mediocrity.
ah yes, the "when everyone's a superhero, no one is super" concept.
THIS!! This is made even worse by companies pushing out series after series,movie after movie,with a complete disregard for the art form itself. Art has become so corporate. Companies are aware of this,but as long as they get their quick cash grab they’re good. No company dares to try to make a good movie now,because then that would be the only one getting money for a long time,considering how many bad ones are being made. None of the cheap cash grabs would get any attention or any money anymore. So it’s this cycle of quick bad movie,quick small money,more bad movie,more small money. And people give in and pay because bad stuff is their only options these days.
All of this could’ve been avoided if people that actually had a passion for the craft would take the real time that it takes to make good movies. Sure,we’d get very few at a time,but that’s actually a really good thing. This way people will cherish the few genuinely good works they have instead of settling for a bunch of soulless corporate junk. And companies will be free to milk the good franchises they have until the next movie is made. Things will still keep moving forward,but not at a breakneck speed that ensures every movie is forgotten within a week
This argument sincerely doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It's an absolute fact that fewer artists will be required, thus the viability of the profession will be lower. Don't get me wrong, I much prefer hand made art, but the fact of the matter is that AI generated art is "good enough" for most companies, and they might just have some artists essentially generating those images and touching them up, but it will still be significantly fewer than when they had to make them themselves from scratch.
That's a beautiful comment, you made my day, thank you :>
True, and honestly this is a double-edged sword and might do more bad to the art industry than good. Artists like me will probably not be needed as much. But it might be beneficial for RUclipsrs and bloggers, like myself. T-shirt designers, too if the art is good enough.
Yeah, someone like Disney is making generic stuff even these days, but now, they'll be able to generate concept art for all their shows and movies on just one computer. :D It's crazy.
Then again the AI results arent just "good enough" they can be as good as best of art. But yeah it still requires an artist to look them over and do fixing in photoshop. Also extremely good for just giving myself some concept art for my own paintjobs.
companies will replace artists with AI because AI is free and will save the company ~50k yearly or more, and companies entire premise is to make money. I dont know why people dont think companies wont do this. they 100% will.
So, most of us are losing our jobs, I'm not seeing this as something that isn't worth being afraid of. Removing all "crafters" is a lot.
society will adapt and evolve. Just like we did with the industrial revolution.
We will adapt and create new jobs, everyone will be an art director, sure, but like he said, not everyone are or like to be extremely innovative. I love to model, if a AI do it in a way it's impossible to live modeling, idk what else will bring joy to my life
@@UmNãoSerYou can still model as a hobby...
@@Adaephonable thats not the point they’re trying to make at all lol
This is the same problem that comes with every automation project, and it's fundamentally an issue with capitalism. If we didn't tie the worth and livelihood of a person to their labour, then replacing the need for that labour with automatic workers would be a perfect benefit for everyone! The way things stand, actual workers are being displaced through technology that ultimately makes its owners less dependent on people and their political leverage. AI can't strike for better working conditions and business ethics, after all.
So the solution is to abolish working for a living, as a concept. Crafters won't be NEEDED to do their job anymore, if you NEED craft you can use an AI to get it; but crafters will still exist, because it's an occupation people take because they LIKE doing it! Because artists WANT to hone their skills and produce something themselves! Essentially "Artist" will cease to be a job description, and become a personal hobby instead. And while this would ruin millions of lives under capitalism, where you can't survive without slaving for a wage... that's not the only system we can choose going forward. From each according to their abilities (and personal interest in creation which we all share), to each according to their needs (which can be met almost entirely through automation).
Such a society is the real solution to the AI Art Problem. Getting there will be hard, it may even seem impossible. But I believe it's not just possible, but the single system that maximizes human happiness and freedom, and we should do what we can to work towards it.
What you've basically described is "real artists are ones who feed algorithm until there's nothing more to feed it with" and "AI can only iterate on ideas that it's been fed" is exact description of ideation process, everything we make is to a degree based on things we've seen/experienced.
Of course. In the end its very similar to what humans do (or for that matter any animal with a central nervous system).. we are given inputs in the form of sensory data, our brains analysis the data, makes prediction for next data and if its not the same as the predictions it changes its synaptic patterns. In the end it just boils down to how many neurons and parameters / data there are/is.. compare a brain of a human with that of a mouse and then an ai with 1m parameters vs one with 100 and u can see why there is such a bit cognitive difference.
tldr; the larger the network, the better the results for the most part
you are right, but AI doesn't have mental and social tools to use things like irony or social and cultural context for example. That's the stuff that allows artists to mend reality to create art, i don't think AI can really work like that. Recall any piece of art that made you cry or made you laugh or made you feel any other kind of emotion other than what you associate with the image and what it shows (not represents) and ask yourself if AI could do that
@@feliksdzierzynski1389 maybe not come up with such stuff itself, but defo imitating existing material.. and whats even more interesting is if two ais "communicating" in a way that influences their weights and biases such as reinforced learning could be a way to simulate culture and subsequent human and societal phenomenons in the future ;)
EDIT:
simulate not emulate :')
The difference is in how we experience those things. To an AI, the process is about rearranging data (be it colors, shapes, sounds etc.) into a configuration that most likely matches the requested output, with no understanding for the abstract concepts those data represent.
It may be the same information, but humans are able to assign weight and history to a concept alongside it's literal meaning, whereas conversely, we have yet to develop an AI that sees art as anything more than numbers and trends containing those numbers.
what i hear him say is, an artist in context, is an ARTIST, not simply a skillset. An artist creates no matter the medium, and creativity can amaze you in any medium, and ARTISTS are going to AMAZE you no matter what because they bring forth new ideas, and basically anyone who has learned digital art, is a human AI for the company they are in.... anyway if CREATIVES want to evolve the craft of creating, then we shouldnt be purposefully stagnating like planned obsolescence in phones.. I get it people want jobs in what they like, but then in the bigger picture that is neglecting expanding creativity...
I think companies will just expect more from less artists with this technology, like instead of hiring a big team they will expect 5-10 people to do the job of hundreds in these big budget films/games.
This. Companies will end up shrinking the amount of creative jobs
But then the artists might be like "Why are we working for these guys? We don't need them. We can just go and create what we want to create, and become our own independent studio." You're going to have more indie movies and games with more fresh ideas than Hollywood and big gaming companies.
Big companies are going to be competing with everyone, not just other big companies.
Unless they somehow make the tools unattainable for smaller artists; that would be depressing.
@@Crickette so your telling me they’ll risk being homeless to hopefully make a portion of the money... sure
@@aharrypotterfan5951 These hypothetical people most likely would already have a big following, because there are so few working on the team versus the hundreds that currently work on productions. They will have the time and resources to not go homeless, people will want to see the work continued especially if they were already working on a big series.
However I think the more likely scenario is that they will have some kind of ownership to the company and make a lot more money then previously, so in that case they wouldn't have a reason to leave. But there's also the chance because they are competing with the rest of the world the company is going out of business, so they're better off jumping the boat.
But imagine working with a team of artists and they create something successful, then all of a sudden a bunch of people in suits that had no hand in the creation walk in, and because they own the company they take 99.75% of the profits.
Still, there are a lot of hypotheticals to go over for this kind of world. We have no idea what would actually happen.
@@Crickette if they’re in the situation to be able to risk it then their jobs worth staying at though? The only reason for them to leave is being underplayed and under-acknowledged, and how are they going to be able to make there own new hip seriös if no one knows who they are and they don’t have the money to start?
I think as art tools become more advanced, people will gain a greater appreciation for traditional art.
Doubt that very much. The only difference between digital art and traditional art is the medium used, good tradtional art supplies l are expensive and have a use by date, digital art supplies are far more cost-effective and versitile! Most digital artists can use traditional media they just cant afford the medium or to spend so much time on one piece that will then have to be phyically housed and cared for till they can sell it for enough to actually make profit. The skills are more or less the same, the medium and risks and needs for things like space and time to hold the art safely why in progress and selling is just diffrent.
@@MizziTheFoxdragon i agree, digital artists are still able to do traditional if they wanted, they will only have to get used at the first week or month, after that they are a natural. I'm a digital artist solely because it is convenient and my house is small. But i have tried painting for school purposes, my skill was pretty much the same.
You will do it for pleasure. Like people carving wood. Also it may be true as a little number of people go to an opera to hear sing without a mic.
Yup that's what I think too. I think that "100% hand-drawn" is gonna be the skill of the century and the prices for traditional art will skyrocket, while people who claim AI drawings as their own (which is totally legal btw since AI is not a person and has no rights) will be branded lazy and unimaginative.
@@maomaomi5434 I understand what you mean, but doubt it, as it won't be possible to differentiate between the one made by a superskilled human or an AI. That is why the price wont skyrocket. Although, corrupt people will keep on buying "art" from a name(brand) skilled or unskilled to wash money
I agree with your vision HOWEVER the number of people who are that innovative is extremely small. Not to mention that bringing innovation to a field only happens when you are extremely well versed in that field at least. How does one get extremely well versed if the job they are supposed to get good at is basically nonexistent anymore....
Then the way art is taught will be changed, and we cannot predict the measures of that change.
it is gonna be like youtube , the threshold of the work needed to put out content , will decrease drastically granting dumb people to put their dumb shit up
@@tahasoomro8585 Warhol already did that for art though, though. Cue the urinal-as-art.
