I used AI in a video. There was backlash.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 июл 2023
- Head to www.squarespace.com/austinmcc... to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code austinmcconnell.
BUY THE SPIDER-QUEEN: bit.ly/SpiderQueenBook
SUPPORT MY NEXT MOVIE: www.kickstarter.com/projects/...
PATREON: / austinmcconnell
MERCH: www.teespring.com/stores/aust...
Let's talk about Artificial Intelligence. AI art. After all, if there's an elephant in the room, address it.
Like the mic? Check out Earthworks ETHOS: earthworksaudio.com/ 
Развлечения
If you could have made made that video in a few hours, I trust you would have made many more.
Oh, buddy, would I ever. 😂
Exactly, what do these people think, it takes 2 hours to make a 1 hour high quality animation. That's actually insane. These people are actually silly.
edit:
Someone said people are getting confused so I will clarify
I don't think it takes 2 hours to make a 1 hours high quality animation, and I think it's silly to think like that.
@@randomdams9179 I'll admit I would have guessed a much shorter time period than the actual answer, but I'm pretty darn sure my guess would have been much longer than 2 hours!
I use Latex which is a Math Markup editor. I know it takes HOURS of editing to make it look nice for the students on notes. When Austin talked about voice and how many takes I could easily relate with that. And I'm just using what is basically a fancy text editor. Like I say for every 7 hours its 3 hours writing on content and 4 hours editing it to make it look readable. I can't imagine the work that goes into doing AI with video.
You'd think that would be obvious. Apparently, to a lot of YT commenters it isn't.
I think Most people’s problems with AI is that companies think that they can competently replace people with it rather than use it as a tool to help them.
It’s not “will think” they’re already doing it.
People need to avoid blaming the technology or the tools and place the blame where it belongs- stone-hearted greedy people being evil.
But the truth is the problem is capitalism not AI. AI is just technology, just like cameras replaced most portrait painters. Our real issue is that these tools will result in unemployment and starvation for others. Which is a capitalism issue not an AI issue.
This fearmongering nonsense has accompanied every technological innovation ever.
No, it's just the popular thing to hate these days so, whether they realise or not, they're doing it for kudos.
Why would they promote uncompensated labour for it otherwise? Uncompensated labour is the old issue, AI art is the new issue therefore AI is the Devil's work while uncompensated labour is okay.
In terms of that first comment hypothesising that the whole book must obviously be AI generated too...the several months I personally spent writing the first draft of The Spider Queen (of which there is still a backup in my files) can put your minds at ease. Austin was an INCREDIBLE client who paid my full proposed rate without a blink and was super supportive and understanding throughout the whole process.
Austin said that he has Audible working on a voice recording of your and his book right? So even with his “no effort AI video” voice, a voice actor will still be paid to narrate the novel, correct?
That's exactly what a robot pretending to be a human would say!
@@wisemage0 lol
The AI scare has gotten so bad that I got a comment from someone who thought some art from a video of mine was AI generated. Ignoring how the video was released many years before AI tech got good, and the original piece of art was credited in the description to like 2016 lol
Someone thought AI was used in an image in your video just means the art looks terrible. It's not a sign It's gotten bad. But good job working your video into the comment.
@@itsgonnabeanaurfromme Bro the art in the video was absolutely amazing and a banger. Way too good to be AI (Persecution of the Masses Metal Cover, I think the most popular video on my youtube channel)
@@itsgonnabeanaurfromme I also wouldn't say it if I didn't get that ridiculous comment from that guy in the first place, it's not a plug, cause I don't like the song I made for it anymore.
@@Poliostasis no need to defend yourself, ignore the idiot. I'm sure your content was amazing :)
@@chbmckie I guess...
I cant believe the Moist Critical jumpscare at the start actually scared me that was so unexpected
ugh same :(
Lol wasn't even scary I laughed
@@trexbait895cap🧢 scariest thing in the world
Lmao 🤣
You probably looked too closely at your screen or your sound is too loud.
Its because he’s so scary.
I don't know about anyone else, but I would really enjoy a "here are all of the digital creation tools I use/have used, and what they do" video.
Agreed. There is a disconnect between what tools viewers assumed made the videos and what the creators actually used.
I always like seeing credit to the whole team making a video and their roles.
My favorite is when there is a legit sources list - especially on noted facts or referenced claims (think Lemmino’s most recent video) yes, it takes more time, but it provides that layer of depth that shows true intention and care for the subject being discussed.
I agree! I'm very fascinated by the range of programs that exist! I'm only familiar with Grammarly.
Great idea, Corridor Crew here on youtube did a behind-the-scenes on their entire process regarding an AI anime video they made. It's incredible the amount of work they put into it.
Only if he did it once that's fine but if he has to do it for every video then it becomes this thing were ppl are always going to want him to prove his work like he's in math class.
@@LovehandelsBut there is a reason behind that. Math isn’t meant to teach you how to do one type of math, it’s meant to teach a wide swath of mathematical concepts. It’s the difference between driving somewhere by a specific route, in comparison to just driving through a field, or using a highway. You’re meant to memorize the complex functions, rather than just know how to do the basic functions.
But I feel you. When a question wants a specific answer, and you provide the correct answer, but don’t get it because of how you solved the problem, it’s frustrating. But that is more of a problem with the way math is tested, and I don’t think anyone really knows any other option for testing for math skills right now.
I just found out about this response video, and I want to seriously apologize. Thank you for explaining how the original video was made. You made significant effort to ensure the resources you used were ethical and no one was uncompensated. And it took months of work to have it come out as good as it did, so none of this was by any means a shortcut. You also made good points regarding where the line should be drawn as far as computer assisted tools go, and what counts as transformative media, and it’s much more nuanced than it seemed. It’s worth thinking about.
The last jab at you in my comment was really uncalled for, too, and I’m doubly sorry. You are an artist and you care about how your art is made. This whole AI panic has been a nightmare, and there is still real concern, but we can’t get so caught up in the frenzy that we forget there’s good and ethical use cases for it, and we need more information before we jump to conclusions.
I hope your book and future projects are a success. Keep up the good work, keep having fun making stuff, and sorry again.
Well I definitely wasn’t expecting an apology! It’s always nice to find that rare moment in the internet where someone manages to change another’s mind. Good on you for listening man! :D
fr@@dreamy_kiwi2780
Mad respect to you for watching the video and making an apology. That's awesome dude.
Actual respect, not many people like you
@@Ocorydonagreed
As an illustrator and graphic designer, the AI images I generated by text prompt can never replace the specific image that I had in my mind. I thought AI can help with ideation, but as it turns out, I still need myself to do the concepts. You still need people to put things together for it to be cohesive and for it to make sense. Totally agree with you Austin!
21
@@tijesunimiadebiyi7405 You stupid
Huge respect to the way you responded to this. Infortmative, non-combative, and well thought out
So good! Really interesting video and totally respectful. Great example of how AI can be used to supplement content without wholesale copy-pasting it.
I'll bring in the combativeness he left out; ha! Get railed, morons. Take the L, sit down, face the corner.
i don't like how he didn't say that he did use ai art, he just used tech terms that not everyone knows.
@@aqua-bery Except he did. He lists all the tools he used, including AI. He begins listing those at 12:28 and includes AI (which was trained only on images owned by the company) on that list. What the hell else do you want from him?
@@aqua-beryTitle of the video, my guy. 😂
@@aqua-beryThis is an exceptionally bad faith interpretation.
Is it just me? I always got the impression that every video you made was some type of an experiment. Be it in the way you tell stories, the kind of media, or the type of stories you are sharing with us. It’s honestly one of the reasons I love your channel. Every video is different and I always found it encouraging, at least to me, to try something new or to think outside the box or to not be afraid to share random facts that I’ve learned with people who probably didn’t care to know, but are all the better for knowing now☺️ Keep doing what you’re doing….. there’s more of us that love your work! 🥰🥰🥰
Exactly!
no. totally not just you :)
Indeed. You never know what the next Austin vid will be and I'm all for it!
Analyzing and living in a digital age: metaliving. Metal iving? Metal Ivy! There you go! No intelligence required :D
Milton Friedman went to China where a handful of government bureaucrats showed him a canal-building project. He couldn’t help but notice the lack of heavy machinery.
He said to the bureaucrat: “Why are the workers digging with shovels? Where are all the machines?”
The bureaucrat replied: “You don’t understand Mr. Friedman, this is a job-creation project!”
He said: “Oh, I thought you wanted to build a canal...If it’s jobs you want, why don’t you take away their shovels and give them spoons?”
Way too many people see in black and white. You just proved that using artificial intelligence to act as an artist isn't automatically a bad thing.
one of my favourite artists on pixiv got wrongly accused of using AI, having all of their work tagged AI even if they were made before the advent of AI tools. I get your struggle.
Fitting pfp mate, fight the power✊
what artist is it? I'd like to show some support and check out their work
That has definitely happened. There is also a website where visitors can take the test and check if they're able to spot AI from non-AI (artorai or aiorart or something... 10/10 would recommend though).
This is becoming more and more of an issue because beginner artists, UNKNOWINGLY most of the time, try their hand with shortcuts, just to feel some instant gratification. This means beginners will be discouraged as more and more people will just call them out for using AI (Which, they are, to be clear, and it's now worse since it's stained with all unethically scraped works so far... so the backlash I think will be just as bad... even if they're just training their eyes or whatever).
You either need to have a trained eye to spot them, or hope the artist is being transparent. Much like how you can tell a drawing was traced. Right now, AI has the same issues: unaided, it spits out wrong perspective, proportions, sometimes structure - not to mention composition. You actually need to work a lot to make an AI generated image "passable" - not NEARLY as much work as you have to put in to get there the traditional way. And we'll still be disappointed that real mastery won't be acknowledged. But then again... isn't that already happening?
It's just an on-going struggle, just slightly worse
But Austin DID use AI.
@@TNEQLAnd people should get off their high horse about it.
I would like to see more people make a behind the scenes video to show how they use these tools because I’m not sure how this software works and how it meshes with these types of creative works. Thanks for this perspective.
Ong
lookup corridor crews rock paper scissors anime breakdown
I think that you used AI as it should be. As a tool, not as a replacement for the artists themselves. It's pretty amazing what indie creators can now do with the tools that are able to them.
he did. he literally is excusing replacing the artists he didnt hire
@@BinaryDoodhe DID hire artists though, hes using AI alongside them
@@nottimhortons badumts
Categorical Imperative needed
@@BinaryDood Should I commission someone to do a bunch of maths by hand, or can I just use my calculator? Should I pay someone to follow me around and press buttons on elevators, or can I just use the control panel myself? Should I pay someone to connect my calls for me, or can I just use my mobile phone? Saying you arent allowed to use a tool because you should pay someone to do it instead is such a useless argument.
