Imma just say, for every ai image that's been used in an ad, production, poster ect... A real, professional, life-long artist could have been hired to do that with more effort and been paid an actual salary. Ai is just lazy
1:05 I just hope, this will help to get rid of copyright completely, (so people can make more metroid remakes and earn money with them). 2:55 Maybe don't give them more time, so they will put their effort in the things that matter more or just release more. 4:10 Would people say the same thing about programming or writing? People also use AI for that. If it helps me to get the same result faster, I just do it. If not (which is the more common case) I don't. 4:20 I did that. There are no ethical concerns according to my morals. 4:25 Copyright infringement is a separate crime. It's not considered stealing.
It is unsustainable to think that everyone will be able to use unfettered access to use copyrighted material and AI, to make an infinite money printing machine. The only way artistic works have any value at all, is when human skill is the barrier to entry. If everyone can create whatever they want, with minimal effort, all it will do is oversaturate the market and make it statistically likely that you'll just be irrelevant.
Thats an insane take to think that blatantly stealing thousands and thousands of copyrighted images and payed artwork without permission or any payment just to profit of other peoples work is not a crime. It is and should be, and most AI's are operating using all of these illegaly stolen artwork in there datasets, they should not be allowed to continue as a service as long as they are stealing data in this maner as it is and should be completely illegal.
@@The_DoyDoy_Lord I don't think stealing is not a crime. Legally it's probably considered a crime. Technically it's not stealing if the owner doesn't posess it anymore. And personally I think it should be totally legal to copy things others created.
Ooh the ai mention from elemental, I have some info on that! That model was NOT trained off of other artists work without consent, and is NOT profiting off of artists work without permission!! (Unlike a lot of AI image generators) This one was engineered by the team working for Pixar/disney, in collaboration with the artists in order to properly simulate fire (and maybe some other fluid stuff on the movie) so it's one of the only "good" uses of AI in art that I've seen so far ^w^
Fantastic video! There is something so special about an artist pouring their time and efforts into creating art. It's fantastic to see each artist's journey and style reflected in their works, and it's something that AI just simply put: cannot do. I would love to see more videos like this in the future 👀
I think AI will not replace real artists because it can only make things of low quality. AI is like an inexperienced intern that can't improve. but that wont stop greedy corpos from making ai art,music and writing.
What sucks more is that a lot of people don’t know AI when they’re looking at it, but think they do. A person can spend days creating an image on procreate only to be accused of AI. You have to spend ages showing the progress of your artwork so that people believe you. This leaves me to believe that either AI Art does not suck or that people suck even more than I thought, prior to the AI Art explosion
If your reading this I am another gorilla tag user I’m changing my channel completely.i need a new pfp cause mine is from Google. LoL. So my newest (short)coming around today will have a pic of the base of my avatar. If it’s to complicated just draw a green gorilla for all I care. thanks
When cars/computers/cordless phones where new, only the high class could afford them, but we're in the copy paste age, where inventors profit more from common folk prices. Which means the playing field is levelled for new toys. When I get a glimts of the news they look low effort compared to lots of low budget youtube videos. Common folk don't need magazines, radio or tv to become famous. btw I don't think it's weird that companies use ai. why wouldn't they? (from their standpoint - ofc they should give away all the money to the poor and pay salary to people they don't need, that'd be the moral thing to do... bit of sarcasm here, but still, it'd be moral thing to do)
The argument against AI is that it isn’t taking inspiration. We all do that. AI is trained exclusively with stolen art, which means it’s not taken inspiration, it’s churning out extremely high quality copies.
@@parkee05art i don't see a difference to a human making art. how is it that an AI steals while a human gets inspired? they do both the same thing: derive new art from references.
AI is *not* a human though. It cannot be inspired because it cannot think its own thoughts. There is a difference between putting images into a blender and spitting something out, as opposed to a human making an art piece inspired by a specific style. There is intention behind every choice an artist makes. Not true of AI. Also, I'd be more willing to try out AI if we didn't live in a capitalist society where those artists who are losing jobs still need to feed their families. @@dithy
Why would inspiration require thinking? The simplest definition of inspiration is of collecting "ideas" through existing art and other influences. An AI doesn't function without input, without inspiration. An artist does not need intention or thinking - art can be made subconsciously.
@@dithy The difference is that a human audience learning from your work, has been part of the social contract since the inception of art. People expect their audience will have the limitations of the human mind, to be able to learn and take inspiration from their work. Not to a degree that it replaces the original artist though, and that is the biggest difference. Computers "learning" from your work, is not part of the social contract. Computers don't have the limitations of the human mind, and can outright replace market value of the works of the original artist the program copied from. It is an ultimate betrayal of the people who put in the effort to make the AI programs possible in the first place, and never consented to have their work involved.