Deal with it dawg
exactly. and that "innvoation" i would imagine not to be so suitable for game and film industry. "innovaton, somethin no ones done before" i dont think of that as concept att, characte design. because those are all done before but we work to master it and take ou own takes on it. this video doesnt make much sense to me.
"Artists shouldn't fear AI"
*procedes to explain how virtually every artist in existence aside from directors is basically going to be useless*
true but not just artists will become useless but all humans .
@Ebola exactly, this dude's take is delusional tbh
@Ebola No, it means there will be more competition and companies that are dominant now will probably lose some power or relevance since the oligopoly over the means of production they thrived with will no longer exist.
I don’t think so. You can argue AI does quality work but I don’t see it at all. I’ve used the popular generators and the results are crap imo. I think this will get better over time but still. An artist knows when he is making a bad painting, AI doesn’t know what good or bad is. Art is subjective but a computer, it is not.
@@donhoolieo4896 Dall-e 2 is only accessible through waitlist currently and the results look really good to me at least. Give it another decade and who knows
There is one caveat though. The total number of games, movies, art pieces, songs, and so on. I fear that if there will be hundreds of thousands of movies, games, and so on released every day - only marketing will differentiate them. It slowly happens right now even without the AI revolution.
marketing and community! we are becoming local artists world wide, we need to pull out what the internet can provide and bring it into our smaller communities to tell stories that people want to hear.
That's already the case. Always has been.
Tell me please, where can i bought the skull that stand behind and what material it consists of
When/if the technological singularity hits, which is a requirement for that to happen, you will have way bigger things to worry about.
But there already are - and most of it is gargabe.
I genuinely hate how much this stuff undermines the process, which in itself is part of what makes art interesting.
I also think you guys are insane if you think Companies won't find a way to monopolize AI in a way that benefits them, be it by licensing the program or greatly limiting how it can be used.
What if through AI you arrive at a piece that resembles someone else's, what will companies and artist do to protect their intelectual property, and what would be the defense someone would have against being sued over copyright violation.
Right now this stuff is on it's infancy so it's all fun and games, but do you seriously think this won't be regulated up the ass once it's done and ready to be used in actual products?
Just look at crypto currency, something created to have a currency that isn't owned by centralized banks, now is pretty much monopolized by early adopters and people who already have a fuckton of influence and money. What actually makes you think that the same won't happen to AI, when you account for the fact that powerful companies will be able to fund the best pieces of harware that will be able to generate better sollutions before anyone else?
This is seriously the most gullible worldview I've seen someone have in a while.
You're saying that like pirates and nft screenshotters don't exist. As long as rules and regulations exist, people will always find new ways to break them.
Value the time and effort it takes for artist to do stuff and wait and everything should be okay. Most people want stuff to be fast and come out how they want and most humans can’t do that.
@@maomaomi5434 The way you say "nft screenshoters" as if that actually gets anything done
@@MatheusNiisama you can actually funge nfts
A piece of art "looking" like someone else's isn't a crime. It never has been. That's not something any artist should ever want.
When everyone's a creator, nobody is.
My problem is i like being a Craftsmen.. don't really want to be an artist..
And with every year everything keeps getting easier, so being technically skilled becomes less important, but that's what I'm actually good at and enjoy 😅
People whose expertise isn't in the abstract will go the way of the horse.
@@katethegoat7507 all we're doing is slowly diminishing the human experience further and further.
I think innovative comes from the busywork kind of tasks. You learn the basics and then there is a developmental process, and there's such a value in that. It's like photography. It's really easy know to take beautiful photos. But the best photographers, imo, really understand the craft of how photography works and have an understanding of the history. Same with writers, etc.
Yeah, this video is kinda shitty because he's acting like craftsmen are inferior and it's justified for them to lose their jobs.
These are real people who have invested their time and money into developing a craft and are trying to make a living off of it only to have the rug pulled out from under them.
@@NihongoWakannai and I don't really agree with his argument for definitions anyways. Sure it may be somewhat sound, but I just don't agree with intentions and thus I reject the concept. I think it's far too vastly limiting on art as concept too. It just doesn't feel true frankly.
There's a problem with your statement though. Some of the best designers admit one thing; nothing is truly original. Even I can see some of my art is somewhat 'inspired' by what i've seen before, something AI wont have a problem doing.
🌐 The Contiñum of Intelligence is Quadratically Defined : Height of Spirit, Depth of Soul, Width of Heart and Length of Knowledge.
🌐 Data a mono-dimensional subset of Knowledge ONLY it is.
Art is a copypasta in some ways, and nothing is truly original. What's truly original in the artwork is experience - this is the selling point. The human can develop art style through the experience, and AI cannot. AI could be inspired by other artists' and try to copy their style, but isnt able to develop itself. MidJourneyAI, for example, generates impressive pieces, mainly because it has unique architecture designed by human. So, to rephrase, human copypasta will definitely lose its value in art.
@Anna Voigt We've all been fooled before. AI can fool us by replicating that human touch in just about anything. It will be taught to imitate facial expressions and composition in famous paintings, writing techniques and plotlines in emotional stories, and musical breakdowns from popular songs. It isn't a matter of the AI becoming sentient. Long before that happens, it will still have achieved the ability to mock us nearly perfectly. As deep as we are, we're not perfect. And there are a hell of a lot of brilliant people out making sure that AI will one day achieve at least that.
What we can only hope for is that AI will have fooled even the scientists creating it to the point where it stagnates before becoming sentient.
@@Roboartist117 everything that works in a work of art,
if it is used as a formula it stagnates and is boring,
If an artificial intelligence manages to create the Lord of the Rings movie from 0,
It would has been late, because the lord of the rings already exists,
artificial intelligence cannot innovate, and that is the true essence of an artist
I'm working as a 3D artist for the same indie studio since 2013.. when it comes to this topic i always end up with the fact that.. one day. When AI has the ability to make "art.. games.. stories..etc" so well that we ALL are aware of it. There will be a "new" genre simply called human. Even AI will make the distinction. Because its not going to want to be or even HAVE humans. So.. In a few years you might have the situation where a product is marketed as "no AI" or completely handcrafted (As we already see with procedural generated worlds vs "handcrafted")
Rather interesting. And as artist on the brink of it.. well staying true to who you want to be might be what makes the difference at the end.
One of the most true comments I've seen. When something is made from 2d animation or a game/show has a unique style rather than realism, I'm more amazed and want to buy/engage with that content. A lot of ppl hate nfts and comission artists rather than nfts. Sure, some kind of job will be replaced by it maybe some concept artists or not but will AI ever have the creativity that I or humans have? (I think not). Yes we are not "really" creative too and we do everything based on past experiences. But we have soo many experience that AI or computers can't store. If I made a piece that conveys my sadness from a childhood memory let's say, can AI do this? If AI ever comes near to feeling or conveying emotions it won't be just end of artists, probably end of humanity. Just so some AI can generate somewhat of a character doesn't mean you'll lose your job. There will be collectors collecting "human art". There will be a lot ppl like me who would rather support a team of artists who put their heart into their projects rather than supporting a big company with AI. Some jobs may suffer from it. But I really don't think no AI will end artists. Photography didn't kill artists. Digital art didn't kill traditional. AI won't kill artists, imo.
procedural generated worlds has massive limitation compare to handcrafted worlds. It just tastes differently.
"Hand crafted" is very much a spectrum. I think you would be hardpressed to find a high budget game with a big world that has every vein on every leaf on every tree created and placed by hand.
Do you think its possible for AI to create clean 3D Models for games in the next 50 years?
I can see #NoAI or #human on Instagram posts in the future lmao
I don't mean to be rude but I don't think the "we'll all be art directors" argument holds up too well. I don't know the numbers but I anticipate the ratio of art directors to art staff being quite high. For argument's sake, let's say 1 director: 20 staff.
That single director probably worked his ass off to get job because it's competitive and scarce. Having AI drive the staff into director positions assumes that there will be 20 vacant jobs for them to fill.
Dunno if this makes sense.
But I think cases like this are when we really need to have a hard look at what sort of genie we're letting out of the bottle. Artists already have a hard time making it and competing against cheaper and faster computers is going to make it worse.
I have been both an Art Director and a film director and I would never dismiss the talents of the people who assisted me in the creation of the final work. A team of artists AND craftsmen work to make things that an individual could not produce alone. That does not make the subordinate people less creative. A director ORGANIZES that combined creativity and craftsmanship.
Independent musician and art director and film director?
@@pedroantonio5797 Yup, I am not saying that the handful of short films and the couple of TV commercials I worked on would impress many people. I am much more proud of my music that I produced and released over the years. I was in several bands but that didn’t seem relevant here. The work that I did to earn most of my income came from being an art director and creative director for a sizable retail chain (in house) and later a design firm that had some notable clients. After that I spent many years working as an independent doing mostly product photography and digital photographic illustration. Nothing to fancy mind you, but those are actually my credits. It feels like you are dubious, but I don’t feel that’s an uncommon career for someone my age. 😀
5:48 Brandon Sanderson uses the analogy of cooks and chefs for a similar idea. Cooks follow instructions, repeat what they've done before, little innovation. Chefs know what each *element* does, and combine the elements as they please to get the result they want, high innovation, high experimentation.
Doesn’t means that I want to eat prepackaged sh*t or fast food all day, when I can’t afford something „artful“
Ideas don’t feed people.