@@sharkfinn0010 When subjectivity and creativity are at stake, when you can play apart on the destruction of the very aims which define humanity, then you should think past your shallow examples. This infinite expelling of images is the opposite of art. The calculator does not do the full job of a mathematician. The smartphone had one of the worst possible impacts on society and it should have been not. The elevator button... is a button. This is not a binary. Art requires value from being percieved, when speaking of it as a commodity. Ir is not a function, quite the contrary, what defines art is exactly how astray it is from utilitary needs. Even in a highly corporate environment there is the integration of the artisan's knowhow to be interpreted by the viewer. To draw is to sacrifice your previous way of seeing things, to develop yourself and not just a piece. This extracting of the art away from the artist is depriving it of its purpose, not a stroke to have any meaning behind it, to be regruggiated ad infinitum. Where the ignorant has infinitely more power than the willful and creative, for one would have to sacrifice years in stern study and practice to get to the point they would produce one acceptable (yet meaningful) piece in a week, whereas for all those years the ignorant and exploitative has been producing 100s per day. Flooding, saturating the landscape, to the point no window for meaning could be opened. Creaitivty becomes dysgetic, and not just in the arts. It is the death of the potential for wisdom, when wisdom is most needed. Every exscused sideways glance to get away with its adoption is a step towards something akin to the Brave New World. If you are willing to throw creativity and subjectivity into the traintracks for it to become an I/O function, then you must imagine the world if everyone did it, because then you would be on tracks yourself my friend. It will come for you too, you will be hollowed out, replaceable in a society which quantifes qualia and qualifies quanta, hence where production is king. Your line of thinking has already turned you into a product. Yes, I would actually love to understand the inner mechanisms of the elevator, but my hours a day don't allow me to such spreaded interests, I am atomize from my surroundings, as it was made the norm with consent manufactured in generis. Now, with surroundings gone from man's mind and hand, they come for the inside, and you accept it willingly. Truthfully people do to themselves now what tyrants in the past attempted to enforce on the populus. So yeah, take your pills, everything is function, don't think past it, good boy.
Your story with the “film-only” professor was a perfect conclusion to this essay!
The same discussion happened when the sewing machine was invented. And then the washing machine. And desktop publishing, self-serve gas pumps, ATMs and self check-out. If we grew up with it and it put people out of work before our time, it's just how things are but if it's new and putting people out of work, it's gross.
People in my small town complain a lot about self-checkout putting cashiers out of business, but I never saw these people getting the more expensive gas at the full-service gas station which was still operational until a couple of years ago....
As an exclusively-digital photographer, I still get people exactly like that professor, saying that my photography isn’t “real” because it’s digital-“the camera does all the work for you, right?” No. It doesn’t.
I talked to a guy who used to do film photography and he said that my photos aren’t REAL photography because they’re digital, and I wish I’d had the presence of mind to tell him, since he was a photographer too, that he sounded like the people who say that all photography isn’t REAL ART because “all you do is press a button.” He didn’t even see the hypocrisy.
ETA: oh I forgot about this aspect of that particular conversation too-I mentioned that most of my photography is nature photography (mostly birds, plants, and landscapes) with very minimal editing, and he said that made it slightly “better” in his eyes… but I could easily see an argument from a different photography-gatekeeper saying that that’d make it worse! If there’s minimal editing choices made by me, then the camera really IS “doing most of the work,” is it not? Seems so exhausting to be an art-gatekeeper, because now you have to decide whether you’re Team “Your Photos Must Be This% Unaltered to Ride” or Team “The Subject and Equipment Did The Art, Not You.”
The main thing I got out of this video is the realization that AI, used responsibly, enables smaller creators like yourself to make things they would never have been able to otherwise, and that is something I can certainly get behind.
That's the wonderful thing about it. Productivity tools allow faster growth. They don't put people out of jobs. The faster people can break through the more quickly they can hire professionals to fill in the gaps in their ability, or to delegate labor to. And the more efficiently those professionals work... etc, etc.
Yeah
Yep. I'm making an illustrated book for a sequel for the Dinotopia series by James Gurney (intended solely for my kids to enjoy), using entirely AI art and using AI editing and cleanup for my own (messy) story. The result is looking great, and it's gone from "a pipe dream that would require me to spend years to learn oil painting to a professional level and months to paint hundreds of pieces" and is instead now "a month or two of editing and layout each evening" which makes it suddenly a reasonable side project to spend time on for my kids.
@@darkPrince10101 This is an amazing idea, and you should make it available either non-commercially or with proceeds maybe donated to a charity of your choice, maybe one benefiting kids reading or charity: water is a good one. You're not held up to the same standards as Disney unless you're trying to profit from it
@@mulethedonkey2579 True, but the style, characters, and setting are all explicitly connected to or derived from James Gurney's copyrighted works, so I would want to seek his approvals before I'd be able to ask for donations for it.
However, I have another short story unrelated to any existing IP that I want to convert into an illustrated kids book via AI art, and I really like the idea of making it available with proceeds going to charity so I will likely do that when I finish and publish it!
This is one of the best AI discussions I have seen, I honestly hope this video reaches a wide audience, I´m 100% on your side on this one Austin, hope you are doing well.
Exactly this! Shared this with some friends who normally wouldn’t be interested in Austin’s videos, but I feel like this one can apply to all
Same!
I agree. People who readily dismiss all AI as ‘the devil’ should listen to this.
It really goes to show that 99% of people who vehemently hate anything AI dont actually know a single thing about AI and just base their opinions on things they've been told by people who also have no idea what they are talking about. I guess that's modern discourse in a nutshell though huh
Hell this even goes for people who use AI all the time, thinking it does things it absolutely does not
There's no side, that's silly. Austin is just a dude who uses controversial tools. Saying this just muddled discussions, especially since Austin himself still doesn't know the technology fully himself. Like the part he mentioned training a diffusion model on purely licensed works. Doing that from scratch is super costly, especially for a video. What he means is fine tuning. Using a existing model to then fine tune to coax out a style. However, the foundational data itself isn't licensed.
As a traditional artists for my entire life, I'm absolutely shocked at how hostile that art community is towards non-artists just wanting to see Harry Potter wear Balenciaga. The idea that "If you can't afford to hire someone, and you are too busy working to spend years practicing painting - that You DON'T DESERVE to bring your imagination to life" - Is fundamentally baffling, wrong, and contrary to everything art is supposed to be. A fun way for people to play with their ideas and bring them into reality -
Look up the definition of the word "Artist". It simply says "A person who produces paintings or drawings as a profession or hobby." - That's it... There has "never" been a requirement for the types of techniques, tools, and software that you can or cannot use to create art. Which means a person using AI to create images and paintings is "by definition" an artist. The same way someone using Photoshop instead of oil is still also an artist.
> *"Is fundamentally baffling, wrong, and contrary to everything art is supposed to be."*
Honestly, I'd also add "arrogant and pompous to the point of sheer stupidity" to that list.
I do not mind AI being a tool for creative people who have a great passion, not at all. I just would hate to see people lose jobs and go broke because million dollar companies who have the money and resources getting even more greedy. AI could be used for so many good things I just really hope it will be a tool for the artists and not for rich CEO's to get even richer.
That's partially what WGA & SAG-AFTRA are striking for. We shouldn't burn independent creators at the stake because they use the same/similar tools. Our anger should be focused solely at those truly causing harm like the studios, the companies replacing human support with chatbots and other powerful people hurting everyone (consumers, employees & the environment) to make, often only marginally, more money. Or the tech & AI companies who will talk about AI ethics but haven't demonstrated that it's anything but buzzwords to prevent regulation.
Problem is, honestly it isn't intended to be made for helping creative people given how much they push into it.
Imo that's just abit of coping and road to slippery slope.
@@darkzeroprojects4245but we could make ones that are, out of the ones that are open-source
I 100% agree, and I think this is a very reasonable concern. However, it's not something I'm overly concerned about because this is true of almost all immerging technologies. In many or most cases, jobs aren't made obsolete due to the development of any one innovation. Rather, the scope of the job evolves to utilize the resources that become available and people adapt to use them. This is how we make any meaningful progress in any endeavor.
No more customers eventually
Lately, I've been a "where is this channel even going??..." subscriber, but this video has given me a lot of context. And on top of that, what a great way to open up the reality of all the "industry tools." I'm really excited to keep seeing your work.
Well his live is going in different places and that means he shifts focus in what he does.
In relation to your story about the professor who refused to use digital cameras over film, I'd like to share one that a co-worker once told me. I work in the planning/estimating phase of construction, specifically drywall. One of my co-workers used to work for a contractor back in the early 2000's who refused to use these new-fangled computer programs to plan out projects or do simple takeoff. Instead, they preferred to use physical paper plans on these giant tables, going over them with pencils, rulers, and compasses. By the 2010's, they were bankrupt and out of business. You know why? Because computer programs like OST and AutoCAD allowed other contractors, their competition, to pump out bids and proposals at a quicker rate with the same level of detail. Now these older programs are being replaced too with things like Revit, which is almost like an all-in-one CAD program for use by architects, engineers, estimators, project managers, field workers, etc. We're yet again having to adapt to the most efficient way of doing things, and so long as people adapt then nobody's being put out of a job.
Imagine a writer saying that if you don't chop down trees to make pencils, then it's not "real" writing. Tools are tools, they're only a side-thing that's necessary to make _something else._
Not a relevant argument. There's no "adapting" to quitting and just letting a computer do all of the work.
Exactly. I'm reminded of luddites who destroyed factory machines because they feared for their livelihoods, or the elevator operators who went on strike because they didn't want to lose their jobs. The world moves forward.
@@Cr3zant didn't watch the video, did you?
@@I.____.....__...__ you don't?
No place like the internet to take a nuanced, complex issue and boil it down to "thing good" or "thing bad"
if its an ethical issue…. yeah
21:29 Audio transcriber here, I still have a job! We just spend our time editing AI transcriptions, and writing them when it fails to capture anything.
We started that BEFORE ChatGPT!!
I worked on that as well :)
You presented your case, your evidence, and your examples very very well. I genuinely believe you don't deserve the backlash for the time and effort put into the project
On the one hand, AI voiceover work is beneficial to smaller creators and opens up options unavailable to them previously. On the other, it's when larger companies start replacing working people en mass that AI voiceover becomes a problem. That second situation is the one that should get backlash.
The backlash over the AI visuals could have been avoided if Adobe made their systems more well known. People outside of the creative space don't know there are ethically trained AIs out there. So when people see AI work, they assume it's done in a program that steals other work for training purposes.
@@TheKrstff Does it become a problem, though? It's no different than millions of other innovations in productivity that you simply take for granted.
@@pXnTilde Any system that puts an entire industry out of work is a problem.
As a society we should be wary of any tool that puts thousands of people out of work overnight. Especially when it is art.
As a culture we should be scared when technology ends a form of artistic expression.
@@TheKrstff to be fair a large production will find it easier to just hire a voice actor for the amount of time an effort it takes to use AI to deliver a performance that they want. It takes an AI 3-5 minutes to generate a spoken line of dialogue that would take a real voice actor 3 seconds to perform. It will be cheaper for the small production to take the time to regenerate the line (to be "good enough") than it would the large production, but cheaper for the large production to simply pay the voice actor their day rate for a better performance.
@@TheKrstff You are making the wild assumption that a) it's going to "put an entire industry out of work" and b) that it will happen "overnight"
You seem to lack any ability to look into the past at great booms in productivity tools. Even the ones that made an industry disappear did not do it "overnight" - not everyone will jump on at once, and many of the people who would be doing that work will become the experts on using the AI.
You're viewpoint is naive as to be asinine. But there's always a group of people indoctrinated into fear of the future.
I hate that you can never seem to catch a break. I appreciate your hard work and creativity to provide so much free content, and I know a lot of people would say the same.
I would definitely say the same.
I think at a certain point you would just not care.
A big part of the copyright issue is there's not a lot of transparency regarding what has been drawn from. I think there's quite a bit of room for us to regulate and ensure some sort of paper trail. This would also make it that much easier for creators to cite their sources.
@@chbmckie Adobe trained Firefly on Adobe Stock, but they failed to notify their contributors before they trained on their content, and they didn't - and still don't - respect any creators who never wanted to be a part of the training. They just updated their massive ToS on their website, expected people to actively check said site, and went on abusing hundreds of thousands of art pieces. Oh, and then they marketed the shit out of it with the message of "See how ethical we are, we trained this AI on OUR content". Except, they were never copyright holders to begin with, and you can literally read in their own terms, that contributors don't sign over their rights when contributing to Adobe Stock.
