@@SleepyPossums that's because it was trained only on images they own so it's considerably more limited than programs like Midjourney or Stable Diffusion that scrape the entire internet, legal or not.
AI "art" is plagerism. Plain and simple. If you've ever commissioned an artist you might understand why. You are making a request to the machine and the machine is filling that request. The same way you make a request to an artist and the artist fulfills that request. You came up with the idea and the PROMPT might be your creation but the RESULT of that prompt isn't meaningfully yours. The same way art you commission from an artist isn't your work. There's really no way around it. You aren't putting in the visual labor so you don't get credit for the visual outcome. Only the prompt and settings are meaningfully yours if anything.
Honestly I think it's being overcomplicated. Yes, we can agree that some of these generative models are tools HOWEVER the fact is they are trained on something, they aren't pulling art out of mid air. They are using something as a reference, which means they are using ppl's work. When we use citations to write a paper or create a publication we are required to credit the authors and source. This is no different and if the author in this case requires compensation then that is fair. I'm sure there can be a repository with usable "free" art that ppl are allowed to use train these models. We technically already do this with non copyrighted images but if it's not free then you need to pay the artist.
that is definitely and interesting way of looking at it. but what I am afraid of is if this is to be enforced when AI is used will it be enforced when humans do it. writing and drawing are different. the top of the video clearly shows that before AI image generators were this good, artist have always have some influences in their work, whether conscience or subconscious and they DON'T credit influence, at least they don't have to. that's what (imo) makes it complicated. it be easy if we are just saying, "okay when using AI credit the influence but if humans do they don't have too", but then it's not the idea of what it is doing that is the probably, its what's doing the thing is the problem which sound unfair to me
@@thedarkangel613 yes, however being "inspired" by something is vastly different from copying it outright. Art isn't that different from writing, art can be plagiarized just the same and that's what these models are doing...it's plagiarism. In fact counterfeiting was so prominent that there were laws specifically written around it because ppl would just copy famous works by great artists all the time. The only difference now is we have a sophisticated tool to do it for us instead of having to paint the thing.
@@gemelwalters2942 > *yes, however being "inspired" by something is vastly different from copying it outright* Which isn't what's happening here though. That's not how these things are supposed to work. *Art isn't that different from writing, art can be plagiarized just the same and that's what these models are doing...it's plagiarism* What do you mean, how does this equate to plagiarism at all?
i’m very conflicted on this issue. on one hand i think generative AI is better seen as a tool, not actually creation. Most of what generative AI produces isn’t to the same caliber as human creation, yet, and i think it’s easier to see it being used as a tool rather than replacement. i.e. using chatgpt to create a report for you but ultimately the person producing the prompt has the final say on what it says. on the other hand i think the implications of viewing AI content that way can be harmful in the long run. we start to run into questions about what art is and why do we create. if generative AI reaches such a point where it begins to rival human creation and replaces it i think that creates a situation where art begins to loose its meaning. is the point of art simply to produce content or is it a window into the human soul and a desire to connect on a deeper level? the idea of all content simply being generated rather than created is a depressing vision of a future i don’t want to live in.
Chess didn't lose its meaning when bots outdid humans. Trivia didn't become useless when bots outdid humans. The game Go, The game Dota2, Enz humans not being at the top isn't the decline of something.
AI is a tool. If an artist creates something that they believe is a true expression of themselves, and it was done using AI, it doesn't matter. It's just a tool. In ten years no one will care. This is the same thing that happened with photography which requires even less work than AI. I've made some work with AI where I sketch it by hand and then run it through the programs I have for further development and I guarantee you would never guess was made with AI. Paint strokes, cracking, aging, wear, texture, and all completely original and full of my own expression. I spend tons of time perfecting and editing in photoshop as well in addition to the hours spent generating the work. I can print these into 10 foot tall prints because of the detail and perfection from the work I put in. I'm talking literally 10 foot tall pieces at 300dpi. It's just a tool and the art world has always been all about outrage. It'll pass.
This sounds like a cope mechanism to deal with a notion that you are not even creating the most of the thing you call "art". And you trying to push it as the same thing as one creating the enrire thing from head? You are not an artist. You are an ai user pretending to be one. Go to your ai bro kindergarden end explain your "artistic vision" to other ai bros. The point is, you "vision" is not soimething unique to you. Art is not an idea, art is the exectution and you are not the one doing it. You are acting as if you are going through the same process as an artist does while learning the brushwork and developing their own style. You are not. You are doing the bare minium of what an actual artist does and then you try to "pass" it as an art? It's like a "how do you do, fellow kids" meme but it's artists instead of kids.
You are not an artist creating something, you are prompting a program to use its database of information to mesh it all together and come up with an artificial "fart".
It’s strange how people who don’t make art think that artists learn and create mainly by copying other art. Of course that happens, but there is a huge element of drawing from life and striving to think of new ideas. The developers of these computer programs could have sent photographers out to take original images for their software, but instead they chose the cheaper route of using images available on the Internet, which belong to others. Maybe you don’t mind that a selfie you took of yourself is in their data set, but I believe you still have rights over your images even though they happen to be on the Internet.
@@readysetpanic And to me it seems quite natural that artists would seek to defend their livelihood against machines designed to copy and cheapen their art. I hope people know that all the great art of the Renaissance was created through extremely protective guilds, as was practically all European industry at the time. The market has always tried to denigrate the work of artists (as well as all workers), but they always fought back. Add to that our current problem of companies stealing the public’s data for profit and we have our situation.
@@daroldfuapse6178 There was a good quote I read from a practicing artist, I can't remember it exactly but paraphrasing: AI art can only recreate what's already been created before. That's why I find the denigration of the artist/artistic process (and creatives across all spectrums) incredibly shortsighted; without constant input from actual creatives there's no actual evolution.