Tell me please, where can i bought the skull that stand behind and what material it consists of
@lil trol Thanks for taking the time to explain that!
Hi, I am an independent musician visiting here from the past to warn that technology can destroy creativity if used poorly. Tech that ignores or does not respect the artist is by its very nature likely to remove the ability to generate income from countless unique and original creators. If we had chosen to use the tools to honor and support ALL music creators, we could be living in a world where so many more creative people could support themselves and their families. Instead, we are left with a culture that assumes music should be free and platforms that do not fairly pay artists for their efforts or hard earned skill. Plus, the sound of music being created gets driven to a dull average by algorithms as people try desperately to gain advantage fighting for the tiny payments they receive from streaming. Instead of humans recommending new music based on life experience and emotion, They are fed selections based on what a formula determines will give them the largest hit of dopamine and keep them listening to advertising. In the example shown in this video, two works of art were “combined” to make something that was referred to as “new” the insinuation is that the resulting output would be free to use and exist as an original work. Why do we think that? These AI systems are trained by feeding in countless works of art that in my opinion are stolen from their creators for an eventual commercial purpose. Every single image used to train AI or generate something “different” (not new) should respected and the artist who created it should be compensated. Actually, I think they should all be asked if they want to participate in the first place! The researches (who will eventually become companies as they monetize their products, don’t kid yourself) are forcing millions of artists to be unwilling art teachers to a algorithm that doesn’t care one tiny bit about being human or feeling the things humans feel. Imagine your favorite avant-garde or seriously unique piece of music from 20+ years ago and ask yourself if you can imagine a brand new work as that was as unique becoming popular enough to be discovered by as many people now. Most people would say that it doesn’t happen to the same extent. That is very sad because it could have been the other way around, if we had used the tools differently and focused on the artists.
Well said, I agree, It's all going t*ts up (Not so well said i know)
you were the one historical figure in the past who went extinct from their inability to cope with change and embrace it instead stubbornly crying your way into extinction. meanwhile actual history has refuted every single thing your long-winded blob of word vomit decided to waste everyone's time with. thank God we have one less stubborn bitter drama queen to worry about while the rest of people continue to create and innovate a new fresh and exciting ways where stodgy and mobile untreated types refused to do so. Good riddance historical outlier.
@@ficklefox2171 Wow you seem very upset, sounds as if I hit a nerve. So asking people to respect artists rights offends you? Interesting.
In my opinion AI is simply a tool for people to use and there are fields where it makes much more sense to deploy neural networks like research or as you said, tasks that are way too time consuming for people to develop.
A simple 5 minute scroll through any art platform shows you so many different ideas and art styles and themes and what not. All those variables and many more, simply couldn't be replicated in the exact way someone wants it to be. Even completely speech or text based algorithms from 10 years from now couldn't give an art director exactly the artwork he's looking for.
People are remarkably limited in their ways of communicating precise artistic ideas so there will always be flaws in the AI's output.
A much better application for an art based AI, is for art directors to use in order to compile references of what they want and then to provide those outputs to the fellow illustration team who then, refine and change it up to fit the particular needs for the project. That won't "steal" anyone's jobs but just make vast improvements in the workflow and quality of the product.
Thanks for coming to my TedTalk.
I mean , the ethical development of AI is supposed to provide more or not affect job numbers for people
@@tahasoomro8585 Depends on said job, but yes.
Tell me please, where can i bought the skull that stand behind and what material it consists of
@@Hyperdonic2 Case in point, image generation AI is already leading to the slow death of stock imagery as a whole.
@@Iamwolf134 What's the difference between human-made stock images and AI-generated stock images? And why it's causing 'slow death'? Because of people with an outdated approach losing money? Why should we worry about that?
10:37 “Everyone will become an art director,” and when everyone’s super no one will be.
Imagine I'm running any company hiring 20 artists doing.... artwork for cards. I can literally replace them all by typing in all text and getting the artwork done a million times faster at zero cost. Yeah, artists SHOULD fear, most of them are doomed, there's this one in a million who's irreplacable, sure, but for 99% of people A.I. is gg.
I agree. This is a dumb video premise
You are not taking my dream away from me, my humanity will prevail, AI has no story to tell, AI never experianced hearthbreak or hilarious moment with friends, chill night sky above the forest, disapointed father, being proud of yourself after pulling trough hard times... Soulless corporations can use AI to create preaty pictures but only real people can be artists and tell stories, and I refuse to believe that my blood and sweat are futile, I have hope
@@krsmanjovanovic8607 it doesn’t need to sadly. AI and soulless companies work hand in hand. They don’t care about art, they care about money.
Sounds similar to labourers getting replaced by machines
The result will be inconsistent, though. If you want those cards to have a consistent style you’d still need a real artist.
If you say that the real artist are actually innovators and the rest of us are basically craftsman, then we should be very scared of AI. Because if only the real artists are able to come up with quasi original ideas (and those aren't many people), the rest is going to be pushed out of the market because of AI because all we can really do is repetitive work, which the AI is so good at.
If everyone is able in the future to just talk to blender or photoshop to create whatever they want, the thing you create will also be valueless. Doing this ''repetitive yet highly skilled work'' is exactly what people pay artists for! Most of the time. They don't pay them to be groundbreakingly innovative.
Therefore, a LOT of artists will lose their job or aren't able to make money anymore if an AI can now do their job.
The fact that you conveniently redefined the word ''artist'' is irrelevant. People are gonna lose their jobs anyway.
I feel like giving up on art because of AI, it's scary.
Hopefully AI will just be a tool for artist, not to replace artist, but I can really understand your fear, with stuff like Dall e 2 coming out, it does feel like your whole entire art journey has been all for nothing, because you have done so much only for some AI to do it far better than you can, but I guess the best you can do is take advantage of the things that AI still hasn't taken over yet, like Animating.
You can work on other skills too, it can be reassuring. (for me it's languages)
But one job that AI will never take is teacher, so remember that art teachers exist (for illustration, animation, design ect)
Edit : if your profile picture is one of your drawing, it's pretty good
you gonna cry because you need to get a real job? is your art degree useless now? I hear mcdonalds is hiring
@@articfox9895 ai can already animate, some years later world war will really happen.
@Пиво и приколы вообщем поживём, увидим.
"Do not mad at the automation for kicking you out,blame the corps that uses automation to kick you out for profit-margins."
I think that AI won't fully replace art made by humans. It is similar to how photography eventually replaced a lot of illustration in advertising, packaging and book covers when it got cheaper and easier to print multicoloured pictures in the 80s. There are still illustration jobs in advertising, packaging etc but there are far less because companies may prefer to use photograpy instead.
Perhaps the same thing or similar would happen in the future?
I believe things will definitely change, and big studios might cut off people from the most repetitive tasks, but I'd like to add that at the same time, after the 80's, videogames, animation and a lot of indie endeavours absorbed (maybe even increased) the need for visual artists that previously would work mainly on advertising, so there is always new industries coming up, which might also employ those that coul potentially be replaced by AI.
Besides that, internet culture opened so many possibilities for working in niches, and even creating a following for one's art, that the originality or singularity of any given artist is in itself a very reasonable competitor to the speed and capacity of mass production from AI. So I think artists will be fine.
Yeah, so we'll see a shrinking amount of jobs in that area. That's precisely why people are worried. Companies don't give a shit about giving jobs, they only care about getting as much as possible for as little as possible
Exactly
Companies don't always prefer to use photos for their press. Boring companies do. Companies who have a specific niche have always been using different illustrations and design pieces for their products.
@@shanghaitatoo There’s also a limit to photography: reality. Once anything imaginary is needed, the artist is back in on some level.
when everyone is special, no one is anymore. syndrome, the incredible. the issue here is, we don't pay for ideas but for good products, if more people with less effort can create a good product of the same industry, the value of the product and consequently the value of the person doing this activity will be lower.
Or, it will make possible to make bigger productions to independent artists (lone wolves, etc) and tiny studios. Also, great creativity won't "grow", this is part of our human condition, and we are not being "upgraded with AI", although we are the final responsible ones of true creativity happening. This is only yet another step to ease the way of developing that creativity, better said of generating a product from it. Those only applying scripts and touching buttons for the AI to be applied will have quite fewer sells, imo.
I tell you something, i like videogames, and this is something that kind of happened in that media, long ago you need not only a whole company with millon of dollars to make a simple plattform game like sonic, you need tecnologic developers that create the consoles or the cardriges.
Today anyone can make an awesome game in any old computer, and distribution is not even a problem, we have steam and other platafforms like that. And the result of this is the new golden age of videogames that we are living, today we can see a lot of really bizarre but awesome games that in other times will never by aproved by any studio. Is really amazing to see games made by 3 or 4 people selling thousans of copies.
In the long run the only ones that lose with it are the big companies of videogames exactly like boro said.
Think about something, did not computers kill the tradicional paintings? Or this mute in something more better like the digital painting era that we are seeing? Picasso will be pleased to see that today you can fix a painting with control+Z
@@WididoR Actually traditional painting is pretty strong, currently. Not only in the big market, the big galleries, but also as a service by humble individuals, small platforms and low/medium budget buyers, distributed now world wide by our now much more efficient and faster package sending than 30- 40 years ago. From payments (waaaay cheaper now than in the 80s-90s, it was out of my scope to be paid or pay overseas), to shipping costs, and times for deliver (making the business actually possible). For any traditional painter today is way easier to make business than before. Even for small clients that want a pure watercolor (and nope... that type of client does NOT want digital, not even the mention of it...and it's quite a crowd) portrait of their dog or family member, the operation is cheap enough that still what they pay it's worth it. Much harder before.