Even now, you cannot effectively opt out of training their algorithm, even if you don't want them to use your work.
I swear, this level of sycophancy for greedy corporations like Adobe really has to end.
there's also the fact that a lot of AI generated images are very very close to actual artwork to the point where artists have found AI images that are basically traced versions of their own art, showing that at the very least the AIs are not doing much changing in some instances
There trained to imitate like humans are.
you cant copyright a style
Yes, but really if one of my drawings was in thousand or hundrid or even 5 other drawings, is that even my drawing anymore?
I actually don’t mind TTS AI. Some people can’t afford voice actors, or just can’t do the impression of it. And if you’re an indie group or one man army, I’m completely fine with it. Literally anything else, is very different
I've used tts. It's a life saver for people that wanna make videos but, for whatever reason, can't speak or have trouble speaking or recording
@@FajreroCintilo or if you can’t speak the language well. That’s why I’m more understanding with it
Why is it different for everything else?
@@SimplySuperior Voices can’t always be replicated. Nor can everyone afford it. Drawings are different. In my opinion, context matters on the rest. So does TTS, but less so. It’s different cause
I was on the fence about the video having AI elements, but you clarifying the effort and time/financial roadblocks you had throughout the production process absolutely convinced me that this was a project of passion and not laziness. Some may still disagree and they’re within their right to do that, but I’m definitely satisfied with your thorough explanation and I’m still eagerly looking forward to your future content. Thank you Austin.
Cat.
@@codekillerz5392 kitty 🐱
I feel like it should be assumed, most of the time, that if someone is using ai its because they don't have the means to get vocalists, artists and a full team.
This video really made me self reflect, on how much I’ve actually looked into issues like this before engaging in discussion on it, which hasn’t been a lot. I realized when you said it, I totally was one of those people who just wanted that little sense of moral superiority, and that’s embarrassing to be honest! So, thank you for the well put together video and encouraging self reflection and betterment! Keep making cool stuff.
I respect the self reflection that you allowed your self to do.
Not everyone is self-reflective enough to admit to wanting moral superiority on a subject. Happens all the time, and most people have gone through it.
This kind of self reflection is something everyone needs in the internet age
As one of those on the complete opposite end of the spectrum (anti-IP extremist who believes AI art is never immoral), Even though I also disagree with some of the choices he made (for the opposite reasons from most), I also think this video is a very rational and robust justification of his actions and a reality check for all extremists on both sides about how the legal use of AI art will most likely actually be in the future: legally untouchable when fully licensed datasets are used, and legally dubious the more dubious the dataset is.
Be honest, did you use chat GPT to write this self aware comment? 😅
in seriousness, it's nice when people have an open mind and consider the opposite perspective, regardless of whether it changes their mind or not. I thought he made a very good video here and made a lot of good points. I didn't really disagree with his point even before watching the video, but even so it did widen my perspective quite a bit.
I think the one of the biggest problems with the debate about AI is people are blaming AI for the rampant abusive and low wages for artist when really what artists need is something more like a union, you can even see it with the Writers/SAG-AFTRA strike. Writers and actors are not upset with AI they are upset with how the companies want to use Ai as an excuse not to pay them.
The technology I am more concerned with is Deep fake tech, as I can see way more plainly malicious ways to use that tech.
I actually put that video in my watch later because I was interested in hearing the first chapter, but assumed it was going to be a still image and narration, so I wanted to put it on during the day like a podcast. I would have watched it right away if I had known it was a full animatic.
Darn it, Austin, I was watching this video and formulating a response of "how dare you not shoot your RUclips content on Super 8 and project it on the side of a barn for passing cars" when you brought that point home in the last 30 seconds! Well done.
He should've commissioned a play writer and some actors to perform this live on a world tour. This is just lazy tool using :(
Anyway, I have to run. My leg won't roast itself. I have to at least reach Mach 7 to generate enough heat.
I was admittedly one of the people who thought the book was a graphic novel, but that was 100% my own mistake. I just somehow assumed that. Before the "chapter 1 video" was even out
Also 33:33 people really saw old material that wasn't as good as today's standards and said "oh it must be AI" that's says a lot
I own a compendium of all the original Marvel Man comic issues and oh boy...comics back then were drawn with human anatomy being a suggestion.
@@jamestomato1744 the original Deadpool was also really wonky and it was done by a human!
I think I started the chapter thinking it was intended to be graphical in some capacity, but prose is pretty unmistakably prose, so just listening to the words gave it away that it was something written with the idea that there didn't need to be any visual component in order to be intelligible. That dude saying we all thought it was a comic, crying false advertising or whatever, well he couldn't have spent long actually listening to it, because I don't know any comic book that has that much space for words on the page.
The comic is looking wonky because it was up-scaled and de-noised, it didn't look like that originally, you can see that in some panels the background with the cmyk dot print is just a mushed color with weird likes, that's because the de-noiser interpreted those points as noise, so in the end, looks "AI" because "AI" uses the a similar process of de-noising, but at the end it isn't. That being said, the people claiming that looked AI wasn't claiming that just to be annoying, they had legitimate concerns
@@Kodak-Qthey did not have legitimate concerns. They just don't read enough Golden Age Comic Books
So glad you took the time to put all of this into a video! It was very informative and professional- I think something is up with my YT notifications. I haven’t watched your videos in a while so I didn’t know anything about Spider Queen until now. After watching this I’ll go ahead and check it out! I’m kinda glad in a way, if it weren’t for this video I wouldn’t have known about Spider Queen at all.
Personally my limit on using AI is part 3: art theft, using image data from non consenting artists. You've explained that the data used are from properly licensed sources, royalty-free data or from your own sources via commission. I think that's still within the ethical range of using AI, and thank you for explaining it to us.
calling ai art art theft because it trains an ai without your consent is like calling a human artist an art thief because they saw your art and became inspired by your style and drew art based off it without your consent.
if you think of the brain as a computer, whenever we make art we are taking from gathered data by other artists we have seen. that's essentially what the AI is doing.
art theft is a meaningless term anyhow. when you put something into the public eye it is no longer yours. people understand this in regards to re-writing canon they don't like and justify it with "death of the author", but apparently "death of the artist" is a step too far.
@@gotgunpowderA.I data training and building your visual library are completely different things.
One is REQUIRED for you to add thousands of images to train the computer to its thing you CANNOT create images without using the data set, if you ask a computer to make an image of the Mona Lisa without ever using any image of the Mona Lisa in the data set it’s simply CANNOT, A.I can only create images from its data set.
Where’s an Artist who never saw the Mona Lisa in their life CAN redraw the Mona Lisa just by having someone describe what does it looks like, humans can IMAGINE and create made up things out of their heads with their thinking and reasoning abilities which a computer cannot.
Computers and human brains are two different things and it’s unfair to treat them the same
@@patrickkirby6580dude its literally just AI art. It's hurting no one. Whats an ai image gonna do?
Yea it doesn’t hurt anyone. Besides, it only used photos of ACTUAL PEOPLE that can be used to frame them for crimes…
We there is no way this could be abused, right?
As someone who values creativity and is doubtful of AI, I'm glad I waited for your follow-up before making any assumptions. I can't speak for everyone, but my own personal initial concern with the use of AI in the video was that the AI was used to generate the imagery from the start. And you very quickly assuaged those doubts while also opening a nuanced discussion about what computer assisted tools are and what human creativity actually means.
My personal opinion of where to draw the line is whether or not the process of creating art is *started* by a human or a computer - e.g., typing in "red-headed anime woman and white-haired anime scientist" into Dall-E vs commissioning art, or typing in "write a script for Spider Queen" vs thinking of the script and writing it yourself. I don't think AI as a tool of enhancement is a problem, I just don't want it to be part of the foundation of a creative work.
If you want a certain degree of specificity, you'll have a hard time just using AI with 1 prompt and get good results. There will be a whole lot more work involved, including often manual work. Those who don't have the toolset to do manual work will be more limited. They're tools which augment the user's talents/skills.
lol. You're opinions are worthless.
People were very premature in making their comments. I feel like people online nowadays draw conclusions right away, instead of allowing the original poster to explain themselves. It's going downhill.
Fear is the basis of anti-AI sentiment.
"I just don't want it to be part of the foundation of a creative work." I think that's just your assumption since, at least for todays stages of AI development and excluding those pesky sexy girl picts generator on twitter, for anyone who still value thier creative works, AI are just a tool, nothing more.
I can't believe you would put out an apology video and not put up billboards, you're putting the men who update billboards out of work
To hell with the billboards, they're putting town criers out of business!
"Hear ye, hear ye- support Austin and his content!"
tbh. this ended up being an interesting behind the scenes/movie magic featurette if anything.
People often conflate taking shortcuts with being lazy. Yet as far as I know, taking shortcuts is the smart thing to do, whereas the lazy person would just approach the same thing the same way every time. It’s clear you still put work into this, even if you cut a few corners.
IMO the idea that it is lazy, and somehow bad, to make things easier, to take and use tools to make things easier, is imbecilic.
Honestly I didn't even know that video had AI elements, even the voice actor because AI voices just can't sound that good without meticulous tweaking and refining and for that, I commend you.
Also Austin said that he has Audible working on a voice recording of his book right? So even with the “no effort AI video” voice, a voice actor will still be paid to narrate Austins novel.
@@SupericeCapwhy did you ask this three fucking times lmfao
@@SupericeCap For the Official version yes of course
"If you use AI you take work away from real artists"
"You should just find people who would do it for free"
What the fuck, man
If I'm being honest, I never thought there was anything hinky going on with the video, but I was just listening to it while getting ready for bed.
"AI" has been being used for a while, the outlines for Into the Spiderverse was helped with "AI". In college 10 years ago, there was an "AI" that would sync the camera audio with the sound recorder audio. Logic would use "AI" to remove dead space in audio tracks.
If someone wasn't going to get hired to do the thing in the first place I don't see an issue if it's not done this way, as long as it's not done in an exploitative way.
Using ai to cut out the artist, that's bad. Using ai to assist the art and the artist, I don't see the problem.
"Using AI to cut out the artist, that is bad. Using AI to assist the art and the artist, I don't see the problem."
I agree 100% with that statement. And that is exactly what Austin did.
But what if - AUSTIN WAS THE ARTIST? As he explains, HE DID THE WORK to prep the AI with his own art. He isn’t stealing from anyone.
@@LuckyBird551 There are two things mentioned there which are mutually exclusive. Which is it you think Austin did? Because it's pretty clear to me from this video that Austin used AI "to assist the art and the artist."
Exactly. In this case, Austin himself is the artist.
@@glennacAI stealing from artists also refers to their training data, bruh
i think this ai controversy is apart of a larger issue where people put too much emphasis on quality being the core of art when its always been soul at the core of it. to me, as long as you start a piece of art with good intentioned passion then its already good; quality is just there to refine it
This
people calling him exploitative for using AI and then saying that he should ask people to literally work for free is hilarious
RIGHT?!
Look at the dude who made Scooby Doo in Springtrapped.
no, its not hilarious. Free work is…. freely entered into by willing artists. This is, indeed, ethical.
@ithurtsbecauseitstrue1922 no , it's not. Using others free labor and skills to benefit one's self is highly unethical , regardless of consent.
@@texasslingleadsomtingwong8751there is nothing wrong with volunteer work. its a good thing. charities and many artworks are volunteer on the artists part, and those that assist voluntarily.
Free work in general is not good. Of course an agency should not expect free production work.
But that doesnt mean volunteer work is wrong. That’s just dumb
I'm sorry for the backlash you've seen, I know how devastating that can be. Thank you for your content, most of us appreciate all your efforts!
Tbf it's Austin, if his audience doesn't give him a backlash then something is definitely wrong, we are an annoying bunch, critical, but annoying
@@michaeltagor4238 that's a strength more than a weakness, but people gotta know when and where to direct it.