@@readysetpanic Yes, I think that the public is already starved for art that is personal and human. Instead they get a flood of superficial media and ideas that seek to manipulate and exploit them. It looks as though things are going to get worse, but maybe there will be a reaction and a flourishing of art that enriches our lives. I can dream, right?
1. Generative AI companies should have to pay original authors they use in their datasets a royalty. a very small amount for every image generated should go to those authors, and a higher percent if the author is used by name in the prompt. 2. Works created using AI should always be labeled clearly, like a warning label on a prescription drug commercial. The consumers of AI generated art need to know that it's not the original artist's work.
1. Wouldn't work on a per image use because the dataset used to generate images doesn't use the training data - though it could be possible for assembling training data.
“If a generator is trained on your work and then can imitate your style, someone could create images you don’t approve of.” - Her style is already massively derivative. I really don’t understand this argument. Every artist creates works by remixing the sources they have seen. AI image generators just do it way more efficiently.
Yes and most artist will say who was behind that inspiration, if you write a paper you are required to give citation. Taking influence from something is a far cry from blatantly copying it which is exactly what the models are doing.
@@gemelwalters2942 > * Taking influence from something is a far cry from blatantly copying it which is exactly what the models are doing.* Citation for that?
They promised us web 3.0 but instead of that they gave us spam 3.0 , now apart from usual email spam , here we are getting flooded with spam content generated by AI , low effort , crappy in form of shorts/reels , images , articles , news , deepfakes .. sad times ahead
@@jamessderby Yeah for sure, After using various virtual assistants in last 10 years, chatgpt is literally 1000 miles ahead , and the way it understands even poorly framed questions and giving exactly the same answer which you want is mind boggling
I get so frustrated about videos like this because they come from the perspective of “I hope the courts will side with artists!” Instead of calling to action legislators to do their damn jobs and pass laws to protect artists.
While the tools may have changed, the process of appropriation has been around for a long time (Marilyn Diptych anyone?). But AI images should definitely not be copyrighted because teleprompting is not recognized as an art process. I believe in the future these apps will be required to imprint metadata, like we do now with photos, that will require to display all the prompts and images scrapped to create the final image. at least lets hope so. this tech is inevitable. just thinking how wholly unprepared I was leaving SVA.. everything was being done on computers and oh goody, I knew how to use an oxberry machine.. Computers and tweening animation kept me relevent. Then there was DSL boom in the early 2000s and everyone left film in favor of easier to use digital camera. with built in filters based on the styles made by directors and DPs of film.. Ultimately just like DIgital Camera boom, every Chad filming their moms drinking tea, in slow motion in the rain, with a Wes Anderson filter, faded away when they showed they really had nothing to offer with the tech, and in their place, real artists are left with innovative new tools.
Copyrights should be reserved for 100% human made art only. .- this, comming from someone probably getting ready to be left behind due to my refusal to have anything to do with AI. On one hand I think the technology should be destroyed and banned- on the other, I think it could result in material composed without Al becoming a highly sought out commodity that sees its value skyrocket. Either way, it shows both an advancement of technology and how far the human species will go to not use their brain .
You said, "100% human made art." What does that even mean. There comes a point in any artistic process where nature/god/mother nature is the creator of something in the process of art. It is like the old statement "I made this apple pie from scratch." The scientist asks "Did you make the universe?", someone more pragamatic might say "Did you grind the flour?" Art has never been 100% human made.
@@marlinthecreative118 agreed- there are fuzzy lines in regards to Art - and other things as well - especially with the term ‘Hand-made’. And like company assembly lines resulted in ‘hand-made’ becoming a little more valuable, adding AI to the mix could even separate the two farther. I suppose as much as it could be argued that nothing is 100% human made, it could be argued that everything IS 100% human made- even if there becomes all ‘AI’ art- the AI was human made so it still falls in the category. I think what you’re referring to is the material- I think it’s understood that the materials are not all human hand made- you have to exclude what the art is made out of as we owe …Mother Nature…,or something … credit for providing ,say, wood for example. Maybe my point should be, ‘hand made vs not hand made’. Actually AI is already incorporated into ‘not hand made’ anyway. I might be old school, but I still feel integrating AI into certain things shows laziness with a potential to dull the already dullest of minds
If i take a factory chisel and carve on MotherNature’s tree, that’s my carving -that’s my art. But if I draw the picture on a computer and a robot carved it-thats not really ‘my’ art
Backed by a ton of VC money, literally daring you to challenge them in court. Maybe we’ll see some action in the EU, but the court system in the US is (financially) beyond the reach of most freelance artists.
Was thinking much the same. And to a large extent the horse has already bolted. If you see some horrible abomination that has been styled to look like your work then it’s already out there. Even if you can afford to sue, we all see how slowly the legal process moves, you’re likely ruined well before anything is settled. If you take a really narrow view then sure it’s harmless fun that we can spin up an image of whatever we want, but we all know that it’s going to get used by unscrupulous people for the detriment of others
@@saulgoodman2018 One artist being inspired by another and imitating them „a little too much“ isn't a huge deal for their income, but a company scaling this up and giving everybody access to that artist's (and many, many more) fingerprint is.
I feel like the AI img generator services needs to get copy right permissions from the artist for the images they are trained on first. Then we can maybe start talking about who has the copy rights to the imgs the machines spits out.
If you got nothing to contribute say nothing at all. All artists (who have only been human until now) steal. What is new here exactly? None of y’all invented the art medium, y’all had to imitate someone. How’s this different?
Really hard question. Let me think.... Well, an artist is not a commercial product that is rented or sold on the market, right? While an AI generator is, and make money for tech companies out of copyrighted work. So every generation should pay a royalty to all artists in the training data.