Games...ironically, when I started (as a game artist, as I've been in every field, almost, lol) you could make a game with two or three persons and a computer or two. So, pretty similar to indies now, and indeed, they are using the pixel art style in many cases (and low polygon count 3D, which makes me just as nostalgic as with pixel art, I edited many Quake 1-2 mods), not only because it's more efficient for them, and the aesthetic is cool and very trendy for the masses... it's also because they know nostalgia is a factor, and there are players in the range of 30- 50 that might pretty well be avid buyers.
But like in comic and in illustration, what I did not have back then, none of us did, was ability to publish so cheap or free as today (in all. Graphic design, illustration, comics and games). We could produce very cheaply (comics were made on paper, fully), but we ultimately needed the approval of a distributor. It is very well depicted in a amazing episode of a recent TV Show, still on air I think, "Mythic Quest", in which they dedicate a full episode to the story of a developer of those times. That one alone is worth more than the entire show, and it's a very good show, describes many things of game dev pretty well. Ubisoft is involved, btw. It was omega expensive to publish. A friend of mine was the total pioneer of those times, developed one of those games with two other buddies (when very few games were being produced in the world), distributed internationally. Illustration? Similar. I had to be a cousin of somebody to publish with any of those large publishers. But I wasn't.. :( . Today, anyone with skills can upload an illustrated cover for a book writer on Amazon, it costs zero. Or directly sell your art in a gazillion ways. Or actually publish your own ebook, illustrated or comic on Amazon. Or publish to be printed on demand in Lulu. Zero cost also, it's charged per copy. Or in webcomic platforms like Tapas, Webtoons, etc, or your site. I remember having to pay with some friends 5k euros to publish a extremely reduced run of a comic magazine, in B/W of terrible copy quality.
The fantastic moment of today is now you (we) can make ALL. Traditional, digital illustration, comic, films (short movies, for now), games (small productions, until AI and other tech helps). Even better: ALL of those is actively being produced by people without any budget, and generating them more or less income.
One of the several things I can't agree with the video, though... Is that... well, although we are more and more gaining access (that's super great for poor artists, musicians, designers and developers...and etc), the big companies will always have more resources. So I don't know if I can make that logic work... Yep we will be able to make movies almost like what is done today in top movies (I see an extremely long way till that), but what will they be capable of then with much more money and resources? They will have access to the most expensive AI software, we surely to more mediocre one. The music generation, etc, no matter how much AI can automate, still needs to be made. Human made art (voices, etc) will still be more valued over synthetic. I think the power behind those huge companies will still always win. BUT we will gain more access, and the indie market will become very strong, more even than today, hopefully.
And I don't see traditional painting ever disappearing.
@@WididoR In this metaphor/comparison I think its worth pointing out that even with advances in technology and accessibility most people still dont have the mind for making video games, the same applies with art. If you give the average person a half formed painting and say "okay now finish it" most will probably not know how or simply not want to.
And the inverse, Outsider Art has always been a thing, and it's weird to be scared of it being more prevalent imo.
@@3polygons Is good to know that traditional painting is doing well.
In your argument about high budget, you have to take in count that high budget is also high risk, the investors of this companies often harm the creative freedom of this kind of projects. The more big the project, the most hard to handle and riskier is, and this is a problem that we can see in various triple A games and hollywood movies, they are so restricted by investors that they are bankrupt in the creativity department. We often see the high budget success but we rarely think in those high budget failures that destroys companies. And we are seeing a lot of giants fallings lately.
Hello, I come from an AI research field and I would like to offer a different perspective. What humans have an advantage over AI is that they are super good at generalisation, like translating experience from one field to another or getting inspiration for art from something seemingly unrelated. AI can't do that now. AI usually is only trained to do a pretty narrow task and in that narrow task, it often outperforms people. However, what it all boils down to is that people don't ever have original ideas that AI couldn't have. People just get inspiration from so many different things, essentially from all of their life experiences. If AI would be able to be as good at generalization as humans and be able to experience and learn all the things that we do, then It should be able to come up with all the ideas that we could come up with. So if we ever have Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) then there will be no task, not even art, that we will able to do while it won't be able to do. We probably have a long way until we get an AGI but there is no rule in physics that says that we won't ever get one so it will make it at some point. It may be 10 years from now, 100 years, or even 1000, it's really hard to tell because for all we know it may require much better technology than we have today or it may only need a simple little breakthrough that we haven't got yet.
Hope you lose your job too
Well, isn't it precisely that creativity what DALL-E 2 is leveraging? The entire point of deep learning is to learn through repetition. Humans are terrible at generating random actions. It will learn to read our patterns, and eventually learn to output them as its own.
Another thing human artists have that AI doesn't:
Copyright.
@@maomaomi5434 Just another database. You're underestimating the power that it has.
@@FlockofSmeagles huh..? I meant that you can generate AI images and claim them as your own and sell them, and it'd be 100% legal since copyright laws apply to "human authors" only. AI is a machine and therefore has no rights.
Btw until AI learns how to make actually good rule 34 pics, it's so-called "power" ain't sh- t.
This video is verry funny to watch 1 year later after losing an art contest to someone using a stable diffusion ai
Saying only the idea source can be the "artist" implies that everyone who worked in a Miyazaki production other than Miyazaki are "craftsmen" and the only artist is Miyazaki himself. He might have been a shitty boss and someone who seemingly had most of the creative control but something talked about (in like an interview about Howls castle i dont really remember) sticked with me. He really does see everyone in his crew as artists and talks about how they all have some personality they contributed into the film. That's because people who have a long and hard journey of learning how to draw create uniqueness to their craft and that is where the originality that makes all drawings art comes from.
My artist friends are losing their minds currently about this. I'm wondering if you still feel the same way a year on since AI has REALLY leaped forward. I am not concerned as I think that people will always want human artists. It will unfortunately damage entry level jobs and jobs where young/new artists usually cut their teeth I think.
Here's something to cheer you up: AI generated images are 100% uncopyrighted so you can copy the whole thing as a reference or even trace over it and then claim it as your own and it'd be perfectly legal. You can even legally sell it, and no one can do anything about it!
I fully intend to use AI for my art references. It's so tiresome trying to make the perfect poses in 3D model software, and even more tiresome scouring google images for a face that'd go with it and then having to alter it so that it won't be considered plagiarism.
@@maomaomi5434 I’m not concerned about it personally. If I need ref I usually do it myself anyway. The fact Ai is not copyrightable at the moment is problematic for all the artists who’s art is being stolen the likeness of.
@@maomaomi5434 I thought of the same thing actually, as an aspiring game developer, this AI stuff seems really good for looking at concepts at a face level value that seem cool, kind of like filtering bad ideas out fast
"AI can only combine and fuse things that have already been done before"
But don't we work the same way? Isn't it what creativity is all about? Combining old things to make something new.
Look up OpenAI's DALL-E. They trained an AI with tons of images and text data, and it's able to make images of novel concepts from just a single sentence. A similar model named Cogview just got opensourced, and yet another program called VQGAN + Clip can make convincing images. I expect the future of art will just be telling an AI what you want it to draw.
You're kind of right. But AI is directionless and on it's own, rarely produces images we would find appealing. It's kind of like the difference between a healthy embryo and a mass of cancer cells. Sure they'll both grow and turn into something made of flesh, but only one of them is the thing we want.
@@shoethief Haaaaa... But what is it that we want? Can't an AI take in to consideration our preferences? Like the rule of thirds and so on. So that it can filter out the unfitting combinations and only show the ones that we would in theory find appealing.
Anyway, to summarize it all up, i have very little knowledge about what AI can do and no clue at all about what it will do in the future😂
@@bogdanavramenko9872 It definitely can. Individuals aren't as unique as they think they are. You were spot on with your first comment. I recommend you to look up the term "mimesis". It encompases that idea of creativity you mentioned. And sure, there will always be the one or the other person who will create a new form of art or art movement (even though I feel like that has become more challenging, too) but they're the vast minority, a handful of names in the sea of artists out there. And it's not like AI won't be able to learn how to adapt the patterns that make images appealing to us and even to create new patterns.
anyone can replace a gear, it takes years to learn which gear needs to be replaced.
I definitely could have never imagined the stuff that some creatives come up with, even if just saying what I wanted would make it appear in front of me.
The real casualty will be the dream of being an artist. That'll be gone.
Every real artist, illustrator etc. can be accused of using AI already now, even when you did it from scratch. Its just fricking sad.
This is scary. It makes me feel like I don’t wanna live anymore.
Please seek the help of a professional.
Yeah? Well I'll be honest. Get help all the same but I know what you mean exactly. I don't care about so called positive arguments. If anything is sacred art is, and this stuff shouldn't exist. It should just be abandoned completely.
@@apeture_explorer4810 what scares me is that many jobs are turning into AI and not just art. If AI is doing everything, we are gonna be jobless with no money and also we will get depression from being just empty and jobless. Getting psychological therapy is not gonna enhance the situation. I'm not suicidal, but it just freaks me out.