@@michaeltagor4238 critical and annoying* It's not a positive to be critical. And maybe y'all should try to be less annoying too? Austin is a real human being. You're not owed the right to interject into his life. We should all try to have more grace with each other.
@@Dysiode being critical is, well, critical. Because to say being critical is bad is to imply complacency is preferrable. Unless you're confusing "critical" thinking with "negative" thinking. Those are different words meaning different things, and I'd agree if you were referring to the latter.
@@DanielFerreira-ez8qd My brother in Christ, if you have to use "is to imply complacency is preferrable" in a sentence about RUclips videos it's time for some self-reflection.
Austin McConnell isn't making videos for you and doesn't need your opinion about what he's doing wrong. In fact, he's better off without it. You're not advocating for him, you're using him to feel superior.
If you think complacency is a problem, there is a lot of suffering in the world you could contribute to ending.
I have ethical problems with ai but you've 100% done your due diligence in these projects, you licensed everything & put a lot of effort into making the preview. Thank you for sharing your process
It's pretty obvious when you see ai art if it was made by an artist or made by an ai fan
Hopefully it stays that way
I certainly don't side with the AI bros "git gud or find a new job" mentality when it comes to the threat of AI to human artists but I think you nailed an aspect of AI use that human artists have to be capable of, throwing the baby out with the bath water. If a project requires 10 artists to get the job done on time, you either don't do it and no one gets paid, try to make it work anyway by underpaying and overworking the artists you have, or use AI to supplement your deficiencies. That's not without its issues and there is the risk of ending up with a slippery slope where artists become less and less essential each year until you've got one guy just there to sign off on what the AI produces but at least for now, artists can benefit from the new creative ventures that AI allows us to pursue.
AI is an increasingly complicated topic, and my understanding of it is also pretty limited. But if there’s an ethical way to use it, I can agree this is it. I am glad you were able to find different ways to tell your stories, and I’m excited to see what you’ll continue to do in the future. I am also very happy to listen to your experience. Thank you!
Not sure why people jump to conclusions with such entitlement in their tone when they do not know how much effort goes into making things. Thank you for addressing the concerns in a constructive way and that is why we love and support you.
Wow, people being ignorant, stupid and prone to kill the sacrificial lamb to feel like they have the higher moral ground... Who would have thought...
The vast majority of people don't know there are ethically produced AIs. The only ones that make the news are programs like Stable Diffusion which are arguably stealing other people's work.
There def feels an undercurrent of "my experience has been ruined by thing I don't like and I'm.mad at you"
@@hammerandthewrench7924 the general conversation is nowhere near web scraping here. Austin didn't (or at least not directly) participate or endorse that kind of AI usage. The fact people jumped to his throat the moment they noticed it was AI just proves that people are very angry about things they don't fully understand.
Yeah, this whole 'do better', 'educate yourself', 'take the video down and apologize' thing - I think I have only ever really seen it in the context of angry, wrong assumptions.
Without getting into the right or wrong, hopefully this event hasn’t caused you too much stress❤
This is the conversation that needs to be had, thanks for educating sir
Backer for the movie here. This seems like you've used AI as ethically as possible, while also doing your best to have as much human creativity inserted as possible.
I haven't gotten around to watching that chapter 1, so I didn't even realize AI was used, but the clips looked super cute and you can't even tell from those anyway, aside from the voice. But it still seems really well done, and as a Vocaloid fan, I like AI voices when you're unapologetic about the voices being robots.
I didn't realized ai was used either
You're not taking jobs away from people if you couldn't afford to pay them anyway.
Anyway, I really liked how informative this video was! It taught me a lot about how you can use AI and how much human is still involved in it. Really hope the video was also intended that way and not just a defence to the misguided/uninformed people that commented on your other video.
Exactly. Tony he “do it right or don’t do it at all” crowd, what would happen if he just didn’t make it at all? Creators still wouldn’t get paid money he doesn’t have
@jajones11 The argument that I think they're making is that, if a lot of people start using ai to create art for projects like this, then eventually people who could afford to pay artists will also start using ai. Not sure if I necessarily agree with that argument, but I think that's what they're saying.
@@denisnevsky3734 yes they would and I'm pretty sure they are doing this right now. But "good art" will always be somewhat time consuming. The artists of today (most of them) are not using paint (like literal paint and brushes), the artists of tomorrow will probably use less and less digital brushes, replacing them with AI tools and sliders. Yes, there will be some who will use AI as a mere shortcut, but if you want a good product you either hire a professional or train and do it yourself. AI just makes it more accessible and (maybe?) cheap.
I understand your arguments, but I also think you're conflating Algorithms, Computer assistance, and AI. There's a line that needs to be drawn but i do think you're strawmanning a few of the arguments. I've used Grammarly, levelator, and various algorithmic tools built into art editing software. If I were to propose a line to be drawn in the sand, I would put it at the point of fully generating something with only prompts. I think creating artificial intelligence itself at this level is unethical, but i also do believe that AI robs a core aspect of the job from certain areas by taking over the core aspect which is creation itself. Right now it isnt very coherent, and you did go about this in probably the best way possible, but what about others? And what about when it does become indistinguishable? Maybe not the best argument, but its my take on it
I'm reminded of how TRON (1982) was basically disqualified for the special effects Oscar because "using computers was cheating".
New tools are always scary, and big studios need to be held to a high standard to protect creatives, but I am with you here Austin; Tools are tools, artists are artist. And artists need tools that help them as much as possible, while still maintaining their creativity.
Photoshop is cheaper and easier than paints and brushes and air compressors and canvases... And that's been the norm for 20 years, but we still use paints etc.
There is also the idea that if someone says "if your going to use AI then just don't make it", that point contradicts the "your stealing jobs from the artists". If you use AI to make a project, a theoretical artist isn't getting paid. If you don't make the project, a theoretical artist isn't getting paid. Plus, in theory of you don't do a WHOLE project because one part needs Ai to make, now no one else gets paid. So if a movie isn't made because a scene was going to use AI, then all the writers, musicians, actors, etc. Then more artists are losing jobs.
I'm not seeing this exact point being made nearly often enough. Which, in my honest opinion, shows that the people driving this argument don't actually care about artists getting jobs, but exclusively want to ride the "anti ai train".
You're saying this on a video where the first point is that he acknowledges that he used an AI voice instead of just picking a voice actor, in large part because it meant he did not have to pay them and that he considered it simpler than working with a voice actor he wasn't 100% happy with. Projects like this are a dream for aspiring voice-actors trying to build a portfolio while still getting paid at least a little, and now that job was taken up by an AI.
Not saying all of what you've said is invalid, but when a project is primarily AI-generated like the Spider Queen sampler, using AI and deciding not to make the project at all have functionally the same result for the artists who could have worked on it.
@@dublinjakefirstly, I'm sure you saw that the VAs weren't cheap, secondly, he still did pay for manny assets and stuff created by artists and had stiff he commissioned.
but even if he hadn't, that still doesn't mean he shouldn't have made the video or it's any less valid
@@dublinjake I respect your view point and appreciate the calm and non-accusatory tone in your reply, however I feel as you missed my point. Yes, he chose to use A.I. instead of paying the voice actors. If you look at it purely on numbers perspective though, many more people got paid for their work by him using A.I. than would have if he didn't. The fact of the matter is he could not afford to pay the voice actor for the amount of work required, he just did not have the money and would have lost so much money if he did hire one. So that leaves the options of use A.I. for voice acting and hire people for other aspects (I know he also used A.I. for a lot of the art too, just focusing on the VA to make the point more clear), or not make the project at all. Those saying that he shouldn't have made the project if he couldn't pay for a human voice actress miss how many other artist would have also not been paid if there were no project.
To illustrate this, I'm using random money amounts, I have no idea how much this would have cost or how much he paid for anything else.
So let's say he paid $500 for the spider queen character design commission, another $500 for various key frames/models to put into the A.I. art maker, and another $200 for music licencing from artists (these are all high balling estimates to make a point). If he chose to not make the project because he couldn't pay for the VA like various commenters said to, then that's $1200 not going to OTHER artists that also need the work.
What you said at the end is basically my argument, the result of making it with A.I. or not is the same for the VAs or the animators he didn't hire, regardless they don't get paid. However, it is vastly different to the artists who were hired for the project.
Respectfully, when you show your choices between available VA's and while hiding bias in the choice the AI one wins in the poll are you really going to go with what would likely amount to a worse off result to fill some high horse of false morality?@@dublinjake
This was an interesting video.
I think, if properly used as Austin did, ai will be a tool to help artists and people in all fields to assist with their jobs.
My concern is when big companies will try to use ai to supplant or replace their workers to make a greater profit.
This is going to happen no matter what. That's what a profit driven capitalist society does.
If people didn't want it to come to this, they've had hundreds of years to make political change. They didn't.
Replacing workers is a good thing.
@@biomerl I dont know whether you’re being funny or not.
In concept i agree with that, jobs are going to get replaced with machines, many jobs have. But people need a way to survive. Sooner or later humanity is going to have to rethink “work” and what that means because even jobs thought to be safe may be replaced with machines.
Learn to weld
@@Superunknown190I share your concern about the ethics of big movie studios.
As for jobs being taken away, I'm not sure that's as big of a problem as people think. When a job that was previously done by a person is done by a machine, jobs are then created for people to design, build and maintain the machines. Humans are not removed but the part of the process they're responsible for changes.
I have always believed that AI can help and reduce stress in work the amount of cool things that can be done with ai and people working together I’m glad that you made this video to show people
What scares me is that for right now it's impossible to make a video like that for 2 hours. For right NOW it may be improving it's truly scary. But props to you for this video
One of the Main things I've learned in life? 'You can't make everyone happy'.
Keep on keeping on Austin, The majority of us have your back!🙌🏻❤
The people you are least likely to make happy are the ones who complain at length about how unhappy they are, and how it's your fault they are unhappy. You won't make them happy even if you do exactly what they ask; they will just unearth some new reason why they're unhappy. It's like their hobby or something.
@AtomicShrimp I just clarity dude, I said this as replies to others. We only had guesses and assumptions before due to no credits before and there's still lack of clarity on the diffusion model.
@@killzone110ad assumptions are not a sound basis for anger and judgment though, IMO.
@@AtomicShrimp Anot good reasons for emotions? Not saying folks should dox or belittle Austin but when the vast majority of models are used to exploit people, its pretty reasonable to be disappointed in your favorite creator partaking, especially when it looks obvious. Granted, i have no problem with the licensed tools and assets he mentioned. However, Austin is probably incorrect in his assessment of not using unlicensed data, since he mentioned using diffusion, where none of the data was actually lincensed, and trying a model from scratch with licensed material is costly and time consuming for a promo video. Mind you, I ain't calling for his head but yeah, that disappointment is still there.
@@killzone110ad are you assuming 'diffusion' means some specific implementation like Stable Diffusion?, because there is not just one diffusion-based model out there.
It's a really complicated topic for sure. As an artist, I get the feeling that Anti-AI groups are more against large companies who believe artists can be replaced entirely with AI, or people who call themselves artists after putting a prompt into a text-based image generator and making no additional adjustments. They don't think about the fact that tools like Grammerly or motion capture are "ai". When I say I'm against AI art, it's against the total replacement of artists, not for it's use as a tool.
I personally struggle with people who type a prompt into something like Dalle and call it art. But I can see an argument for using AI for the specific weird, surreal style it produces or training your own on your own art to help with workload. I still feel uncomfortable with it and won't ever use it myself, but I won't pretend like I don't see the benefit of it. Idk, it feels like a slippery slope.