The landscape of creative industries is on the cusp of transformation, and it's an unstoppable force; neither the Screen Actors Guild, legislative bodies, nor any other entity can halt this shift. Industries such as film, music, and graphic design are presented with a clear dichotomy: either adapt to the evolving artistic terrain or risk obsolescence. Just as the advent of automobiles didn't render horses extinct, these changes don't spell the end for traditional mediums-they simply herald a new chapter.
This isn't even an argument more so an opinion i'm starting to form on this topic. For most of these models, the core LLM database has already trained... so moving forward companies can still make progress on top of these models without more "original" training data. They are at the point where they can just use their current data to generate more training data lol. So backtracking that might be more productive? idk
Plus all the people creating on top of the LLM to then use that for fine tuning / improvements. Wonder how much user generated data midjourney has used to improve their model.
I’ve been saying it for a while, but I really think Microsoft and any of these companies being so gung-ho about AI generation and willing to even pay for legal fees for customers is a really bad idea, and I think it’s very possible it bites them if a court rules in favor of the artists in these data sets.
I've learned to code by taking a book and typing it character by character into an editor and adjusting it afterwards. I've learned photography by studying (others) and well, making images. I've learned art by reading, listening, observing and creating (consider art being an abstraction of the above) The art I create these days no longer requires me to read or study, but I'm sure it will be nicer if I do, and put in the effort.
I don’t know if that’s a fair comparison. The AI is literally using stolen artwork to create its work. The human brain drawing inspiration from work is not how AI generates images. If the data it used was given freely by artists, there would be much less of an issue here.
@@armanke13 good question, no matter the discipline more effort usually brings more quality, more detail, more depth or more efficiency (when taking coding as an example, better readable code = 'nicer' in my opinion, which only comes from experience)
I don't think the problem is lack of solutions to many of our problems. The issue is lack of human buy in to the change and the sacrfices that change might incure. For example, we easily produce enough food to feed the world, yet every year there is famine somewhere on the planet. Why? Because to have a fair distribution of the Earth's goods and resources would mean that some people would have to sacrifice profit, and humans are far too greedy for that. The only solution that AI might present that would be better would be then to take over and force us to make the changes and sacrifices needed. Would be go for that? Would we actually be able to change the way we live to save our world? Less travel/ Population Control? Enforced laws? A computer watching us 24/7 to ensure we were following the rules. All of this might be possible, but are we willing to do this for the good of humanity, the planet, our future?
our society has always put so much emphasis on the tools artists use rather than the artwork... even prior to the AI era, photographers had always been a shamed for editing their shots (this is one example of many). artists are storytellers, and they use their craftsmanship to convey the story to their audience. I don't understand why we should be so concerned with the ways the artists employed to express their mind and realise their visions... if a photographer must edit a shot or even add or remove an element, for the shot to deliver the intended feeling, it only makes this photographer a better artist because it allows them to tell a more interesting story that's accurate to the one they had in mind. photography isn't a mirror. it isn't a reflection of reality, it's merely a tool that's used to create. if that AI artist indeed used 600 prompts to create that shot, you got respect from me. that sounds like hard work for me-writing prompts that accurately guides the machine to understand the creator's vision, is mastered craftsmanship.
You can write 600 words in less than 20 minutes. That’s not hard work that’s a few minutes of inconvenience. Real writers do it all the time it’s called tagging on A03. Tagging is not hard work my dude.
evidently, it didn't take him 20 minutes.... he said it can take him up to a week to finish a piece. looking at the general picture rather than being narrow-minded, is also something writers do. maybe you should give it a try?@@twilightguardian
The only art I ever created was for a major movie. It was based on an anime I had seen. However the final effect looked very different from the anime. There is no getting around the fact that if I had not been trained on the anime, the effect I created would have been completely different. I did not get permission in order to train myself on the copyrighted anime. So how is this different than training an AI on images by human artists? If the answer is "it's all about the scale" then are you saying that a skilled human artist who was trained on a lot of art from other artists is stealing from them? Here's the bottom line: I have seen a lot of AI generated art and for the most part, it looks nothing like anything I have seen previously. The vast majority of it appears to be original. It may have a similar style and content to previous works of art but that is true of any piece of art. This debate is not about theft of art. It is about the immediate threat to artists. That threat will not disappear if AI is only trained on licensed or public domain art.
I think it’s to do with the value in the initial injection of vast swathes of scraped images. It seems the LLM’s needed more than a single representation of a thing before being able to reinterpret it, or imagine a new version
@@BarKeegan That is how human artists can create new art as well. First they must have seen a lot of other people's art work. This is their inspiration when they create their own personal artistic style. I doubt that a person who had never seen any art would be much of an artist. I agree that there are some lines that should not be crossed with AI training. For example, training an AI on an artist's work so that they can replace that artist and put them out of a job would be crossing that line. However training an AI on the work of many artists and then asking it to create a new piece of art would not be.
Everyone is scared of AI because of how quickly it’s appeared and gone from useless to partially useful. But nobody ever focussed on the fact that humans have been able to do all of this for ages. The difference is the quantity of content that can now be created.
AI is trained on millions of works, a human artist can analyze, I don't know, maybe a few thousands of works in her lifetime? AI can literally copy more images than you will ever see in your entire life, it's not just the quantity of content that can now be created, it's also about limitations that real artists work with. This is why the "artist also use other works as references" argument is meh. Artists can learn to perfectly copy a handful of works and they can't copy most of the works that they use as references. AI can copy any image it trained on and it has immediate access to insane number of copyrighted works. Not to mention - if it has a bunch of copies of the same image in it's data set it's way more likely to just plagiarize it, to spit out an almost perfect copy.