@@metaknight859 once again I know what you mean. At first I advocated for automation. I wanted a world in which all thing were automated and obligate labor was a thing of the past and humans were free. But then I began to realize, free to do what exactly? What could possibly be fulfilling in a world like that? Perhaps it is my lack of imagination, but I cannot conceive of that previously utopic vision being anything more than some pretty hyper efficient monstrosity that attacks the human condition on all fronts. It seems I am learning to be more picky with what I wish for. I see ai less as an idealistic useful tool to be developed now and more like a mistake that should have never been created in many ways.
You should change your title from companies to “craftsmen”. You’ve explained perfectly why craftspeople should worry. You’ve failed terribly at explaining how companies will have to worry, especially when you’ve perfectly explained how much less they will need people.
He's talk is about craftsmen becoming more than craftsmen looping daily in a job that is not really creative but turning artists into machines.
He's saying we can earn a living in a different and more creative way.
I fully agree with Boro here - however for me ai is not that different from 3d + photobashing. Listen to shaddy safadi from one pixel brush.
There is another, economic reality: Companies hire you because you will create something new that gives them an advantage. If every company is using the same ai, they will never capture the market.
Still a lot of people will lose their jobs or potential jobs
bro have you seen your average google/corporate art? Modern companies don't really have standards for good visuals or creativity and they will absolutely use AI to their advantage to avoid hiring people. Maybe the saving grace will be the ESG rating (that diversity rating investors use to rate a company woke) which requires companies to hire certain people of ethnic/sexuality backgrounds but I wouldn't count on it.
The only artists who will be safe and make money drawing stuff will be the nsfw furry artists because corporations don't touch naked people with a ten foot pole.
@@asandax6 Have already lost. Even one big studio, has almost all offshore animation work. This has already happened to animators. It is going on 5 years. The same studios, will now have slave workers, maybe making less that 0.65 Cents USD, typing in words prompts. Most people now can barely understand 3d Scanning apps for Iphone. I recently got a 13 Pro Max, because it has multiple amazing features. Lidar, Cinematic film mode, to name two. Every single person that I have shown, a 3d app that I am using, had no idea that the phone, was able to do it. And all I showed it to, said they don't see any kind of use for it.
@JoaK And it will no doubt look corporate and soulless just like all the "art" they force their creators to create. A lot of that is conscious, terrible decision by clients of most visual mediums that wont listen to the actual artists trying to inject any amount of life, so they just give up and do things exactly as requested and then you get that empty artstyle we're all used to seeing in "professional spaces". The only people who like that stuff are those clients who it appeals to.
Those who are artists given these tools to cut out a lot of the tedium to create stuff from scratch and just get to the bits that show our actual personal tastes and unique take on things will add novelty and interest that adds more variety to the market of artwork. This isn't talking about being "drastically unique" in the same way Picasso is, but putting our own subtle unique, human take on it. People appreciate that unique take more than youd think. Plus it'll be excellent for illustrative, story telling artwork. Suddenly being able to create custom images on the fly to tell a story would be *huge*.
Not to mention to train an AI in *your* style you'd still have to feed it a lot of artwork in specific styles, you know? So if youre not still generating art to feed into your AI machine or heavily tweaking what comes out of it it'll only have so much variance. The skill and time and training needed to become a visual artist will still be valuable and give you a unique edge against a CEO who thinks neon green noodle people speak to everyone and inspires them to be more motivated
@@NeekoKarina Liked neon green noodle people. Easy to use Music mixing software has ruined music. I am long time fan of EDM. Used to be nice to listen to. But now it all sounds the same. Everybody copying each other. Same happened in rap. 808 kick and rolling high hats. It all sounds the same. Change the person singing and that is only difference.
I remember when people were scared of digital art and tablets too. xD
Yeah and some digital artist sell their stuff for cheep.
Only real problems to start in digital art .
It's well you need at least a good computer who can handle the graphics in the project
I was introduced to the concept of having a digital tablet by one of my college professors. It was awkward at first, but it's leaps and bounds better than using a mouse for digital art.
@@Geth270 not , dumbass millionaires , if they use the painting as a means of transferring moneh
Yeah and now you do see a smaller number of traditional artists, do you not?
They still are . Its still forbidden to use digital media in contests bcuz its "cheating" where i live. :/
"AI will cause you to lose your, job you're not going to miss it, because now you can create a great movie all by yourself"
Hope you have lots of energy left after flipping burgers all day to "make the greatest movie" by yourself with your amazing AI tools. Then it will get lost in the sea of 1,000,000,000 movies created that day. Then you go back to flipping burgers tomorrow. Amazing utopia. Can't wait.
I think this is an ironic time we live in. You don't know what a plague is like, well then have some. Never thought you would live during the uncertainty of wartime? Well, think again. Always guessed why craftsmen during the industrial revolution were so upset? Guess no more, it's almost your lucky day too.
Ah, looking at the date I dunno if I can say these assertions aged very well, even just a few months later. When we have people submitting AI art into competitions, and taking first place against legitimate artists, I'd say there's very valid reasons for digital artists to be concerned about their career viability down the line.
AI is definitely scary
Here is my theory as an artist myself.
AI can do some crazy good stuff but it has limits. Lets say someone comes to you with a specific commission idea. Draw my original character in this pose, holding this object, with this background, this facial expression, this outfit, add some moody lighting. These are all things a human can do well, but an AI would first have to take this original character, recreate it exactly in a new pose, put the desired outfit on top, with the desired object, generate the desired background and lighting. and spit out the image without any of the funky inaccuracies AI is known for.
Then lets say they like the image, but they want to tweak one or two things about it. Can the AI produce the exact same image with those one or two tweaks made, or will it spit out an entirely new image using a different set of data? I believe this is where an artist will come in and touch up the image to make the desired changes. Maybe the client wants to make some tweaks to the character's outfit, change the hat, add a space helmet, different bracelets in a style that only exists in fictional media.
At the VERY least, Artists will still be needed to "touch up" the images AI spits out and tweak them accordingly, and all of this is just for photo realism.
Things get even harder for AI when it comes to stylization. Stylized images are not meant to mimic reality 1 to 1, and every artist's style has its unique quirks. An AI trying to generate an image in the desired artist's style won't have the huge amount of images to work with in order to make the image, beause it only has the artist's work to work with. It'll have to start pulling data from other work to "pad" things out, and that'll lead to a mixing of different styles into the final product.
This also requires the artist's work to... y'know, EXIST in the first place. And there needs to be enough of it to generate an accurate image.
When it comes to making good general purpose images like "Draw a lady sitting in a chair" AI can replace a human for that task, but when it things start getting detailed, or the creative part of being an artist comes into play, or specific changes need to be made to a piece, or a stylized image is desired, that's when you'll need us humans to step in.
"don't worry guys! Artists will be fine"
"Oh btw, all those years you spent honing your craft and the money you spent on a degree will be 100% useless and wasted, but I'm justifying that as being ok because you're not a 'real artist'"
As long as you have good ideas, then you'll be fine... Except for the fact that ideas are cheap and anyone can come up with them, the hard part has always been the implementation.
Why pay an artist to make something for you when you can just come up with an idea yourself and then just type some settings into an AI and have it do that for you.
11:25 this is exactly why you are wrong. This is your biggest misunderstanding. AI is not just a normal tool, AI CAN create new ideas, you say it can only create iterations, but that's literally what creativity is. New ideas are simply the mixing and matching of already existing ideas and concepts.
There is nothing magical about the human brain, we are not special, we are not unique, we are just meat computers. Anything we do, a computer has the potential to do that, and we only get closer and closer to completely replicating human behaviour the more we research AI.
idk about anyone else, but I don't think that a new game/movie/image coming out every day/week/month would be a good thing (as I understand, i think, in the context of this video. One individual can produce a new piece once a day or week or whatever). I mean I have a hard enough time keeping up with all the new games, movies, etc as it is right now.
Also, maybe this is just the filmmaker in me talking, but I feel like it's about the journey, not the destination. Like, it''s not just about the finished piece, but the process you went through to make it. When I see an animation my one friend made, it looks great, sure. But I also know how much effort he had to do to realize that. Having an idea for a film and then having an AI write out a complete script for you just trivializes the whole experience to me.
Lastly, to me, filmmaking (the onset part) is a very communal affair. Reducing the number of people on set from, like, 30 to like, 8, sounds mad depressing. I won't lie that I can see massive benefits for video editing and VFX, tho.
But, why would companies be afraid? If they only have to hire, like, 4 creatives to come up with ideas, rather than 20 to come up with them and implement them, that'll save them a ton of money.
I remain unconvinced. If we are still under capitalism in, like, 25 years, I think a lot of people will lose jobs. Maybe a bit longer for creatives, but idk.
Do you still feel the same way now that things like Dall-E 2 have come out?
This feels like a rather pretencious conversation... while I do agree that not everything is art, it feels very self aggrandizing to imply that one is able to determine what is and what isn't. Is there no artistic value in such productions as videogames or movies just because their purpouse is to be comercialized? I disagree, there are plenty of great artists working for the industry, and you see people need to make a living.
^^ This. Many of those "craftmen" (and many women) do put their very special touch and style that no advanced AI is going to be able to "feel" in the same way. Not that it worries me, as video games is a bit of a job type I did run from (no way to be known for your work, and at some companies is a bit of abusive). Art is expression, in an own, personal way. It does not have to be the work of a Picasso or Rembrandt to be considered such.