More or less my opinion on the matter as well. Obviously there's no way to completely stop AI as a whole, technological advancement and cost-saving practices make that inevitable, but my problem is when people try to use it as a way to replace artistry as a whole or to cut out artists entirely. Honestly, my biggest issue with the video so far (I'm at around the 2/3rd mark) is how he discusses the use of AI to supplement the animators because they were too expensive or because "the artist might use AI themselves".
Animation is by its nature requires an immense amount of work and skill to do, even with all the shortcuts modern computing has given them - there's a reason hour long movies cost in he millions to make. If he learned that hiring animators was going to be outside of his budget, he should have found some other means to advertise his book, like using whatever assets he already had interspersed with him talking about the book in his normal format as opposed to it being a full story-book approach or some other means adapting what he had already acquired - limitations breed creativity, but instead he felt he had to stick to his original format.
I'm absolutely against the idea that he should've "not made it at all", but once you learn what you can and can't do you need to change your approach, but going to AI is not the right option; doing so inherently devalues the work and skills creatives put in to get to the level needed for this kind of content - it sets the precedent that "even in spite of the years of work you've put in to get the to point to do this professionally, I've found an alternative that can replace you for cheaper". As such, these specialists will either need to appropriate AI into their own work, many of whom are morally objected to the idea due to its unethical use and potential to replace them entirely in the future, or lower their prices significantly (and artists already don't make a whole lot of money as it is), neither of which is a comforting idea.
As for the hired artists using AI themselves, that seems like such a simple solution - talk that out with the artist themselves, find out who you're hiring and ask them about it before taking them on the team
Unfortunately, cases like this show me that it's more than likely artists will end up *having* to incorporate AI into their work to keep up with market demand AS WELL AS lowering their prices. I can only hope that people put up enough of a fight that it doesn't overtake the industry completely, or else artists will become the next horses in a world of automobiles.
I've literally had people tell me I'm a horrible person and my art is terrible because I decided to say that drumming up such a hysteria over AI is a horrible thing to do.
There's no minimum social profile required for people to get on your case over this stuff. I've yet to meet anyone who's willing to hold back with me because I don't work for a massive corporation.
Unfortunately, we don't get to gatekeep who is an artist and who isn't, and if someone wants to call their shitty Midjourney generated pfp their art, well, it is. We built this version of what art means throughout the 1800s and 1900s. We don't get to walk it back now because it suddenly became inconvenient.
I have very little patience for those who perpetuate this hysteria anymore, and the rest of the world is starting to turn around on that too, especially with recent developments with Adobe.
As one of those on the complete opposite end of the spectrum (anti-IP extremist who believes AI art is never immoral), Even though I also disagree with some of the choices he made (for the opposite reasons from most), I also think this video is a very rational and robust justification of his actions and a reality check for all extremists on both sides about how the legal use of AI art will most likely actually be in the future: legally untouchable when fully licensed datasets are used, and legally dubious the more dubious the dataset is.
Nah, is not complicated at all, the people complaining about AI are dumbasses.
Plain and simple.
So what about the huge group of people (like me) who couldn't make art, but now were able to create art (including a lot of adjustments and compositing)? Am I replacing an artist, or am I 'becoming' an artist? I would think a sensible argument could be made that far more people have become artists *due* to generative AI, in the same way as nowadays anybody can easily create a website and designers with little technical skills can create websites using their own designs, whilst 20 years ago you had many developers who had to be involved in that process. Most 'pure' developers I now meet who still make 'simple' websites are there to do unique elements, and I think artists will fulfil similar roles: cookie cutter art will be completely delegated to AI, whilst producing new styles and training new models with particularly unique elements will be an artists job.
I think this is a perfect example of ethical use of ai. All of the work was created using licensed, commissioned, or royalty-free assets (or AI trained on content that companies *claimed* that they owned) and I'm glad you thought through the development of your video and explored the more expensive option of commissioning VAs and artists even if it didn't work out and instead went with a more time-consuming route.
I think many people have a different understanding of AI to many artists, though- there isn't a hatred of progress (many 3D artists would eagerly accept AI that did efficient UV mapping for them, for example) but a fear around the use of such products.
AI has been trained on certain artists' work in order to replicate their style (including the art of Qinni (@Qinniart) who is now sadly deceased so the replication and 'theft' of her work greatly upset her family and friends). Certain people even went so far as to generate naked images of some female artists who requested they not train the ai on their artwork in order to make them stop protesting. It CAN be a tool (used for good or ill) but if so it is a very different tool from those that have come before and it is important that we respond to this difference adequately as a society. The camera must be positioned, adjusted, and shot by the photographer. The input is the arrangement created by the photographer and it is based on not only the photographer's interests and inspirations but also the environment around them. Many different references go into it until the final result is unrecognisable from anything else because it has become something new- the artist has made mistakes and changes in their attempt to 'copy' a reference and it has become something different and original. AI does not understand, perceive, analyse, make mistakes, and put the images through the filter of human experience so it's a little different from a tool upgrade like pencils to photoshop or paint to a camera. If I wanted to adjust one aspect of my painting, I could go in with a paintbrush and change it and JUST that. AI cannot do this as it doesn't perceive the picture as a whole but as data. One day it may be that good and to be honest, I'll be sad because I won't be able to afford to continue pursuing a career in solving problems via art and telling stories through my creations because why would they ask a human to do it if they can do it with less cost with a button and keys?
AI could have fantastic applications in art, but only if companies creating these AI engines wish to pay artists to *contribute* their works so everyone is being compensated fairly (and we slow down progress on it enough that adequate laws can be made to protect artists and everyone who ever put their image on the internet publicly).
Artists want to keep existing and keep making things to share with the world.... Ordinary people want to make their creative dreams come to life and cannot afford to pay people a living wage to help them... This clash is unfortunate and part of our problem lies in ordinary people not being paid enough for their work so they can pay people to bring their ideas to life, not just big companies.
Big studios turning to AI to make products faster because they already have their artists on unreasonably tight schedules, however? Horrific. But that's a different argument, and not what is happening here.
Great video, and best of luck with your book release. I hope you're doing alright after receiving such backlash!
Incredibly well put 👏🏽
I have just about fucking had it with people who are complaining about AI art. I am an artist myself and I do not give a shit whatsoever whether AI art exists or not. If you think that society is going to crumble because AI is going to replace workers and screw everyone out of having a job, maybe you should focus on the fact that we need to have jobs to live and to be allowed to be a part of society rather than technological advancement itself. The very fact that people have to do some arbitrary tasks in order to have food and shelter is the problem, not computers.
wow man i can’t believe you didn’t spend several years or thousands of dollars to become/hire a competent animator, voice actor, and artist just to make a promo video… really feeling betrayed rn…
@@hammerandthewrench7924 not everyone has that kinda time. if you’re a grown man with a job and multiple side projects you might not have an excess of free time to learn how to become a decent animator, and you probably don’t have the money to hire one either.
@@williamomalley6081 exactly : and that's the perfect context to find creative solutions to make things works under constraints anyways. Using generative AI is not only an insult to all those who got their worked scraped without consent, it is also the straight road to an atrophy of skills.
@@hammerandthewrench7924congratulations on completely missing the point.
Another problem are people fearmongering what AI is actually capable of doing. Like plenty of the artists and others in his previous videos. Your method is fine and good if YOU are exclusively an artist or you're privileged enough to afford time for all of that, otherwise you dont have much choice but to go with an objectively more efficient and affordable option@@hammerandthewrench7924
@@hammerandthewrench7924clearly you have never tied using a "400.00" tablet for a proper project that is longer than 30 seconds.
Proper professional software and an associated functional tablet cost quite a bit more and there is a mean learning curve .
As someone who’s trying to create a full 30 minute pilot episode for a show and straight up not being able to afford animators or Lengthy AI Motion capture, the pain of being the only animator, modeler, texture artist, rig builder, sound designer, and one of two writers while also barely surviving on ramen noodles in college is more painful than whatever any hate comment can ever be.
AI should and will be used for non-commercial, small creator content like what you're talking about.
@@mulethedonkey2579Of course. Large companies will definitely try to pull a fast one. But people are freaking out on random people earning as much as they do if they catch a whiff of AI.
Why are you trying to make a 30 minute episode in college? Have you ever supervised an episode of a TV show? Interacted with various departments to bring an episode together? Broke down and graded an episode and allocated shots to artists? This is just some of making a show. May seem cool in college to make your own show, but animation is a team effort. It's also a business, one that generates jobs, puts money and taxes into the local economy and supports other businesses around the location of a studio with lunch and other things bought during work hours and is considered by many governments to be one of the vital industries in their economy. Special visas are often given to support labor in this industry. If it's even possible to make a 30 minute cartoon with just AI, you will do very little for your community beyond make a cartoon compared to a studio that actually works with people.
@@jmhorange maybe because they want to?
its clearly a passion project based on what they are doing in order to try to create it and that they are "surviving on ramen noodles in college".
Not everyone does everything because it makes money, some people do stuff because the enjoy it.
Also just because some big team worked on it doesnt mean its good , sometimes a small team of people that care about the project beyond just making money to survive off can make something as good as a bigger team that doesnt.
Im not trying to villainize professional animation teams here, just say that you shouldnt be putting down some random person on the internet that is obviously very keen on being creative just because they arent doing it the way you would.
Putting it like that makes me think you missed the entire point of this video.
@@guesswho2778 the point of the video is the host spent like 3 minutes and considered it his 3rd and final point poorly making clear if he used AI based on theft or not. At a time when there are various lawsuits around AI, a government have asked a CEO of an AI company point blank in a congressional hearing, why aren't you paying people for their data to train your models, to Hollywood striking because of AI, it seems like one would in this climate say in 5 minutes or less is his use of AI ethically. So I know what the video is about, you can read my thread on this video and other comments I made on others' threads in the video.
The reason I spoke to this person is unrelated to the video. And I am not putting him down. He wants to make a cartoon. Everyone wants to make a cartoon in college while eating Ramon noodles, I've been there. I'm just saying there's more to animation that just the artistic side. And even the artistic side, you grow so much more after college than in. I'm not putting him down, he's free to listen or continue his goals to make a cartoon on his own. I'm just giving advice. And I brought up none of the ethical concerns that I addressed for the host of the video. Because the host is reaching an audience. If people on their own want to use the current AI models, I have no desire to judge them. I judge AI companies and those that spread misinformation about AI like this host.
Anyways, if you consider a functioning community with jobs and making sure kids get fed every day and going to well funded schools...just about making money. I don't know what to tell you.
After being the first example as a negative comment on this video (not actually mentioned by Austin but I'm onscreen) and watching the whole thing, I gotta agree w/ what you're saying and apologize for my previous comment. I'm not a big time watcher, I watch like 1/4 of your videos so I'm pretty unaware about a lot of things, including your financial situation, when I saw the A.I. generated content. I was kinda in the bandwagon of "dude please pay an artist instead of using auto-art software" but now that I know that an artist wouldn't have been paid, A.I. or not, really made me think about the way I treat A.I. art. I still really *really* hate A.I. art but I gotta respect the hustle and wanting to just create good content. I was also unaware that the full book was a, well, book. I was under the assumption that it would have been an A.I. generated comic and that's really the thing that made me leave my hate comment because, unlike your very heavily edited video, a comic could have been very cheaply and lazily made, and I applaud you for actually putting effort into a real book instead of regurgitating a robot made comic (like I said, I was under the impression that the book was a comic, maybe I'm just blind but I don't know how I didn't notice sooner). So uh, sorry for the previous comment, and thanks for a video kinda explaining your work process. It gave me a lot more respect for you.
yayyy, i was waiting for a comment like this, i wanna know if more people who commented on the previous video felt the same way.