Why is using ai a bad thing? If I'd make a movie I sure as hell would use ai for special effects. But if I had a lot of money, that'd be a bad thing? And how rich I need to be to be immoral for using ai, probly comes down to personal taste Since when does the size of your bank account define moral wait
To be clear, I don’t think having a small bank account makes using AI ok. There are plenty of RUclipsrs who churn out AI garbage and I hate that stuff too. My problem with large companies doing it is that the industry sets the precedent for new technology, and therefore should be held more accountable when using technology that exploits the work of real people
@@parkee05art the problem with your argument is that many of the things you use now exploited the work of real people - stole their jobs, made them redundant, destroyed any hope of getting more work because they could not re-skill. That's been the case through human history. I don't see you shedding a tear for them, yet you are quite happy to be using the technology. At best naivety, at worst hypocritical. AI has effectively already taken over the industry I'm in, but I'm not on RUclips complaining about it. It's a pointless exercise. Although I guess it gets you views and more RUclips money.
@cbnewham5633 I challenge you to provide a single example throughout history where new technology actively stole the work of professionals through loopholes in laws to make datasets full of stolen work, enabling that technology to put workers out of jobs. This isn’t just about technology replacing jobs, which has happened before. It’s about technology being built on theft; training on copyrighted works without permission or compensation. No other advancement (that I can think of) has industrialized intellectual property theft like this. AI art doesn’t innovate; it imitates, using stolen data to undermine the very professionals it depends on. That’s fundamentally different and far more harmful. But I’m always open to some friendly discussion. So, I challenge you to give me just one example of this happening in the past.
I am against AI art but i disagree with your "one of the cool things about art is that it takes time" point. ??? Scince when is that a thing? Nobody likes waiting
I definitely see the point. I think to me part of what makes something impressive is that I know the effort and skill it probably took, and that includes a crazy amount of time. But I also totally get your point and enjoy hearing other perspectives :)
YAAAAAAAY NEW PARKEE DROP!
AI everything sucks. People are just impressed something that isnt human can string together more than two words.
AI has some genuinely good applications tho, like for Math formulaz and shart
AI is bad when it's exploited
Imma just say, for every ai image that's been used in an ad, production, poster ect... A real, professional, life-long artist could have been hired to do that with more effort and been paid an actual salary. Ai is just lazy
Holy shit an actual human on this platform!
Hey man, its been awhile, im the guy u created the giraffe in a hoodie pfp for, i see u hit 10k im so proud of u, keep up the hard work!!
Thanks!
1:05 I just hope, this will help to get rid of copyright completely, (so people can make more metroid remakes and earn money with them).
2:55 Maybe don't give them more time, so they will put their effort in the things that matter more or just release more.
4:10 Would people say the same thing about programming or writing?
People also use AI for that.
If it helps me to get the same result faster, I just do it. If not (which is the more common case) I don't.
4:20 I did that. There are no ethical concerns according to my morals.
4:25 Copyright infringement is a separate crime. It's not considered stealing.
Interesting takes
It is unsustainable to think that everyone will be able to use unfettered access to use copyrighted material and AI, to make an infinite money printing machine. The only way artistic works have any value at all, is when human skill is the barrier to entry. If everyone can create whatever they want, with minimal effort, all it will do is oversaturate the market and make it statistically likely that you'll just be irrelevant.
Thats an insane take to think that blatantly stealing thousands and thousands of copyrighted images and payed artwork without permission or any payment just to profit of other peoples work is not a crime. It is and should be, and most AI's are operating using all of these illegaly stolen artwork in there datasets, they should not be allowed to continue as a service as long as they are stealing data in this maner as it is and should be completely illegal.
@@The_DoyDoy_Lord I don't think stealing is not a crime.
Legally it's probably considered a crime.
Technically it's not stealing if the owner doesn't posess it anymore.
And personally I think it should be totally legal to copy things others created.
Ooh the ai mention from elemental, I have some info on that! That model was NOT trained off of other artists work without consent, and is NOT profiting off of artists work without permission!! (Unlike a lot of AI image generators) This one was engineered by the team working for Pixar/disney, in collaboration with the artists in order to properly simulate fire (and maybe some other fluid stuff on the movie) so it's one of the only "good" uses of AI in art that I've seen so far ^w^
Also, great video! Subscribed, hope to see more from this channel!! :3
That’s cool! If it wasn’t for marvel I might’ve given Disney a pass lol
Thanks, you’re too kind :)
Fantastic video! There is something so special about an artist pouring their time and efforts into creating art. It's fantastic to see each artist's journey and style reflected in their works, and it's something that AI just simply put: cannot do. I would love to see more videos like this in the future 👀
Thanks! :)
Also, I agree- and I wish people outside the art niche more often understood why AI art is so unique and dangerous
Art AI is probably going to stop being used in like 4-5 years. It’s just seen as “trendy” by most people.
Interesting take 👍
No… it’s going to get much better and people are going to use it more not less
I think AI will not replace real artists because it can only make things of low quality.
AI is like an inexperienced intern that can't improve.
but that wont stop greedy corpos from making ai art,music and writing.
good video, ill check out ur other videos :)
ai can burn in hell ✌️
Thanks! :)
W video
Thanks 🙏
What sucks more is that a lot of people don’t know AI when they’re looking at it, but think they do.