I agree with your sentiment, the problem start because we use the word art for thing which are not the same, so to say that craft is craft and art is art is less wrong than to say that both are the same, anyway experience count doesnt matter if is in art galleries or craft ferias
Neural networks don't just copy and repeat things. You're thinking of hard-coded classical computing before AI. Neural networks are inside your head.
They don't just learn how to style-transfer picasso, they see enough examples of styles and learn the concept of what it means to create a style.
AI is simply using the same process that's used when a human brain creates an "original artwork".
Even if it's the first acrylic pouring painting or someone covering themselves in paint and having sex on the canvas, that's something an AI can come up with.
Even if there weren't existing examples of body painting, it knows what bodies are and it knows how paint transfers onto a canvas from objects, so it combines the 2 and produces something new.
All imagination comes from combining existing things to generate new ones. Nobody can create a new colour, because they haven't seen anything they can copy from. They've only ever seen the existing colour spectrum.
All UFO sightings resemble existing aircraft and laws of physics, and the aliens inside them tend to resemble humans or insects or things we know, because we haven't seen any to imagine them, and a conspiracy theorist can only claim to have seen something they saw in a movie.
Take any example of someone you think created an original artwork, and imagine they grew up in a white room knowing no content of any kind.
They never read any books, they never watched any TV, they never saw another person, never got shown examples of language. i.e. their meat-based neural network had no dataset to learn from.
Could they still have produced the work you're talking about? Of course not. They don't have any examples to learn concepts and combine from.
Artists get cognitive dissonance over this at their peril. AI is coming for all of us because there's nothing an artificial neural network can't do that a human brain can do. There's no magic inside our head that differentiates us from computers, we just use a different substrates.
The only solution is a UBI. We can go on creating beautiful artworks and collaborating with AI so long as people aren't dependent on it for survival money, because AI will always win.
Whatever you think you can do with AI as a tool better that AI alone can't is merely proving a dataset for AI to train on and fully automate.
not the same, but ok believe it.
If we get rid of the repetitious portion of creating art, doesn't that get rid of the practice behind it? If practice makes perfect, and we make practice obsolete, then are we really the ones creating art? Or is the art being created for us?
We may see an increase in the interest and value of traditional art, and a decrease in the interest and value of digital art. Everyone will be able to be a digital artist. Art will become over saturated to the point where there is just so much of it everywhere. What will really draw someone's attention will be the ideas, the stories, the themes. The technical aspect will be less important. Creative individuals will still thrive, but those who rely on technique alone will suffer.
Doubtful! The only actual difference between digital art and traditional art is the medium used, good tradtional art supplies l are expensive and have a use by date, digital art supplies are far more cost-effective and more versatile as for example oil pastel can only really look like oil pastel why a tablet can recreate alit of diffrent looks. Most digital artists can use traditional media they just cant afford the medium or to spend so much time on one piece that would be easily ruined so will then have to be phyically housed and cared for till they can sell it for enough to actually make profit. The skills are more or less the same, the medium and risks and needs for things like space and time to hold the art safely ,why in progress and selling, is just diffrent.
@@MizziTheFoxdragon nice copy paste.
Also some traditional art supplies last years.
Good quality ones are expensive yes. But there is also mid grade stuff that works fine if you are on a budget. You just need to look.
@@ghoulchan7525 Missing the point a bit, I think. Digital art uses the same techniques as traditional art. Everyone will not "be able to be a digital artist" because the way AI builds digital art is fundamentally different from the process of how a human being builds it. What we currently know as digital art and what AI does are as comparable as printing and painting are, in that they're both "physical" art forms. Digital artists (or digital painters/illustrators, to be more precise) use pixels to paint, AI just generates the pixels in place.
i guess a simple way to think about it is : "A.I. won't replace the artist, it will replace the pencil." , roughly speaking ofc
I often call myself a "visual engineer" because, like you say, most of the things I do as a "3D artist" are more of a craft than an art. However, when I'm sculpting or illustrating that tends to shift again towards art.
I feal the same
Sorry about this but I have to make two counterpoints:
1. AI can in fact make new and novel creations at this point.
2. When everyone got really good cameras, photographers became less valuable for a wide variety of scenarios.
people buys art because of the talent and personality of the artist
It's because an actual human who experiences life much like I myself do created it that it has any actual value or meaning. A Hollow replication no matter how fooling or convincing is fundamentally in absence of the core of art in my opinion.
Amidst this ocean of long-winded comments (including one or two of my own) going back and forth on this issue, I feel this one simple line you've typed down here is the most convincing and succinct argument for why artists do not have to fear A.I. Thank you.
this video has aged like a fine wine
Wrong way around.
AI as a collaborative tool allows the same artists to do more work.
More work done per artist means less artists hired for the same work.
This is how companies think.
Jeven's Paradox is not a thing where company spending is concerned - especially in the VFX world where profits are so hard to achieve consistently due to the antagonistic and predatory job contract set up designed by the film studios to take advantage of the VFX industry.
My first thought was, this guy is very optimistic. Then I noticed this video is over a year old.
That concept of what art is makes absolutely no sense. This idea of being "creative" and "original" for the sake of being different has destroyed art. Most things that are "hanging at a museum" are total garbage. Innovation does not mean parting ways with tradition. Grabbing hair and sewing a human silhouette is just gross - and yes, that exists and people think it's cool because "no one has thought of that". Or is that no one would want to think of something so pointless and ridiculous? The idea of art has been totally destroyed in the 20th century. That is why people used to tell me that "art won't take you anywhere" as a kid and I believed it and only now I've decided to go back to it. What they call "creativity" I call "desecration of art". I'm not saying that things won't change. The world is already a total nightmare and of course, art follows. Everything is more unnatural, artificial and disgusting, and people wonder why they are more depressed. Then, of course, everyone will put an artificial yellow ribbon emoji somewhere, that doesn't really exist, and say they are raising awareness to the problem. Crap world. How can anyone be happy in a society like that, where your only refuge is consumerism, fueled by those who envy it?
I remember when wordpress and Squarespace were meant to "replace" web designers. It never happened, yeah it made it easier for the layman to make a quick website and start selling their stuff but there is still a need for bespoke websites. The same applies to art, maybe for those in game development that need concept art quickly this AI may benefit them.
To me, what you're describing seems like a dystopia. I love the craft. What you call "repetitive" I see as an art in its own right. I love admiring the hard work of humans. I will be looking down on what some bozo makes using an AI in a day
As an artist, I find far more satisfaction on the actual process of learning and creating. Also I admire far more artists that create something that is not too clean or sterile like CGI. Yeah, maybe artists will be replaced in the future by a computer, but at the very least, I can live and die happy to know that I got to learn and create art.
Good for you the rest of us live in capitalism,where if it can’t pay the bills you can’t afford to do it.
Why do you think CGI is clean and sterile? Do you think the computer just does all the work? I'm both a traditional artist and professional CGI artist, and it took many years to develop my skills in both mediums
I agree. Even if my art is technically worthless thanks to ai, I'll keep making it because I enjoy the process and a good piece that you have made is infinitely more satisfying than someone else's masterpiece.
@@MizziTheFoxdragon I dont do art for a living, I do it because I love it. If you go back and look and some of the most famous artists and musicians, their works got recognized years later after their death.
@@Weewoo5562 I'm referring to art created by a computer. But now that you mention it, I prefer art that is less, "perfect" and "clean". Is just a personal preference, that's all.
While I appreciate what you are talking about in regard to true artists, I think one thing I’d like to hear more about I. The conversation isn’t the supply side of the equation, but the demand. Even now artists are begging for attention, giving their work away for free. If you can do a whole movie on your own, even if it’s great, who cares if it’s just lost in the endless stream of content, of the thousands of great movies released that day? We are getting to such a point of saturation that it is time, and not money that is the limiter. And someone will say, “make the best work” but the best doesn’t always rise to the top. The gatekeepers choose what rises to the top, what sells the best, and true art doesn’t. I think the biggest problem for artists will be limited demand. Limited attention. Because it already is.
The Artist is loosing their Audience since the Audience is becoming the Artist.
I might be wrong, but I dont follow... won't AI be nice for big companies? They can hire less people, save money and therefore gain a bigger profit? In return less people can become an illustrator.
I love how the video recommended after this one is basically what I was thinking to say. "Yes, AI will take your creative job"
It’s repetition that makes talent better.
Absolutely right
Not at all. Talent makes you learn faster so that you need less repetitions. Repititions do absolutely nothing for creativity.
@@Candy_McK you mistake talent for arrogance. First, you have to define ‘repetition’, if you’re doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result, then no, he’s not eh we are talking about, I’m talking about when you need to hone and improve on something you have a talent for, there is always room for improvement, then you hone it by training yourself to repeat certain elements until you improve. It’s the old concept of a thousand hours anyone can master something. Look at Leonardo Da Vinci, do you honestly think he became a master at his craft without studying one,form, shape, colour, or it was just instinctive talent alone fully formed? No. It is through graft, repetition and time that honed his existing talent into perfecting his craft.
Yes. You’re right about there being a distinction between draftsman and an artist. I think here in the US, people use the word- Fine Artist to describe an innovative artist like an abstract artist or conceptual artist and anyone else is just an artist, which would be a draftsman.
I know nothing about Art. But I know about how AI has replaced sysadmins and some coders and analysts:
1) you're just redefining 'artists' and separating out 'artisan'.