It's interesting because the same argument for something like this is the most common argument why the idea of "production losses of pirated content" is often considered to be vastly overblown. It's true that pirating DOES extract SOME revenue, but all data show that the VAST MAJORITY of people who are pirating it "would not have watched the content if they couldn't pirate it," meaning that there is something approximating a "net-zero loss" because they wouldn't have GAINED anything if they hadn't watched it and by watching it, they may not be getting money, but they ARE getting mindshare, attention, and cultural elevation. Similarly, at least in this specific case here, if you didn't have access to the AI tools and resources, that video just wouldn't have been made. Or it would be substantially less. So the ARTISTS are seeing the same "Net-zero loss." The video couldn't have been made if it was with them, so they would never have seen the revenue from that project without them, anyway. It makes sense to be critical when there is an "either/or" opportunity (that is, the project CAN afford a writer but uses AI instead, such that it can EITHER use AI OR Humans, but chooses AI,) but it doesn't make sense to level that critique when there's an exclusivity paradox (that is, no one is LOSING anything because the AI is the ONLY reason the project is feasible to begin with.)
People are confusing art with drawing. There is art in using ai as a tool to convey a message, there is art in using tts to make your characters feel alive. What isn’t art is just writing a basic prompt and posting it online. But that is obviously not the case here and artists should understand that. What Austin has done takes skill, effort and patience. It compliments the story and combining it with literature is a great example of how we can elevate our talents with modern technologies, as artists. I use ai myself and I completely understand your reasoning. It removes a tedious step, it increases our reach for our creative expressions and it enables us to dive deeper into interests we might not have gotten a chance to do otherwise.
Several great points. And I appreciate how you presented a lot of them as questions and not conclusions. AI fascinates me as much as it terrifies me. And I think that’s because it is both extremely useful and extremely dangerous. What I take from this video is the question you posed repeatedly: where do we draw the line? And that is the conversation we should be having. I think it is inevitable that a lot of jobs will disappear as a result of this (as they have as a result of previous technical revolutions). Hopefully we’ll eventually understand this enough to be able to have a proper definition of it’s right and it’s wrong use. Until then, we need people like you to experiment with it
this is one of the most nuanced takes on AI ive seen. I dont like companies using AI to threaten the livelyhoods of workers or like scan people and use ai to just make them background characters without payment or royalties or how studios want to use AI to churn out works and just pay writers (badly) to just touch it up. Im a writer and i love writing but even I use ai to help me with outlining and grammar, im not a native english speaker so these things help. I do use AI as inspiration for character designs which i often then turn into character references using like picrew character creators (think like those dressup games but made by artists) and then hire artists for a final piece which i use for inspiration in my work. Currently all images and text generated with AI dont have copyright and i think thats a fair thing as AI lacks sentience to be given copyright. Theres definitely bad use of AI but like AI is also used to help coral reef reconstruction and detecting wildfires, like theres such a wide spectrum of using ai and sure people can be lazy with it but the mountains of games on steam that are just unity assets slapped together into a game and sold for 20$ proves there will always be people who just want the lazy way out. I think AI can be a good tool but i can also see the concern but i dont think we should paint everything with the same brush.
Animation student here. I haven't watched the Spider queen video yet, because I started doing so and IMMEDIATELY realized the production value that it had. A 50 minute video is very long and takes a lot of time to produce. I believe that AI is a powerful tool when used correctly and this video shows that Austin did precisely that imho
I get both sides. Artists, especially in the gig market, are some of the moist exploited workers of the modern age, even though the urge to create is one of the rawest and most beautiful impulses we as humans have.
And there is a lot to unpack here. Something that was always seen as human is now approached by machines. Something to intertwined with life made by something that never was alive. It's icky, it's uncanny, it came out of nowhere and now it's here.
This is can put myself over.
But second is the exploitation. Artists struggle to afford their rent. I'm in the artist community and e-begging is super common, simply because they can barely sustain their lifestyle without emergencies so any emergency could start a debt spiral. Massive companies who can easily afford to hire artists fire artists (especially writers) and replace them with AI to save a buck. It's all about money to them, while to artists it's about having the means to survive.
Capitalism pits the worker against the machine while the machien should be a tool for the worker.
AI is the enemy, and it can only be the enemy as long as artists need to earn money to survive.
In your case, you couldn't have made this if it wasn't for AI. You simply didn't have the budget. You aren't those who 'should have hired artists' simply because you can't.
And I don't think it's fair that you then 'don't deserve to get your project made'.
If everybody was able to survive without the need to earn money, AI wouldn't be a problem. Intellectual property wouldn't be so strongly defended as it only really exists to secure the pockets of the creator of something. I could see you upload an AI version, only to get some messages from artists who'd love to redo some AI art for something you can give in return rather than money. Over time it turns into a fully human project. You saw this in the past with Vocaloid too. It's just how humans work.
And if you're not yet convinced over the evils of AI + caplitalism, look at the hollywood strikes. What caused it is some of the biggest evil I've ever seen towards art.
But where does that leave you? Unable to do your project? Able to do your project but knowing your means are hated by those you wish you could afford to hire for the project? I'm sorry, I have no answer for this. You're between a rock and a hard place
These are the real discussions that we need to have. RUclips has always been a place where people express themselves by whatever means they have available.
Until this whole AI art is theft argument started, We have never held RUclipsrs to this high of a standard.
Some of the highest performing videos on this platform used to be guys narrating their own lines over G.I. Joe cartoons for petes sake.
If reaction channels (that barely qualify as Fair Use) can be some of the best performing channels on this platform, I think we can cut some slack to artists using new tools to continue making their own creative projects.
the online mindset has been totally re-tuned into profiting and portfolio-ing. these people have no appreciation for the kind of simple fun of say youtube poops and GI Joe joke PSAs, because everything must be subordinated to the content grind, as exclusive property
I work for a company that does court recordings. Ever since that one lawyer used AI to generate BS legal documents, a few too many judges have been afraid of AI. We now have to be cautious about the ID of us AI to clean the recordings because somehow the two are completely equated thanks to those 2 little letters.
Hey, Austin. Fellow Austin here. You handled this very well. I am currently waiting for a copy of the book and I am so excited to read it when it comes in.
Hey Austin, fellow Austin here. A very astute comment about Austin's handling of the situation. I agree!
Austin.
@@austinpigza Hey Austin, it’s the Austin from earlier. You know, it’s not every day I receive a compliment from another Austin and I’m glad we can both agree that Austin’s handling of the situation was quite good.
Austin.
But one question remains. Is Austin HIMSELF an AI performance? *squints with suspicion* Say something only Austin will say.
One day we'll all have to ask ourselves if we're ok with an AI version of Austin writing, creating, and starring in 30 minutes of useless information videos
@@Dysiodeas long as I get my useless info fix, I'm cool with that.
Not sure how I got this recommended, but I'm a software engineer with a masters in machine intelligence, and from my perspective we are in the same situation that people where in the beginning of the industrial age. There where a lot of pushback on factories, and people fearing loosing their jobs. People did loose jobs, but the world as a whole became better. But what history teaches us is that you can't stop this kind of progress. And I don't think in 20 years that we would have wanted to.
Unless we are in the scenario where ai destroys us all.... but due to human nature, we can't(wont) stop it, so I choose not to think too often on that side of the coin flip.
Gonna fess up and say simply that I wanted to be angry. I wanted to be frustrated that yet another RUclipsr I enjoy is resorting to laziness.
But if you are able to wrangle the tool of genrative AI into being ethical and compensatory to the very human creatives - then top job.
If only there were more techbros that could understand that AI as it is should be a tool for artists, which for me is the first exemplification of that.
regardless of ai usage in the video, i personally had no problems with said video. it really was well made and entertaining, and, again, even now just finding out that ai was used in the video at all, which initially surprised me, i personally have no problems with the video, including the decisions to use ai wherever austin did decide to use ai in the video.
I did notice the voices were AI, or at least text to speech. But it did'nt detract from my enjoyment of the film. I don't trust AI, but using it as a tool is not a problem.
I don’t understand why people always seem to be so critical of you. I’m excited to read your book!
Becuase they're trolls, and they want to feel "artier than the artist."
@TheSaneHatter I guess so
@@TheSaneHatter Sure must be easy to argue when you shrug off your opponents as "trolls" all the time, huh? Artists are the ones complaining.
Trolls, lots of them
@@parallelblack788 then those artists need to rethink their approach
Dude, you should have clearly made this whole thing in hand drawn 2D animation without the use of devilish tools such as pencils and paper because it would be "cheating" and should have just drawn everything out of mud onto a cave wall, like real art.
I hope that's a joke.
Hey, Austin. Really appreciate you sharing your experiences and educating me on matters like the "Secret Invasion" opening sequence. I'm sorry to you got caught in the crosshairs of this hot button topic.
As a freelance video editor and husband of a WGA writer, its hard to avoid the rapidly evolving conversation around AI on a daily basis; which is usually associated with dread. While these Hollywood strikes are more nuanced than just blaming AI, hearing reports of studios bringing AI technicians in house doesn't paint a good picture.
All this to say, I don't think that AI is inherently bad (at this time). In fact, I find the current visual style derived by AI videos to be mesmerizing. While the independent creator in me relishes in the prospect of realizing my budget visions with fewer limitations, knowing that Studios are following in suit to ride this trend, possibly at the cost of labor, is a hard pill to swallow.
It feels as though we're witnessing a transition in both the democratization of narrative expression, but at the cost of a potential mass exodus from an industry that brought American Cinema to where it is today; for better or worse. If that does happen, what is needed most is a safety net to support everyone caught in the crosshairs, but that's a different discussion.
I am so disappointed in this video. It's quite clear that it was shot digitally, rather than on film. This robs film developers of work, and is thus deeply unethical. Further, that means it was almost certainly edited digitally, again, robbing people of the labor of splicing the film (and audio tape) together properly. Austin, how could you???
(Note: I wrote this comment at about the 30:00 minute mark of the video. I almost deleted it at 37:30 when Austin was telling the story about his film school professor. I'm going to leave it because I still think it's funny, and I want to leave some comment for the dreaded algorithm - which to me is as much of an "AI" as anything Austin used.)
Your comment is spot on with regards to people whining about AI. Just like how traditional artists complained when digital art came about, saying "but thats cheating, you have software that helps manage layers and brushes and a host of other cheating tools".
You clearly do not understand why AI art is bad.
@@samlewis6487 Clearly not...because it's not. It's a tool. It can be used badly. It can be created unethically. But it's ultimately just another tool.
Similarly, you can use a knife to prepare a great meal or to harm someone, and a knife can be made by well paid union workers or in a sweatshop. The tool isn't the problem.
@@burke615 👏
This is funny dont worry
In one video, you managed to educate people on AI art, its ethical implications, promote your work and dunk on the cobwebbed mindset and accusations that sparked this video. Genius and classy at the same time which I find to be a very delicate balance to achieve.
So, I can freely use prompts in his name when Google finally data scraps his works? Anything indexed by Google is fair game in their tos. Meaning I could just cut out the middle man and simply get work in his style or even recreations of his payed for work since the dataset contains his work.
@@killzone110ad You know that's not what he or OP are saying, but please continue your irrational hate filled reductio ad absurdum
@DavidCruickshank There's no hate in my comment. It's the logical conclusion and what's currently happening in the industry. Saying there's nothing wrong currently, means he's fine with that. Simple as that. He should also be fine with companies using transcripts from all his videos, biometric data, everything. No consent necessary. Look, I respect him coming out and saying he licensed everything and used ethical datasets like firefly. However, he doesn't fully understand the technology or the implications if he says he's fine on non-consent data scraping.