I think they said the same thing about NFTs The box might not be able to be closed but it can be starved btw. A key part of the progression of art is iteration/ideation, adaptation and evolution, and if these foundries are clamped down on regarding where they scrape their data from, without a regular influx of artist's work, the results you get from prompting with hit a ceiling.
@@aoterouand it will keep getting worse, the companies made a fatal mistake (as far as I know) by not incorporating metadata to generated images made on their oldest software. We are seeing it right now, AI is using crappier AI because it’s just scraping the internet, not actively searching for quality art to add to its database. And artists can try and speed up this process by generating billions upon billions of crappy AI generated images using DALL-E 1 or early versions of MJ and SD
@@readysetpanic > *I think they said the same thing about NFTs* IMO it's not a great comparison given the much wider use cases here compared to NFTs. Clamping down on these models might not be fully possible since open source models exist - and on top of that countries that ignore any such regulations would probably be where the unscrupulous would just go to.
Such high-quality content! I recently enjoyed a similar book, and it was a real game-changer. "Game Theory and the Pursuit of Algorithmic Fairness" by Jack Frostwell
Click one button and instantly get everything, remove all process and only get the answer/result. Better yet u wont even need to click a button ai will learn what u like and click that button before u even wake up, whats the point of humans exsisting at that point? Might as well just stay asleep and never wake up. future of ai sounds bright for sure 😂😂😂
yeah its the same as if someone just took a game model from like the game files of like call of duty coloring it different and then calling it their own original work
This called disruption, wind and solar is doing this to the fossil fuel industry, so we’re told. EVs are doing this in automotives, Some communities are losing out, but no one really cares, while others gain at great expense and offering inferior solutions. AI could reduce the cost to society, making life cheaper in a cost of living crisis? Personally, I prefer the creative human touch.
This one goes all the way to the massmarket. Just yesterday my mom brought in the most standard straight "dragon pattern" mug with about 50 "different" yet "identical" pictures for about $3. At the same time, I know a few people doing handmade mugs and their items sell out within a couple hours of being posted If people want to eat cheap Soybeans with dyes on it that say "chicken" - I can't blame them
I understand the sentiment of the artists but telling the AI companies to exclude their art from their training data means Artists excluding their contributions in art from the future generations. I don't see any middle ground here whatever the verdict may land to Artists they should know that they're f**ked. Same thing will happen with other fields as well its just about time?!
I have some opinions: If somehow human works will be stolen and used to train artificial intelligence, Would it be better for human painters to first input all their works into artificial intelligence, then train their own artificial intelligence model. And make a trademark registration for this specific artificial intelligence model. Any one without prior authority permission, will not be able to use this model to create specific art works from this model. Is it one of the solution to solve this problem of arts stolen happenings ?
No. AI needs billions of images to even start amalgamating into something that doesn't look like a nightmare. They made a tech that can't possibly work without theft, and just didn't care.
While I try to be more open about this development (which frightened me from the start to my core) I will NEVER understand how someone would like a machine to have the same rights as a human.
Yes, all the artistic painters weren't able to find work after the photograph was invented. No can make money from sculptures anymore because of 3D printers. Artist that us AI will compete in a market with more options. If there are people willing to pay them money for their work, and there will be those people, artists will move beyond this. This is just a transition stage.
Shouldn't it be based off of the intention ? If the intention of the human executing the prompt was to copy the style then it should just fall back to how many percent of similarities and then judging on that to decide whether there is an infringement. If its a program that automatically prompts an image copied everyday, then it should be the person who create the program. Unintentional similarities may be dorgiven i suppose ?
If you hire an artist to draw something for you and you explain to them what you want in 600 different ways, so they understand exactly what you want. Does that mean you created the art or was it the artist? AI is not a tool for art.
I think if they ban AI because AI looks at existing art and uses it to make similar art, they need to ban every artist ever, because that's exactly what every artist ever has done-look at existing art for inspiration.
Except the artist had to put in their own personal ideas, and make something distinguished from the original. The artist also doesn't have the advantage of copying and processing millions of pixels, when the content originates from real world art supplies.
All industries are affected by something at some point. Artist are now being affected and are rightfully upset about changes in their world. Think of all the other professions that have been affected by all kind of random inovations in technology, or sometimes, just a new way of thinking, like when we apply business principles to create super wealth at the cost of many more people finding out what poverty is like. The fact is, AI is here, we aren't gonna get rid of it and art is something new again. I am so on board with this change in the world, it opens up ways to express myself that I never had!
Would have been far more intriguing if the LLMs didn’t require an initial injection of vast swathes of scraped data for ‘ignition’. If there had somehow been a combo of hardware/software built to let a machine out in the real world, like a human, and just see if it felt like creating…
The AI training is learning patterns like how human learn things, just not as well. Human learn how to paint from other artists and art pieces from years ago, so doesn’t training human artists with other artists’ work the same? Same with writing, AI’s just haven’t been as smart enough to make that 1 further step to be disciplined with all the human rules that human also have been practicing. AI will eventually reach the state where creations avoiding more or less direct pattern copying or plagiarism will be no longer questionable. But before that it is hard to say.
Adobe has been using AI since years, no one has a problem, the problem is this tech has been given to the public for free, which is what the artists are hating. If generative AI was only introduced by Adobe in photoshop for stuff like INPAINTING, OUTPAINTING, REPLACING OBJECTS, etc no one would have any problem, but now that this same thing is given to public, everyone starts having a AI is not gonna replace artists, but ARTISTS USING AI will definitely will edit: Google Translate is also an AI trained on stuff of so many people. So what ? stop it and instead start learning Languages ?