2) i disagree, you artisans ARE dead.
3) you say you will 'specialize' and evolve to 'art directors' and let AI deal with 'craftsmanship'
4) without craftsmen, how will new 'art directors' evolve? It's like saying without drivers - how do you become an F1 racer?
Its a shame that the love for economic growth is talking louder than the love for art. Everything is not supposed to be easy for everyone.
Finally someone brought up the artist/craftsmen distinction. We seriously need to revisit this American model of everyone/everything is artist if we want to advance our medium.
And it starts with storytelling and human connection. It's mean, in particular, composition and design. Everything modern art movement try to delete since the 50's.
I still don’t get it clearly… for me it seems like both are (re)producing patterns, but artist’s ones aren’t as noticeable as the craftsman’s, meaning that AI might still learn the “creation/new things pattern” that most stimulate our emotions.
Basically, I still can’t see what probably is the most fundamental aspect that lies between artists and craftsmen (other than the obviousness of the patterns, of course).
@@Genitalio artists are story tellers and idea men as well as craftsman. craftsmen are good at a specific task but not really thinking of the why something is being done on a large scale.
@@vince-1337 there is a place for abstract art its more like visual poetry. its not either or. the future is both and. their is no conflict just difference.
@@Genitalio (love your nickname) the main difference between the two is in capability to conceptualise and to establish an artistic vision/direction. That’s something an AI could never simulate (in its current form at least), cause these things blossom exclusively from various cognitive processes often labeled as ´abstract thinking’.
The best example is the google translate. Even if it’s performing quite well with various types of text, it could never correctly translate a novel, it would take a professional translator to transpose writer’s voice into another language space, taking into account all various contexts and aspects of both languages - from historical to cultural and social.
In resumé - The AI can get more intelligent and performant, but it will always lack our god spark.
The video tried to interrupt for an ad for me right after he said "probably!" at then, and for a moment I thought that was just an intended perfect cut.
This video overlooks one very important detail: using AI doesn't come free. It looks like the most potent AI assistants will basically be controlled by one of ~5 large companies (Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, NVidia, Facebook, maybe Tesla). Using their assistants can safely be assumed to be more expensive than "pro" tools and props today (at first), because they provide much more value than those. So while yes, it likely will be *possible* to make whole movies or AAA games all on your own, OTOH it may take much longer for that to be *affordable* on your own.
Good point. Cutting edge Ai could cost a fortune to "lease."
Open source *cough* open source *cough*
@@midnightsnack1306 It isn't a good point at all. If anything the digital revolution has shown us the opposite. There is an abundance of cheap or pay as you go software that is orders of magnitude better and more productive that extremely expensive solutions less than a decade ago.
@@monsieurLDN All models are open source, that doesn't help you one bit. The source code allows you to train the model IF you have millions to spare for the compute (not even starting about training data). Even IF the model parameters themselves are open (which often is the case), you still need hardware equivalent to 10-50 modern PC to just RUN a state-of-the-art model.
Maybe one day this kind of compute will be at everyone's fingertips, but in the near future, open source won't be enough anymore for free software.
@@cmilkau That's what servers are for, you don't have to buy a new computer to run the model if you can just run it on a dedicated server and pay some cents for the time you used it
The thing is I think there will still be a market for human created stuff, people like seeing human skill on display. AI will probably be seen as cheating in a way because it wasn't your skill that made it come to life, rather it was some algorithm that did it for you.
I see this emerging AI art as kind of like the advent of photography. Portraying people and landscapes was more accessible due to photography so artists started moving away from realism into more abstract stuff but that doesn't mean realistic artists went away. There is still a market for artists who are able to paint realistically because people are impressed by the skill involved. Sure it's easier to just take a picture but being able to paint something that looks like a photo is something people want to see. It will be the same way with AI art. It's similar with 2D animation vs. 3D animation. 3D animation might be easier but people still enjoy hand-drawn animation because they like the way it looks and appreciate the skill. AI art is a new art-form, not necessarily a replacement.
Very controversial and unpredictable topic. Just a few ideas
1. Possible law change. Imagine, that every piece of art or photo used for AI training and education has copyright so that gamedev companies or software developers will have to pay artists for using it. Once? Everytime, when it is used for commercial products? We are accustom to reality when much of the data used is "free". That might change with time
2. Imagine youself 10-15 years ago. Could you create art or artstyle without the knowledge you obtained for the past years? Even in your previous video you mentioned changes you would like to make in your own work made several month ago. That all wouldnt be possible without constant practice and struggle. Your ability to see color, value, shapes - all will be gone. What would you create without it? You cant learn by just looking, othervise art historics and critics would be top creators xD
3. Do you remember worries about 3d completely replacing 2d? The one Adam Lucidpixel mentioned it his videos. I belive now 2d is as much in demand as before, even more possibly with all that indie game dev companies around the world
@
Adam Duff LUCIDPIXUL would be great to hear your thoughts about it )))
O worked with illustration and agencies. When we use photos we need to pay for the photographers, we need to pay for the illustrators and models used, but now models and photos are stolen for the AI learning...
@@cbsgaduoscbsgaduos8513 But that's using the literal image for your work - I can't help but feel this is different in that the only thing the image is used for is collecting data about the image to feed and train the AI
@@DanknDerpyGamer AI is using literal images for their work too, deep learning is creating img2img with no ethic involved. Just stealing and replacing with "slightly changed images".
The image preset is very little changed. At least illustrators pay for their models when they use images. There is a difference here, and it is a huge ethical problem.
1. To create something new you need to have a journey of finding yourself. Beginner artists generally either don't have a "style" or their style is just a combination of their favourite artists. Artists who really have an original style create it trough their journey of learning art.
2. Art isn't just about the product that you put out. The whole process of creation is what makes it truly unique. Its not just a language you speak, its an instrument you play. I feel like a lot of digital artists can especially forget that (I'm a digital artist too).
My favourite internet artist Plastiboo is someone who is pretty far from making "traditional" art. But they do have a unique process that screams personality and its not just imagining an original idea and printing it out like a robot.
The reality is that if you have the ability to adapt to different tools, you will be able to make "art" out of it. But that doesn't mean if the Ai creation takes over and becomes the norm, this branch of art we right now love will not be killed in a brutal and cruel manner.
Every time something gets automated, people are like: "Oh no, this technology will replace me" instead of "Hey cool, I can now produce the same value with much less effort, more time to make it more sophisticated/to develop sth new/to have more free time!"
People have this mindset because of one big problem: the surplus value doesn't benefit everyone, but only those who have the means to adopt the new technology early on. And if AI gets to the point where you can easily produce a movie in a day, I'm sure the big companies/studios will be the first ones to have access to that. And if we're still in late stage capitalism by that point, they're gonna try to milk it for all it's worth.
I don't see capitalism ending, actually. Our selfish human nature (or of a major part of the population) will constantly ruin any other system, sadly.
Euh, not that I am an anti capitalist... I'm mostly for a society who cares for the poor and sets up structures (many EU countries are close to this model, with enough social structures) to care for them and builds accessible (for them) education and health. Not necessarily out of the current capitalist system (basically, because it'd be unpractical, every try has ended really bad, with gross loss of so many freedoms, and in the end the adventure is suffered way more by the ones in the lower layers, which is sadly ironic. I believe in the freedom of business initiatives, specially small business owners; indeed, it's the key, and the reward for the effort culture for those who do break the ice, etc. But mostly, the importance of ethics and morals of each individual. But I digress.
@@3polygons Capitalism is what has taken most people out of extreme poverty and allowed the surplus necessary for social programs to exist without grossly limiting people's freedoms.
Interest banking is what keeps so many still in peril of losing everything at the drop of a hat.
@@Stroggoii I am not against capitalism if social structures are provided (ie, free health care / basic education for the lowest layers in society...that does not require to restrict anyone's freedom; I've seen it done, nicely), and it is kindda constrained by some "survival" common sense, like investing in clean energy, preserving the environment, etc. All this is perfectly compatible with capitalism (as happens in several EU countries and other parts of the world (first world, mostly...the challenge is to "port" all that to the second and third world)).
people will not be paying much for a movie with no effort, and if every job will be lost, people are not going to have the money to buy things and support the economy, just buy necessary things or buy and use ai to produce their own survival or something, automation, alongside with corona virus, is one of the reasons why some governments are considering a basic income
1. I have a stake in this not only as an artist, but as someone who cares about the environment. The carbon footprint left by the AI generation (in combination with NFT minting) is troubling.
2. I LIKE drawing. The simple repetition and process is extremely relaxing to me, I'm proud of my skills and I'd like to make it my job.
3. Innovating is fun too, but the idea of constantly creating images "never before seen" in this saturated market is delusional.
4. People don't always want original. Sometimes they DO want "Art Picasso Would've Made But Didn't". It would be more of what they like.
5. We can't predict the limitations of AI
Your first point should be separated into 2 separate points:
The carbon footprint of NFTs - You have a valid point here. So much energy is wasted in the crypto space.
Carbon footprint of AI generation - Is absurd. If you are a digital artist you can create art at a certain, limited pace, all the while you, just by eating and existing are adding to greenhouse gases. In addition you are using electronic devices to create. An 'AI' on the other hand could create millions of images in the time it takes you to make 1 complicated image. Therefore you are MANY orders of magnitude worse for the environment as a human artist than an 'AI' generation algorithm.