@DavidCruickshank Plus, he actually didn't answer everything fully, what was the diffusion model he used? He said he trained a model himself but I have to call BS on that because training from scratch is very costly and I doubt he has enough licensed work to make usable model. He may be simply ignorant and assume fine-tuning means fully training a model because it doesn't. Meaning, despite him saying he licensed out all the assets, he's actually using a foundational model with LOTS of unlicensed works. Many of which are straight stolen works due to data scrapers simply scraping without verifying if a work belonged to patreon or other paywalled content.
@@killzone110adthere's definitely hate in your comment and also you are too salty and jealous.
Lazy = bad is a lazy and bad argument. I don't care that my meals take less than 30 minutes to make as long as they taste good. I'm not sure why we should want art to be hard to make. Why does that make it better?
29:59 the diffusion model learns what "appleness" is, then when generating denoises the noise until it has something that looks very apple-ly
18:55 LMAO I've literally seen people nearly canceled for running art contests before, let alone using it for what is effectively an ad.
I appreciate that your choice of words is that the artists asking price was specifically out of your budget, not that it was an unreasonable amount of money. 50 minutes of animation is a lot! That's 2 and a half episodes of a TV broadcast cartoon.
I don't think that helps anything, though. Saying it's okay to use AI because it's "out of budget" to hire people ultimately just means that ANY cost to hire artists will become "out of budget" because why would anyone ever pay for something they don't have to? Being respectful towards the huge costs of illustrated work doesn't mean much when your reaction is go "well, good thing I can bypass this barrier entirely by cutting them out of the industry, so they can TRY to charge whatever they want."
@@KittyQuixotiche bought assets that were made by artists. He spent so much on something that he was putting on RUclips for people to watch for free
It was an ad for a product, ultimately. I'm not sure whether the monetization of a work is where you want to draw the line on whether or not AI is okay. Him buying the AI software does nothing to address the ethics that are in question. Him buying character models was in reference to his other project, not the Spider Queen ad.
@@KittyQuixotic he didn't just buy AI software. He also bought assets like 3d models
@@KittyQuixotic also even if it was an ad, it was 50 minutes long! And it took him 5 months!
As a Comp Sci degree who took a class on AI, coded the strongest video game AI of my graduating class, AND MAKES ART (not as a career, but as a hobby - primarily traditional pencil sketches), I think you hit the nail on the head in acknowledging that intent is very important when discussing the use of AI.
Using AI can be unethical when using training data gathered without permission or attempting to replace human effort in an attempt to make a low cost _(cough cough low quality)_ product to sell, but it's clear that video was not attempting either.
Between you, your cowriter, and all the evidence you showed of the editing process, + attempts at casting, while AI was used to assist the creative process, you already had the story, knew what you wanted to make, and spent a lot of time and effort to make sure it was RIGHT - and since you're NOT a company with the money to spend on hiring an animator at a fair price to make the whole thing for you...
Telling someone who is clearly an artist with a passion for their art, who created something not for the sake of cranking out an easy paycheck, but for the sake of creating what was in their head for fun, that if they can't do it themselves or hire someone, it would be better for them to NOT bring their idea to life at all? I don't agree.
I agree with most of what you said, but would take it a step further: I don't think permission should at all be required for training. For the vast majority of human history, there were no restrictions on what you could do with something you acquired or experienced. We added copyright as a common protection following the advent of specifically the printing press to prevent just wholesale trivial duplication, and only for a limited time.
Adding a protection to give creators control over how their work would be used after its distribution was never the intent. The norm has always been, and continues to be, that once you release something into the world, you've upgraded the world to now know about that thing and make that sort of thing independently from you. That was never some evil, beyond cases of forgery which are explicitly deception and fraud. It was in fact considered a *good* thing; that ideas and styles and everything would be freely shared as new additions to common culture, while individuals could make a living off of the specific works they create.
I get why as a creator it'd feel good to have extra protectionism in place. But we have to understand what we're asking, why it's not covered by existing protections, and why it may not actually be the right thing to do. Things that on paper seem to be guided from the spirit of "preventing abuse" can absolutely end up being strong forces of rent-seeking, and we can't just add protections because of a gut feeling that it's the right thing to do and a misinterpretation of the spirit of our current protections.
"You're lazy! AI could make this in a few hours!" -People who have never attempted to use any generative AI software.
In theory you might be able to have AI generate a 50-minute fully voiced and animated video in a few hours, but it would be incomprehensible, unrecognizable nonsense.
I mean yeah it probably takes less time than learning to draw for like 3+ years and then drawing one piece per day or more, but it’s still not just “have some words, give me what I want”, at least not with good quality
The main issue with A.I. image is that the models are trained on work made by artists who did not want their work used that way. Simple as.
When these artists posted art online, they wanted to share their work with human eyes. Many of them posted their art before machine learning and AI generative image creation were mainstream enough for them to be aware of them. I don’t think I need to go into detail about how a crawler saving an image into a database to be processed into an AI model is different enough from a human being able to experience the art the artist has created for it to be reasonable to consent to one and not the other.
As such, millions of artists had their work used in a way they did not wish for or even consent to. This is the primary issue of the anti AI image generation crowd. If the source material was sourced in a way that respects the artist’s choices in how they wish to share their art, most of these people (myself included) would celebrate and help push forward AI. But right now, these models are built on works that have been essentially stolen.
As someone who has been a leading contributor on AI models (I was a developer on a big open source image gen model back in the early days and even wrote my own model back in 2020 as a side project), I distanced myself from it all as friends and family who were artists began to speak up to me about it. My fascination with this technology was not more important to me than them. And I hope others who are all swept up in the hype can experience a similar moment of prioritising other humans over software.
AI is not unethical in nature. It’s just been badly implemented. And until a better, fairer, more ethical way of sourcing training data is used, it won’t be something that is worthy of any support.
I recommend you stop using it in videos, because people aren’t going to stop protesting.
Thank you for writing this, my fingers have been twitching since Austin said "I can't commission artirts for animation, with what money?" while AI image literally steals artworks from other artist. Other people have to finance their own art too, duh.
@@habibi_py That part really riled me up. Also, when I saw the numbers artists were wanting to charge due to the scale of the project I just thought "Why not just make a slightly smaller project? Or put less production value into it?" "Why not just use splash images instead of semi-animated shots?"
There were so many things Austin could have done to trim down the cost, so no wonder those artists wanted so much for it. Imagine if he'd crowdfunded that video instead; "Hey guys, I'm going to release the first chapter but in an interesting way, here's how you can help me with that!" and he would've gotten an influx of real artists pitching in both their efforts and donations.
Seems like none of you watched the video and immediately went down the route of "Poor people shouldn't Have dreams"
"You don't have enough money to Create the project you want? Shame j guess either don't do it or make it so small that it doesn't get the point across "
Shows throughout the whole video on how he used programs that didn't use stolen images,Bought Artwork(Like you guys want),and Drew some scenes(Like you want) and still poyrayed as the bad guy because he didn't spend $10,000 on Real people.(Which he claims would of most likely Done what he did)
(Unless it was Hand drawn from start to finish which would have cost even more)
Gatekeeping a Hobby to those who can only afford it seems Crazy and elitist. No better then the Vegans and other weirdos who stand on those High horse because they can "afford" the More expensive option and since you can't your a terrible that hates "X,Y, and Z
Remember a few years ago how it was insulting to even ask a artist to do free work for exposure and for the dream? Kinda funny how everyone is using that as an argument now.
"Hey Guys can you Crowdfund $20,00+ So I can make a trailer for a novel that your is going to have to buy for $10 if the trailer works effectively"
@@laresouless3023 the kitchen appliance community gatekeeps so much. apparently i “don’t really own” my toaster just because i stole it from my neighbours house. i mean come on man some people just can’t afford to buy things so they just have to steal
@@kireitonsi Funny,but Sadly I can't tell if that's a genuine argument or not. ( You know text and all).
If you were being serious Austin In this case didn't steal the toaster. He went to the local Landfill and bought Scraps,Found a few pieces in his house,and the local Toaster store and made his own genuine Toaster without having to spend $200 on the latest model.
I do get and stand with the argument that we should be against programs/people that Steal Artwork and call it Thier own to make a profit but what he did isn't that.
The issue with the training data is when people train on or use prompts to generate from a specific artist, and then profit from it or claim the work as their own.
Can you imagine if a person tried to do that? Trained to imitate a well known artist, and sold copies of their art heavily influenced by a previous artist? The sheer audacity . . . wait, that's how most artists learn is by imitating previous famous artists and then iterating . . . well this is awkward . . .
Everything ever created was influenced by the artist's experiences of those who came before them.
@@OntheOtherHandVideosThis is a straw man argument. There’s a difference between being inspired by an artist and feeding all of that artist’s work into an algorithm along with the work of several others, turning it into a sludge, and then having the algorithm regurgitate back to you.
@@JacobHillSBD So do tell, what is the difference when it comes to Fair Use and the transformative nature that this 'regurgitated sludge' that AI tools produce vs 'regurgitated sludge' that people (using other digital tools) produce?
@@OntheOtherHandVideos Well for one thing, courts have already ruled that, since copyrighted material can only be created by human hands, as decided in the case Naruto v. David Slater et al. In which PETA, on behalf of a monkey named Naruto, attempted to sue a photographer claiming that the photo the monkey took with his camera belonged to the monkey. As such, anything generated by AI cannot be considered copyrighted material. Fair Use is irrelevant in this case. For a different take on this same subject, I’d recommend Patrick H Willem’s most recent video, actually published a few days prior to this one.
It reminds me a bit of the 2D animation studios' transition to flash rather than continuing to use traditional hand-drawn cel animation. Yes, in some cases it was a lot worse, but there are some amazing Flash animation out there that is simply better animation than a lot of the old Hannah Barbera cartoons.
As an animator, I support the use of AI art, and I use it myself. That doesn't mean that traditional animation is dead, but I personally can't afford the cels, brushes, paints, ink, a 16mm film camera, and the costs of developing that film. If I become successful with AI art, maybe it would allow me to be able to use those tools when I'm older and have more money and time on my hands for grand-scale projects of a bygone era. That sounds like fun, but for now, I adapt.
It's like saying we should stop using electric fans cuz we could hire a dude to blow air at us.
Exactly.
Your ending regarding your professor is exactly what I was thinking of this whole video. When cameras were first invented, painters were upset because they too felt photography wasn't "real art" or would put them out of a job, but who the heck wants to hold still for hours at a time to have a portrait of themselves painted? (I very briefly actually did this myself, before succumbing to how uncomfortable I was with what the artist was asking me to do and to hold that pose for so long, so I quit. But a picture could've been taken and a drawing made from that...if I'd allowed it).
Hearing that your professor died with only an ASSISTANT role to his name (not even as a leading position!) is just...oof. Makes me think of the obstinate guy who made The Thief and the Cobbler. It took fans after his death to finish the project because he obsessed over it too much and refused to adapt to technology that could've made it faster. His story is not one that makes me feel impressed or proud of him, it's just frustrating and sad with the squandered potential and how he could've mixed his skills with the emerging technology of the time.
Also, I'm sorry you paid for classes from that professor, but if you tilt your head, you can find a silver lining. It wasn't a wasted education. He taught you to not be like him and thus, you've created more already in your lifetime than he ever did. I really appreciated this nuanced conversation into AI, especially as I've not yet seen the original video, but I'm happy to go into it with this background context.
I think your first anecdote really hits were many AIs are in my opinion still missing. Did they have permission. Many AIs are build using training data that they didn't get permission for which is unethical in my opinion and possibly illegal. Adobe Firefly ist the most ethical so far because they have the permissions but their is one more aspect to consider. If you sold all the rights to the picture of you to that artist a few years ago, he could now use the picture to train an AI with it with out your knowledge and without your Knowledge and without any additional compensation because that is what selling all the rights entails. If you would have no problem with that Firefly is completely fine. If you would find that problematic than you can see why some people also have a problem with Firefly. To me Firefly is the lesser of two evils.