@@aoterou no art was lost in the creation of this product, read the court rulings about this stuff. ai isn't stealing its training. there is no reverence image left in the data set of the ai there is no collage.
Certainly these human artists have never taken any art classes or studied existing works of art, right? I mean, one might consider that to be "training" on copyrighted "datasets", and obviously these human artists wouldn't be morally okay with that... right?
I see no difference between a Human learning from previous artists and an AI doing the same. standing in the way of AI art is like standing in the way of Automobiles.
All art today is created in the art style of something that was created hundreds of years ago. It's just done buy AI today. Even Sarah Andersen was just creating art styles that have been around for hundreds of years ago. It's called drawing.
Right by humans inspired by what they see to create their versions that exist in their imperfect memory, not an AI just mashing together a huge database of images it didn't pay for to undermine the very people that it took the images from.
Have you thought about people who are handicapped? Quadriplegic? With image prompts, their world is suddenly open to whatever they want to create. To say that whatever they could think up via image prompts to realize their art vision (that their body can't physically do) is simply a "rip off" is the most crappiest "human" thing you could say.
What’s the most cursed image you’ve ever generated via AI? Leave your prompts below!
An image of an artist that doesn't understand how the tech works
And them losing the court case 😂
Photoshop’s AI needs a lot of assistance… telling it to expand a digital artwork generally makes nightmarish results.
😅😅
@@SleepyPossums that's because it was trained only on images they own so it's considerably more limited than programs like Midjourney or Stable Diffusion that scrape the entire internet, legal or not.
@@Meller571 absolutely true!
Ethical AI art will take longer but everyone will be better for it
I dont know if I've ever laughed harder at a transition into a sponsored segment.
SAP is excited to deliver the revolutionary Torment Nexus from the classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus
that was weird... was this entire thing sponsored by an a.i. service?
YEAH, LOL, it felt deliberate if you ask me...
At least SAP's AI services seem to be about data analytics not generative ai, from what I can tell.
AI "art" is plagerism. Plain and simple. If you've ever commissioned an artist you might understand why. You are making a request to the machine and the machine is filling that request. The same way you make a request to an artist and the artist fulfills that request. You came up with the idea and the PROMPT might be your creation but the RESULT of that prompt isn't meaningfully yours. The same way art you commission from an artist isn't your work.
There's really no way around it. You aren't putting in the visual labor so you don't get credit for the visual outcome. Only the prompt and settings are meaningfully yours if anything.
AI learns art the same way a human does. It’s just a 1000x better at it. And now human artists are jealous and can’t handle the competition.
Honestly I think it's being overcomplicated. Yes, we can agree that some of these generative models are tools HOWEVER the fact is they are trained on something, they aren't pulling art out of mid air. They are using something as a reference, which means they are using ppl's work. When we use citations to write a paper or create a publication we are required to credit the authors and source. This is no different and if the author in this case requires compensation then that is fair. I'm sure there can be a repository with usable "free" art that ppl are allowed to use train these models. We technically already do this with non copyrighted images but if it's not free then you need to pay the artist.
that is definitely and interesting way of looking at it. but what I am afraid of is if this is to be enforced when AI is used will it be enforced when humans do it. writing and drawing are different. the top of the video clearly shows that before AI image generators were this good, artist have always have some influences in their work, whether conscience or subconscious and they DON'T credit influence, at least they don't have to. that's what (imo) makes it complicated. it be easy if we are just saying, "okay when using AI credit the influence but if humans do they don't have too", but then it's not the idea of what it is doing that is the probably, its what's doing the thing is the problem which sound unfair to me
@@thedarkangel613 yes, however being "inspired" by something is vastly different from copying it outright. Art isn't that different from writing, art can be plagiarized just the same and that's what these models are doing...it's plagiarism. In fact counterfeiting was so prominent that there were laws specifically written around it because ppl would just copy famous works by great artists all the time. The only difference now is we have a sophisticated tool to do it for us instead of having to paint the thing.
@@gemelwalters2942 > *yes, however being "inspired" by something is vastly different from copying it outright*
Which isn't what's happening here though. That's not how these things are supposed to work.
*Art isn't that different from writing, art can be plagiarized just the same and that's what these models are doing...it's plagiarism*
What do you mean, how does this equate to plagiarism at all?
The irony of having an AI related sponsor in this video is delicious.
i’m very conflicted on this issue. on one hand i think generative AI is better seen as a tool, not actually creation. Most of what generative AI produces isn’t to the same caliber as human creation, yet, and i think it’s easier to see it being used as a tool rather than replacement. i.e. using chatgpt to create a report for you but ultimately the person producing the prompt has the final say on what it says.
on the other hand i think the implications of viewing AI content that way can be harmful in the long run. we start to run into questions about what art is and why do we create. if generative AI reaches such a point where it begins to rival human creation and replaces it i think that creates a situation where art begins to loose its meaning. is the point of art simply to produce content or is it a window into the human soul and a desire to connect on a deeper level? the idea of all content simply being generated rather than created is a depressing vision of a future i don’t want to live in.
Art can't lose meaning, it's by definition impossible.
Chess didn't lose its meaning when bots outdid humans.
Trivia didn't become useless when bots outdid humans.
The game Go,
The game Dota2,
Enz
humans not being at the top isn't the decline of something.
AI is a tool. If an artist creates something that they believe is a true expression of themselves, and it was done using AI, it doesn't matter. It's just a tool. In ten years no one will care. This is the same thing that happened with photography which requires even less work than AI. I've made some work with AI where I sketch it by hand and then run it through the programs I have for further development and I guarantee you would never guess was made with AI. Paint strokes, cracking, aging, wear, texture, and all completely original and full of my own expression. I spend tons of time perfecting and editing in photoshop as well in addition to the hours spent generating the work. I can print these into 10 foot tall prints because of the detail and perfection from the work I put in. I'm talking literally 10 foot tall pieces at 300dpi. It's just a tool and the art world has always been all about outrage. It'll pass.