@@Adaephonable Honestly, fair! You make a good argument.
being an artist is one of the safest jobs going forward, as I have some education regarding CS and AI, I can assure you that all forms of AI revolve around optimization (shortest path, evolutionary algorithms, etc.) or categorisation (decision trees, image recognition etc.)
the most feared form of AI is artificial neural-network, because it's complex, difficult to understand and control and by design resembles human brain, but it doesn't work like human brain, it will do random stuff unless you "train" it to do a specific task
making AI capable of creativity is a monumental task, requiring years of research and investments
Dont you think that AI will replace 3D Modellers for games in the next 50 years?
@@Ruebler1 you know, just like it was said in the video, AI will have no problem doing simple repetitive tasks, so making AI which generates a 3D model based on a prompt input is relatively easy (I stress the word relatively here), you know kind of AI that generates a generic tree model when asked to generate a tree, and maybe someone is already working on such AI,
but if you want to incorporate some lore or specific feel to that 3D model, maybe some fine details or original cretive features, that would require AI to understand concepts like beauty, lore, aesthetics, metaphor etc. and we don't know when (or even if) it'll be possible,
I wouldn't dare to predict what technology will look like 50 years from now, just look at 70's and what technology used to look back then
@@WhnPgsFl Okay, I dont like this risk (losing basically everything you have done in your life and being left with useless knowledge) but I cant imagine any other job and I love it so I am just gonna hope not to be replaced and maybe getting to the heigher positions over time.
Good luck to you too!
@@Ruebler1 I wouldn't worry too much about it, there are still many years before AI will become real threat to our jobs, and when it does, it will put every job in danger so you won't be alone in this,
but good luck to you too
@@Ruebler1 And I mean, really, if AI becomes so sufficiently advanced that it can essentially think creatively without human prompts, what job is safe? At that point AI could write code itself to address any task imaginable putting literally everyone out of work, never mind just artists.
As it advances, AI will continue changing up the art industry just like it is changing every other, I just think people are more shocked at AI creating art because it's much more flashy than things like AI-based translation, consultation, surgery, manufacturing etc. But those associated professions are all changing as well.
If AI ever completely takes over everything (and society remains stable), people will still go and watch a skilled painter or musician perform their craft, simply because another human is doing it and these are some of the things most beloved by humanity. I say just do what you love, if AI "takes over" art there isn't anything it won't.
the thing is that if an ai can just take a description and create a piece of art then why would anyone ever hire an artist? Why would anyone consume your media if everyone is making their own with simple button presses? Also the idea that somehow ai won't be able to create something completely original that a human could is just wrong. Picasso didn't come up with his style in a vacuum but instead mixed multiple different ideas, that is how human creativity works and that is also what an ai does.
I think an even better example than photography is literature, most people have language knowledge by default, but most people aren't writers.
AI can be creative just like humans, it's not just a bunch of sliders. You can give a very vague prompt and the AI will creatively interpret what you are asking for. It's not just replacing people who copy paste content, it's going to replace the creative artists that create unique work as well. Yes you can tell the AI to create art in picasso style, but the AI can also create its own styles by extrapolating what it has learned from others, just like humans do.
And this is just the beginning, as AI gets more advanced and smarter and more creative it will be able to make even "deeper" art than humans are capable of.
I’ve been deep into MidJourney for a few days and it’s already creating amazing compositions, mind boggling because the people putting in the prompts are fine tuning and experimenting. Borrowing prompts that work and improving them. I think the future is already here.
Nah, I prefer human art
As someone said: " creativity is untraceable plagiarism" and AI process is traceable
Thanks, I was just worrying about my life being obsolete and this vid was very helpful comforting me in spite of these thoughts .
to be honest if you need to be adjusting sliders to make a image when you can do 5 min sketchs to get a concept right i doubt ia will replace you , you can reach the final product using ia later anyway art nowadays is about the final product.
By this thinking 3d should have ended a lot of art jobs, but it dint it just make more job entries.
You're right :)
I discovered ai software called midjourney and love the outcomes people are sharing. However as artist (drawing new concepts, satire, caricature, portraits ) and craftman (making said ideas as paintings/drawings on digital or traditional medium for others to have or just to see) I'm concerned will be there a clientele willing to support or hire the artist? If anyone will be expected to churn 100 images per couple of days, will be there an audience? Like everyone can start their own church but it will be an empty building in the sea of other churches. It is all brand new to me and lot of to think about... Because there is abundance of things and yet cost of living skyrockets and middlemen like print companies makes really best deals out of it.
I don't think this video aged very well, check out the AI scene today... for example what Imagen can do, and that Stable Diffusion just went open source... it makes you wonder what next year will bring...
when you say artist would rely more on their ideas and less on their craft, you forget the fact that most people have ideas and most ideas are sh*t.
I find it hard to believe in these high tech utopias...I dunno seems just too good to be true. It's hard also not to be scared of new things. But we must keep on, the future will always be kind of scary. Let's learn and adapt best we can.
Thank you VERY much for this video🙏🏽🙏🏽. I was thinking the same thing. I have been creating art part time for about 20 years and I have only created about 15 pieces. People ask me why I haven't created more pieces. My response is always "For the most part...i am creating images that have never existed. That type of inspiration and creativity happens every year or so" To that end any suggestions on what AI/Program would you suggest I can use to ENHANCE my unique creating with AI??
Is art even still art if it takes no talent and skill to produce it? If one day, I could create a "visual masterpiece" just by letting an AI interpret talk to text details to create an image, to call myself an artist would be just as ridiculous as calling a social media influencer that just takes tons of selfies a "model." Just like how having 1 post go viral on tik tok makes you famous for a day, you aren't a celebrity.
Anything that makes us lazier and gives us instant gratification is to be used with great moderation.
Nothing you said makes any counter argument to the fears we all have. Sorry maybe I’m just not getting it but the creative process will be flipped on it’s head and that is not a good thing.
You are one of my favorite teachers ever. Your work is great and you are soooooooooo generous. Thank you for all your work. Eventually I will support with more than words.
So its kinda like the concept of one kitchen having 1 chef and the rest are cooks.
The line between scientist and engineer is also a very blurry one, outside of like mathematicians and theoretical physicists pretty much every scientist will be an engineer to some degree.
Data science and data engineering are the exact same thing like to 99.99% I imagine.
When Photoshop and Illustrator came out, magazine illustrators and designers thought it was the end of their careers, as they would all be replaced by in-house amateurs that could knock out design work and graphic illustrations effortlessly, in comparison to the painstaking methods used before the advent of these digital programs. Of course, what actually happened is exactly what you describe here. Those who were just cranking out the same old same old were replaced, because the programs were designed to make standard design and illustration jobs far easier. Still, it immediately became clear that good design was more than just knowing the tools. When the tools became relatively easy to master, what ended up happening is that bad design proliferated, because all the tool did was make people who didn't know how to do it think they did. But even to the casual eye, the difference between a beautifully designed or badly designed magazine, or product packaging, or whatever else, was instantly obvious. It's the same with illustration. Using Photoshop didn't make bad illustrators into good ones. It very quickly became apparent who was using Photoshop with skill and craft, and who thought it was a replacement for skill and craft. Photoshop was merely a new art medium, and required an artist's skill like any other. Just because you could ctrl-Z your way out of mistakes in a way you can't with paint doesn't mean you don't have to be an artist to make art with it. In short order, the bar was raised, and skillful artists learned how to get ten times more out of Photoshop than anyone else. Meanwhile, we value the tactile quality of traditional media far more than we did before digital became ubiquitous.
This is nothing new. Once upon a time, a new technology called photography made every portrait painter quake in their boots, thinking they were about to become obsolete. In many ways, they did. Portrait painting stopped being the only way to record people's likeness. But it also kicked off the beginning of the modern art movement, which I think we can all agree was probably a good thing. Change is inevitable as it is scary. We get to have our feelings about it, but then we all have to buckle down and adapt.
That AI website is helping me visualize ideas that aid me in story telling and motivating me to work out the details of a script.
Remember when computers were going to allegedly make offices paperless? Yeah I don't think artists should be too worried just yet.
We are also a kind of A.I, we generate ideas based on our memories, and we cannot go outside it. It's like you have to see colour to know the colour
There is something you're not saying (in fact, any youtube artist guru say this), but don't care if you're a Good or a bad artist, the only real value is getting good contacts in the industry to have good jobs in big companies and so get recognition... and well, since companies hire artist yes, AI will kill our job like robots are killing big amount of factories jobs since 1980's
Guilherme , Não , its not going to turn our IP into a commodity. |For now at least because they way i see it it only creates as many variants of an original IP just like the corona virus does pretty much. companies creating 10k variants of a sweet donut , all it means is that they will battle it out in advertising and unique craftmanship. we don't need to be depressed. fast fashion did not kill quality clothes.
@@PHlophe Of corse it will not happen now, Like I said, when I was a kid in the 80's was big news robots doing the job of 20 men in factories, this don't kill job for men in factories, but since the 80 the job are less and the pay lower a lot... I'm not depress about that, I think it means the human being must think in a new way to live a life, maybe more equal for everyone.
About the variant thing, If you watch video game designs (even movies for kids nowaday) are all almost the same, with little variants, like AI can do... come on, a horror game, just put a little girl in a white dress and long black hair all over her face, hahaha
I must say that the blizzard acitvision scandal had me not wanting to go into the industry and now this has me too.