A person can spend days creating an image on procreate only to be accused of AI. You have to spend ages showing the progress of your artwork so that people believe you. This leaves me to believe that either AI Art does not suck or that people suck even more than I thought, prior to the AI Art explosion
I totally agree
If your reading this I am another gorilla tag user I’m changing my channel completely.i need a new pfp cause mine is from Google. LoL. So my newest (short)coming around today will have a pic of the base of my avatar. If it’s to complicated just draw a green gorilla for all I care. thanks
They are ironing out the 6 finger thing pretty well too. But yea shit sucks
Lmao
my guy is cooking, subbed
You’re too kind 🙏
I mean, what’s wrong with us multimillion dollar corpos 🤑🤑 looking for free labor, it could save us a thousand dollars!!!
When cars/computers/cordless phones where new, only the high class could afford them, but we're in the copy paste age, where inventors profit more from common folk prices. Which means the playing field is levelled for new toys. When I get a glimts of the news they look low effort compared to lots of low budget youtube videos. Common folk don't need magazines, radio or tv to become famous.
btw I don't think it's weird that companies use ai. why wouldn't they? (from their standpoint - ofc they should give away all the money to the poor and pay salary to people they don't need, that'd be the moral thing to do... bit of sarcasm here, but still, it'd be moral thing to do)
Interesting take, thanks for commenting!
Goodgis' younger brother????
Never heard of Goodgis… I’ll have to check them out! :)
Fr though,ai art sucks
Kind of a double standard to criticize AI for taking inspiration from existing works, while that's literally how art is made.
The argument against AI is that it isn’t taking inspiration. We all do that. AI is trained exclusively with stolen art, which means it’s not taken inspiration, it’s churning out extremely high quality copies.
@@parkee05art i don't see a difference to a human making art. how is it that an AI steals while a human gets inspired? they do both the same thing: derive new art from references.
AI is *not* a human though. It cannot be inspired because it cannot think its own thoughts. There is a difference between putting images into a blender and spitting something out, as opposed to a human making an art piece inspired by a specific style. There is intention behind every choice an artist makes. Not true of AI.
Also, I'd be more willing to try out AI if we didn't live in a capitalist society where those artists who are losing jobs still need to feed their families. @@dithy
Why would inspiration require thinking? The simplest definition of inspiration is of collecting "ideas" through existing art and other influences. An AI doesn't function without input, without inspiration. An artist does not need intention or thinking - art can be made subconsciously.
@@dithy The difference is that a human audience learning from your work, has been part of the social contract since the inception of art. People expect their audience will have the limitations of the human mind, to be able to learn and take inspiration from their work. Not to a degree that it replaces the original artist though, and that is the biggest difference.
Computers "learning" from your work, is not part of the social contract. Computers don't have the limitations of the human mind, and can outright replace market value of the works of the original artist the program copied from. It is an ultimate betrayal of the people who put in the effort to make the AI programs possible in the first place, and never consented to have their work involved.
Why is using ai a bad thing?
If I'd make a movie I sure as hell would use ai for special effects.
But if I had a lot of money, that'd be a bad thing? And how rich I need to be to be immoral for using ai, probly comes down to personal taste
Since when does the size of your bank account define moral wait
To be clear, I don’t think having a small bank account makes using AI ok. There are plenty of RUclipsrs who churn out AI garbage and I hate that stuff too. My problem with large companies doing it is that the industry sets the precedent for new technology, and therefore should be held more accountable when using technology that exploits the work of real people
@@parkee05art the problem with your argument is that many of the things you use now exploited the work of real people - stole their jobs, made them redundant, destroyed any hope of getting more work because they could not re-skill. That's been the case through human history. I don't see you shedding a tear for them, yet you are quite happy to be using the technology. At best naivety, at worst hypocritical. AI has effectively already taken over the industry I'm in, but I'm not on RUclips complaining about it. It's a pointless exercise. Although I guess it gets you views and more RUclips money.
@cbnewham5633 I challenge you to provide a single example throughout history where new technology actively stole the work of professionals through loopholes in laws to make datasets full of stolen work, enabling that technology to put workers out of jobs. This isn’t just about technology replacing jobs, which has happened before. It’s about technology being built on theft; training on copyrighted works without permission or compensation. No other advancement (that I can think of) has industrialized intellectual property theft like this. AI art doesn’t innovate; it imitates, using stolen data to undermine the very professionals it depends on. That’s fundamentally different and far more harmful. But I’m always open to some friendly discussion. So, I challenge you to give me just one example of this happening in the past.
I am against AI art but i disagree with your "one of the cool things about art is that it takes time" point. ??? Scince when is that a thing? Nobody likes waiting
Have you ever bought a commission? Or checked how long a fav artist of yours works on a piece? Waiting has been apart of the art process for decades
@Withgreatpowercomesnofuture when did i say art doesn't take time. I said nobody likes waiting, we wait because we have to not because we want to
I definitely see the point. I think to me part of what makes something impressive is that I know the effort and skill it probably took, and that includes a crazy amount of time. But I also totally get your point and enjoy hearing other perspectives :)
Goofy ahh video, keep seething
Ouch but ok
@parkee05art I don't think it's goofy dw. I think tomoko's take is ludicrous!
you sound upset with your life, hope you know that