@@xTwistedFleshXyou are wrong, of course you are a user and Ai is an artist.
This sounds like a cope mechanism to deal with a notion that you are not even creating the most of the thing you call "art". And you trying to push it as the same thing as one creating the enrire thing from head? You are not an artist. You are an ai user pretending to be one. Go to your ai bro kindergarden end explain your "artistic vision" to other ai bros.
The point is, you "vision" is not soimething unique to you. Art is not an idea, art is the exectution and you are not the one doing it. You are acting as if you are going through the same process as an artist does while learning the brushwork and developing their own style. You are not. You are doing the bare minium of what an actual artist does and then you try to "pass" it as an art? It's like a "how do you do, fellow kids" meme but it's artists instead of kids.
You are not an artist creating something, you are prompting a program to use its database of information to mesh it all together and come up with an artificial "fart".
okay boomer
Yes, but by that logic, digital artists are just manipulating vectors, a bunch of numbers!
(Ooooh so different)
It’s strange how people who don’t make art think that artists learn and create mainly by copying other art. Of course that happens, but there is a huge element of drawing from life and striving to think of new ideas. The developers of these computer programs could have sent photographers out to take original images for their software, but instead they chose the cheaper route of using images available on the Internet, which belong to others. Maybe you don’t mind that a selfie you took of yourself is in their data set, but I believe you still have rights over your images even though they happen to be on the Internet.
100%, it's like there's no account given to how much inspiration comes from non-visual cues like life experiences, music, emotions, and so on.
@@readysetpanic And to me it seems quite natural that artists would seek to defend their livelihood against machines designed to copy and cheapen their art. I hope people know that all the great art of the Renaissance was created through extremely protective guilds, as was practically all European industry at the time. The market has always tried to denigrate the work of artists (as well as all workers), but they always fought back. Add to that our current problem of companies stealing the public’s data for profit and we have our situation.
@@daroldfuapse6178 There was a good quote I read from a practicing artist, I can't remember it exactly but paraphrasing: AI art can only recreate what's already been created before. That's why I find the denigration of the artist/artistic process (and creatives across all spectrums) incredibly shortsighted; without constant input from actual creatives there's no actual evolution.
@@readysetpanic Yes, I think that the public is already starved for art that is personal and human. Instead they get a flood of superficial media and ideas that seek to manipulate and exploit them. It looks as though things are going to get worse, but maybe there will be a reaction and a flourishing of art that enriches our lives. I can dream, right?
@@readysetpanic a quote based on a lie 😂 is just useless
1. Generative AI companies should have to pay original authors they use in their datasets a royalty. a very small amount for every image generated should go to those authors, and a higher percent if the author is used by name in the prompt.
2. Works created using AI should always be labeled clearly, like a warning label on a prescription drug commercial. The consumers of AI generated art need to know that it's not the original artist's work.
1. sure
2. If a artist uses ai as a reference should he state that it was made by ai?
1. Wouldn't work on a per image use because the dataset used to generate images doesn't use the training data - though it could be possible for assembling training data.
“If a generator is trained on your work and then can imitate your style, someone could create images you don’t approve of.” - Her style is already massively derivative. I really don’t understand this argument. Every artist creates works by remixing the sources they have seen. AI image generators just do it way more efficiently.
Yes and most artist will say who was behind that inspiration, if you write a paper you are required to give citation. Taking influence from something is a far cry from blatantly copying it which is exactly what the models are doing.
@@gemelwalters2942 if they’re copying it then how can an AI create a Picasso painting of David Beckham talking on a mobile phone?
@@gemelwalters2942 > * Taking influence from something is a far cry from blatantly copying it which is exactly what the models are doing.*
Citation for that?
They promised us web 3.0 but instead of that they gave us spam 3.0 , now apart from usual email spam , here we are getting flooded with spam content generated by AI , low effort , crappy in form of shorts/reels , images , articles , news , deepfakes .. sad times ahead
Neural networks did not promise web 3
😂
Get your facts straight
Weird typing , , ,
Yeah sure the bottom tier will be super saturated but AI is enabling some insanely cool things specifically in the art realm. Rad times ahead.
@@jamessderby Yeah for sure, After using various virtual assistants in last 10 years, chatgpt is literally 1000 miles ahead , and the way it understands even poorly framed questions and giving exactly the same answer which you want is mind boggling
What are u talking about lol. Completely different things
I get so frustrated about videos like this because they come from the perspective of “I hope the courts will side with artists!” Instead of calling to action legislators to do their damn jobs and pass laws to protect artists.
Artists aren’t special and don’t deserve protection.
OMG, you're a little late to the party. 1 day ago? This was news more like 12 months ago and btw, the game has changed a bit since then. Check it out.
While the tools may have changed, the process of appropriation has been around for a long time (Marilyn Diptych anyone?). But AI images should definitely not be copyrighted because teleprompting is not recognized as an art process. I believe in the future these apps will be required to imprint metadata, like we do now with photos, that will require to display all the prompts and images scrapped to create the final image. at least lets hope so.
this tech is inevitable. just thinking how wholly unprepared I was leaving SVA.. everything was being done on computers and oh goody, I knew how to use an oxberry machine..
Computers and tweening animation kept me relevent.
Then there was DSL boom in the early 2000s and everyone left film in favor of easier to use digital camera. with built in filters based on the styles made by directors and DPs of film.. Ultimately just like DIgital Camera boom, every Chad filming their moms drinking tea, in slow motion in the rain, with a Wes Anderson filter, faded away when they showed they really had nothing to offer with the tech, and in their place, real artists are left with innovative new tools.
most SD gens have PNG info
Maybe not the right sponsor for this video.