That sort of becomes your own fault for willingly selling all the rights to a picture of you@@almophant1673
I think one of the big reasons that a lot of artists bristle at AI is that there was (and probably still is) this subset of overly enthusiastic tech bros who were using AI for things that they could have reasonably commissioned... at least, they could if they were making as much money as they claimed. They reveled in making artists irrelevant, antagonizing people to the point where they became the cartoon villains of the discourse, taunting any artist upset at them by saying they would be irrelevant and out of work. In reality, I think a lot of these guys could probably easily afford commissions from plenty of artists who are eager for work, for a single image (and a lot of them were just for single images of anime or furry women with huge breasts), but they want the quality that comes from artists who charge a lot more than what they're willing to pay. You're not going to get a fully-rendered piece with realistic lighting for a hundred bucks, but you could get an illustration of the thing you want by an artist who can put out something less labor intensive for that price from a hobbyist. There are a lot of artists who are already underselling their work and would be eager to take commissions, but they either are too niche, or haven't found their audience, or they have other obligations and can't make a living off of art. And this is all about single, stand-alone images. Not animation, not comics... just single illustrations. Animation and comics require a lot more work, especially if you're producing them on a consistent basis.
I myself am an artist but I have not done a lot of commission work because I find myself undercharging, and even then it's hard to get people that actually want a piece from me. Most of my friends are artists who are all extremely talented, more talented than I am, and yet struggle to get commission work. I have one friend who's been able to make it a job, but even then, she's looked into alternate revenue streams and done constant self-promotion, livestreaming, Patreon... and she has so many other different projects she'd like to work on for herself. It's hard for a lot of us to objectively view this sort of thing as a tool rather than a replacement, especially when finding clients can be so difficult and there's guys out there who are purposely trying to discourage us because they played around with Stable Diffusion and can get the big booba without paying a dime. All that being said, your use of AI seems like it was used as intended... as a tool. You commissioned artists, you used royalty-free resources, it's suffieciently transformative from those resources... this is completely ethical in my book.
I would be more willing to play around with training AI on my own art and using it in my own art as a tool if I could be assured that it wouldn't wind up being scraped by a robot. Then again, I really don't know who would have a demand for work from me that wouldn't be able to just... you know... pay for it? I don't think most people are so desperate for my scrawls that they would use an AI to replace me.
The future for artists will certainly be interesting.
EDIT: I'm getting a lot of very... shall we say, uncharitable responses to this post. No, I am not saying that you are under a moral obligation to commission artwork if you are working on a project rather than making it yourself (this is an actual rebuttal someone tried to make). No, I am not against the public domain; I'm actually very much for it and believe that copyright holders, usually massive corporations, should not be able to hold exclusive rights to IPs for over half a century. No, I am not even saying that AI should not be used; it's inevitable that it will be. There's no putting that genie back in the bottle. I was merely trying to explain the perspective of many artists to give context to why they're especially hostile to AI. I have, sadly, seen beginner artists feel completely discouraged from even attempting to make their own art, as they feel they shouldn't even bother because they'll be replaced with AI. The mean things that the techbros were saying solely to antagonize artists really did do damage. These things are real. This is a very nuanced issue around an emerging technology and it's going to take a while for us all to adjust. I am not a luddite for having concerns; rather, I recognize a lot of those whose main goal is to amass wealth will always try and cut corners and undercut artists, whose work is incredibly visible, but also undervalued. My ire is saved mostly for corporations looking to cut corners. If you're playing around with Stable Diffusion in your spare time, I really don't care. RUclipsrs like Solar Sands and Knowledge Husk have also made videos that give AI generated art a fair assessment and I recommend watching their videos on the subject as well.
Also I support the current strikes going on with writers, actors, VFX artists and video game developers... the very people that the studios want to try and replace with AI rather than compensating them fairly while they make obscene amounts of money off of creative works that they merely bankrolled. Mostly, I just don't want to see these giant media companies attempt to replace artists with AI. Artists using it as a tool in their own artwork, particularly if it's art that they're posting on the internet for free, doesn't really bother me so much. Like I said, there's a lot of nuance to this issue and I'm still working through how, exactly, I feel about this, while trying to keep an open mind.
It's gonna take a while for all of this to shake out, is all.
Yeah tbh I think the super tech bros trying to replace artists number very little, but they're a loud minority of snobbish assholes who revel in trying to upset artists.
Kind of reminds me of a lot of issues people have with groups, like how back in 2016 and so on SJWs were mocked while there probably weren't that many extreme ones. Nowadays things seem to be changing and people still have tribe-like mentalities about it.
@@Poliostasis Tribalism has always been a thing, it's just more pronounced in the age of social media because social media incentivizes outrage and division. The schism is wider. Like the Overton window shifted further to the right, but there's a lot more people outside of that window on the left who now have ways to convey their ideas to a wider audience.
The whole SJW thing was born from Tumblr users using social justice for mean girl shit, and then it spread to Reddit where people not neck-deep in discourse were trying to make sense of it. Most of them were just annoying and preachy. Definitely preferable to the guys who are whine about how everything's going woke because they saw a black person in a movie. Those guys suck.
Eh IMO people taking those enthusiastic people as an escuse to condemp the tech as a whole or to lash out at people enthusiastic about using the tech as a tool ... are the only ones who should be blamed for said lashing out, since they are the ones making bad leaps in logic and choosing to lash out at people whom the lashing might not even be justified.
@@gondoravalon7540I agree calling Austin names is a but much but lamppuning many people who critiqued him is a bit much. Especially since Austin didnt have any credits in the descriptions. People were just left with guesses. The vast majority of the industry is already built on exploitation of people and their work. Very easy to make assumptions most of the time.
@@gondoravalon7540 Who said anything about me blaming tech? I was blaming a very specific type of tech bro poster. You act as if artists being already worried about their immediate job security was a silly thing and not an understandable response when you're in a profession that is affected by new technology. I agree there was definite bandwagon element to the hatred of AI, but it really did come from people who already were hearing murmurings of being replaced by AI.
I'm sorry they weren't nice enough to understand nuance in your argument but if you were having this discussion on Twitter, well, that's why.
What people don't get is that if your video is entirely generated or is deemed generated by the algorithm, it will be kind of shadowbanned (meaning that it won't be promoted on the homepage, nor would it be pushed up on the search results... on a sidenote, not only that you can't really sell much of what is generated as consequences could be grave down the line, but even if you could and you generate the whole audiobook from generated text, amazon would also either shadowban the thing or delete it.. it's not as easy as it seems), because Google is pushing for authentic content to promote ads on. That's why all the automation channels, although they can generate most things these days, still hire people (for cheap of course). It's easier for a writer or a voiceover narrator to be lazy when generating for an automation channel (bar of quality is extremely low), but thumbnails and editing are still paid somewhat competitively, because you can't generate your way to good clickthrough rate and viewer retention. I speak from experience, as I've been hired to edit those videos as a freelance gig, and although I too am on the skeptical side when it comes to AI content, I was in need of a job and automation was the only game in town at that moment at least. All of this was a roundabout way of saying that even for videos of that ilk, I still spend anything from 10 to 15 hours editing a 10-minute video. If I wanna get fancier with it it could take up to 20 hours, and that's still doing it in a fast mode. Even if I was halfassing everything to the utmost extremes, it would still take a whole workday to finish a video from an empty timeline up to "ready for upload". This idea of getting things done in two hours is a fantasy. The only thing that can be done that fast is if you're generating spam linkbuilding content, but to make an actual 50 minute animated video is absurd. Even the lazy Wes Anderson trailers that went viral required some editing on the part of the uploader, they didn't just press a button and it came out done. You can't even be done with that Wes Anderson inspired trailer in less than two hours, let alone a 50-minute video. Yes, a lot of it is still images with crossdisolves between them, but even getting the consistent generations takes time (every generation is "unique")
I think what's more harmful is feeding into, and participating in this discourse of, speaking of these ideas how artists can be replaced. In Austin's case, some actual voiceover artists were replaced by an AI, that's a commission that some people didn't get and a lot of precious time he had to spend generating. One could say that he paid his sins in the long run as he spent way more time generating different results than it would actually take an actual human being to figure out. But let's look at it this way. Austin isn't someone looking to make a film, it's a promotional video where he's looking for a way to maybe flex his editing skills while promoting the book. If he was making an animated film, you could be certain that he would either make a casting call in his area and do a voice direction in real life, or would report to doing a voice directing of an actual actress online. Completing a gig on Fiverr is almost like human ChatGPT-ing (speaking from experience here) and is nowhere near the process of actually doing a recording session with a voice director and/or line producer. This video of Austin's was going to happen, regardless of the AI revolution. It was only a matter of how he was going to do it. What we do when we feed into this idea that people can be replaced, is that we take away opportunities from the jobs where people would actually be needed. I believe we should center the discussion about AI in the direction where we open the space for creating new things, while pushing the big tech for more transparency and looking for more benefits for artists. As is, this is all reading into the future where internet would be severely limited, with half the content being extremely formulaic.
chiming in with my opinion on the matter of AI as an artist seeing the advantage of ai while being wary of it: I think the issue lies with the end product. a lot of the tools you've mentioned in the "this is powered by AI and it's no problem, so why is my creation a problem" comes down to the fact that they are *tools* that help in creating a human-made product. you use ai to help you edit a video that you shot and appear in. the end product of a generated image *is* the generated image, therefore it is not a tool, it is a replacement to something that a person could've created.
that essentially is what the discussion of ai boils down to in my opinion: what is supposed to be a tool is used as an artwork guising itself as genuinely hand-made. every example you gave was basically "artists use this tool to make their work easier" but the tool in question helps them in the *process* of making something themselves. in your animated video the images of the characters are generated to imitate the look of human-made artwork and is the final product, therefore it can be criticized as replacing human-made creations. I don't argue against progress, and I personally find ai-assisted tools in editing softwares to be godsend that help make tedious works easier as they are just part of the whole. I argue that since art is largely a very human-centered concept, and being made by people with feelings and thoughts is what makes it unique and interesting, replacing it with machine-made imagery designed to pass as human-made feels jarring. it essentially boils the beauty of art to a bottom line, a product to be presented and not thought of.
also- adobe firefly/ai image creation is a very thin veil to cover under, as more and more artists come out and reveal that their works have been fed to the algorithm without their knowledge or consent, and adobe themselves basically said "everything uploaded to our services will be used to feed the algorithm *without* asking permission from the respective artists". this is basically theft, thus while being legal it's still pretty shitty and ethically grey.
!! this
Using AI is pretty useful for some things and completely useless in other areas. My opinion about it is mixed and I'll continue to use it in certain areas (chess, engines, AI players, Essay/paragraph, etc.) but for things like HVAC or anything else that is my interest (currently lock picking) it's probably not going to be useful.
thanks for reading!
This is a little bit of a different hill but related. I think this is the misconception that AI means machine learning. I am also part of the problem in that I use AI in place of machine learning because people "understand" what that means more.
Anyway as you said and are completely right in that AI is not useful at all for those things but machine learning it feels like can be used for almost anything.
Whether it's worth the effort is another story though, some things don't need to be brute force optimized or optimized at all.
@@DoubsGaming I'm sort of slotting all of "AI and machine learning" into one box but yeah
Machine learning is awesome tho, definitely a cool subject to learn about if you have the time to do so or are into any of that
@@zcqm fair
"things aren't a threat until they are a threat to me, personally' A fairly common viewpoint - as much as %40 of the world if studies are true.