Copyrights should be reserved for 100% human made art only. .- this, comming from someone probably getting ready to be left behind due to my refusal to have anything to do with AI. On one hand I think the technology should be destroyed and banned- on the other, I think it could result in material composed without Al becoming a highly sought out commodity that sees its value skyrocket. Either way, it shows both an advancement of technology and how far the human species will go to not use their brain .
You said, "100% human made art." What does that even mean. There comes a point in any artistic process where nature/god/mother nature is the creator of something in the process of art. It is like the old statement "I made this apple pie from scratch." The scientist asks "Did you make the universe?", someone more pragamatic might say "Did you grind the flour?" Art has never been 100% human made.
@@marlinthecreative118 agreed- there are fuzzy lines in regards to Art - and other things as well - especially with the term ‘Hand-made’. And like company assembly lines resulted in ‘hand-made’ becoming a little more valuable, adding AI to the mix could even separate the two farther. I suppose as much as it could be argued that nothing is 100% human made, it could be argued that everything IS 100% human made- even if there becomes all ‘AI’ art- the AI was human made so it still falls in the category. I think what you’re referring to is the material- I think it’s understood that the materials are not all human hand made- you have to exclude what the art is made out of as we owe …Mother Nature…,or something … credit for providing ,say, wood for example. Maybe my point should be, ‘hand made vs not hand made’. Actually AI is already incorporated into ‘not hand made’ anyway. I might be old school, but I still feel integrating AI into certain things shows laziness with a potential to dull the already dullest of minds
I may gotten off topic/ I think I forgot what this article was actually about lol
If i take a factory chisel and carve on MotherNature’s tree, that’s my carving -that’s my art. But if I draw the picture on a computer and a robot carved it-thats not really ‘my’ art
Everything AI touches turns into a worthless commodity controlled by big tech. Welcome to dystopia!
As if the hand crafted shoes built by children are any better. 😂
Art already is a commodity
Imagine using AI platform to create art(more like generate an image imo) and thinking about copyrighting it.
The level of arrogance/delusion there 😅
That's arrogant for you to say that. As if your opinion is right.
@@thanos879 it’s not the arrogance of opinion, it’s the arrogance to think that you are creative and have created something worth copyrighting.
Backed by a ton of VC money, literally daring you to challenge them in court. Maybe we’ll see some action in the EU, but the court system in the US is (financially) beyond the reach of most freelance artists.
Was thinking much the same. And to a large extent the horse has already bolted. If you see some horrible abomination that has been styled to look like your work then it’s already out there. Even if you can afford to sue, we all see how slowly the legal process moves, you’re likely ruined well before anything is settled. If you take a really narrow view then sure it’s harmless fun that we can spin up an image of whatever we want, but we all know that it’s going to get used by unscrupulous people for the detriment of others
Earning money with a software that automates art is something else then artist copying each other (to answer some comments)
No it's not.
@@saulgoodman2018 Yes, it is. The scale is totally different.
@@aceyage How? Then tell us. Not some word spaghetti.
@@saulgoodman2018 One artist being inspired by another and imitating them „a little too much“ isn't a huge deal for their income, but a company scaling this up and giving everybody access to that artist's (and many, many more) fingerprint is.
@@aceyage SO if the artist does it, it's OK. But not when a computer does it?
It is literally the same thing.
I feel like the AI img generator services needs to get copy right permissions from the artist for the images they are trained on first. Then we can maybe start talking about who has the copy rights to the imgs the machines spits out.
you say that while clicking on your RUclips page you copied Kingdom Hearts - Chains of Memory, sir did you get permission?
great piano work btw.
@@sownheard lol ty? That was years ago, when YT was still just a "home video" thing shared between friends, and it's not being monetized.
That will never happen.
If you got nothing to contribute say nothing at all. All artists (who have only been human until now) steal. What is new here exactly? None of y’all invented the art medium, y’all had to imitate someone. How’s this different?
Really hard question. Let me think.... Well, an artist is not a commercial product that is rented or sold on the market, right? While an AI generator is, and make money for tech companies out of copyrighted work. So every generation should pay a royalty to all artists in the training data.
I don't play with AI art... But I can actually draw and paint traditionally.
Wow 😂I actually got an ad for the company she was talking about during the show wtf 😳 lol not biased haha
I’m so fascinated by where we are in life right now. Thank you for documenting this.
But 'fair use' is employed in academia, for discussion, etc., but CREDIT is always given. Is that the case with AI? I don't think so.
This was a great summary of the current situation. Thank you!
imnondolost I can;t pee but i can type
The landscape of creative industries is on the cusp of transformation, and it's an unstoppable force; neither the Screen Actors Guild, legislative bodies, nor any other entity can halt this shift. Industries such as film, music, and graphic design are presented with a clear dichotomy: either adapt to the evolving artistic terrain or risk obsolescence. Just as the advent of automobiles didn't render horses extinct, these changes don't spell the end for traditional mediums-they simply herald a new chapter.
This isn't even an argument more so an opinion i'm starting to form on this topic. For most of these models, the core LLM database has already trained... so moving forward companies can still make progress on top of these models without more "original" training data. They are at the point where they can just use their current data to generate more training data lol. So backtracking that might be more productive? idk
Plus all the people creating on top of the LLM to then use that for fine tuning / improvements. Wonder how much user generated data midjourney has used to improve their model.
I’ve been saying it for a while, but I really think Microsoft and any of these companies being so gung-ho about AI generation and willing to even pay for legal fees for customers is a really bad idea, and I think it’s very possible it bites them if a court rules in favor of the artists in these data sets.
Really confused, wasn't this already resolved recently in court?
Yes.
One court in one country. Hardly a global standard or guide.
@@vercoda9997 Good point. Japan has basically legalized it for a while too. Thank you!
@@moshmoshpitpit do you have more info about japan using AI?
By art boom you mean images shared on social media as memes then forgotten a second later, why would copywrite make a damn
In depth discussion , hard to find these days .
I've learned to code by taking a book and typing it character by character into an editor and adjusting it afterwards.
I've learned photography by studying (others) and well, making images.
I've learned art by reading, listening, observing and creating (consider art being an abstraction of the above)
The art I create these days no longer requires me to read or study, but I'm sure it will be nicer if I do, and put in the effort.
I don’t know if that’s a fair comparison. The AI is literally using stolen artwork to create its work. The human brain drawing inspiration from work is not how AI generates images.
If the data it used was given freely by artists, there would be much less of an issue here.
Define "nicer"
@@armanke13 good question, no matter the discipline more effort usually brings more quality, more detail, more depth or more efficiency (when taking coding as an example, better readable code = 'nicer' in my opinion, which only comes from experience)
Another quality content. I'm liking these videos
the AI thing is about getting AI to think in new and innovating ways so it can solve our problems
The art part of ai isn't even interesting the ability to automate
Complex Functions is way more interesting
I think the number crunching potential of AI is what we need to harness
I don't think the problem is lack of solutions to many of our problems. The issue is lack of human buy in to the change and the sacrfices that change might incure. For example, we easily produce enough food to feed the world, yet every year there is famine somewhere on the planet. Why? Because to have a fair distribution of the Earth's goods and resources would mean that some people would have to sacrifice profit, and humans are far too greedy for that. The only solution that AI might present that would be better would be then to take over and force us to make the changes and sacrifices needed. Would be go for that? Would we actually be able to change the way we live to save our world? Less travel/ Population Control? Enforced laws? A computer watching us 24/7 to ensure we were following the rules. All of this might be possible, but are we willing to do this for the good of humanity, the planet, our future?
@@marlinthecreative118 we wouldn’t. But ai can create circumstances of abundance where no one would have to sacrifice anything
I have only one solution for this. Plug out internet 🔌😂
our society has always put so much emphasis on the tools artists use rather than the artwork... even prior to the AI era, photographers had always been a shamed for editing their shots (this is one example of many). artists are storytellers, and they use their craftsmanship to convey the story to their audience. I don't understand why we should be so concerned with the ways the artists employed to express their mind and realise their visions... if a photographer must edit a shot or even add or remove an element, for the shot to deliver the intended feeling, it only makes this photographer a better artist because it allows them to tell a more interesting story that's accurate to the one they had in mind. photography isn't a mirror. it isn't a reflection of reality, it's merely a tool that's used to create. if that AI artist indeed used 600 prompts to create that shot, you got respect from me. that sounds like hard work for me-writing prompts that accurately guides the machine to understand the creator's vision, is mastered craftsmanship.
You can write 600 words in less than 20 minutes. That’s not hard work that’s a few minutes of inconvenience. Real writers do it all the time it’s called tagging on A03. Tagging is not hard work my dude.
evidently, it didn't take him 20 minutes.... he said it can take him up to a week to finish a piece. looking at the general picture rather than being narrow-minded, is also something writers do. maybe you should give it a try?@@twilightguardian
When collages of the actual original pieces are legal I see absolutely no why how AI models can not be. 🤷🏻♂️
The only art I ever created was for a major movie. It was based on an anime I had seen. However the final effect looked very different from the anime. There is no getting around the fact that if I had not been trained on the anime, the effect I created would have been completely different. I did not get permission in order to train myself on the copyrighted anime. So how is this different than training an AI on images by human artists? If the answer is "it's all about the scale" then are you saying that a skilled human artist who was trained on a lot of art from other artists is stealing from them? Here's the bottom line: I have seen a lot of AI generated art and for the most part, it looks nothing like anything I have seen previously. The vast majority of it appears to be original. It may have a similar style and content to previous works of art but that is true of any piece of art. This debate is not about theft of art. It is about the immediate threat to artists. That threat will not disappear if AI is only trained on licensed or public domain art.
I think it’s to do with the value in the initial injection of vast swathes of scraped images. It seems the LLM’s needed more than a single representation of a thing before being able to reinterpret it, or imagine a new version
@@BarKeegan That is how human artists can create new art as well. First they must have seen a lot of other people's art work. This is their inspiration when they create their own personal artistic style. I doubt that a person who had never seen any art would be much of an artist. I agree that there are some lines that should not be crossed with AI training. For example, training an AI on an artist's work so that they can replace that artist and put them out of a job would be crossing that line. However training an AI on the work of many artists and then asking it to create a new piece of art would not be.
Everyone is scared of AI because of how quickly it’s appeared and gone from useless to partially useful. But nobody ever focussed on the fact that humans have been able to do all of this for ages. The difference is the quantity of content that can now be created.
its a lot more than partially useful
AI is trained on millions of works, a human artist can analyze, I don't know, maybe a few thousands of works in her lifetime? AI can literally copy more images than you will ever see in your entire life, it's not just the quantity of content that can now be created, it's also about limitations that real artists work with. This is why the "artist also use other works as references" argument is meh. Artists can learn to perfectly copy a handful of works and they can't copy most of the works that they use as references. AI can copy any image it trained on and it has immediate access to insane number of copyrighted works. Not to mention - if it has a bunch of copies of the same image in it's data set it's way more likely to just plagiarize it, to spit out an almost perfect copy.
It's too late. Once these machines have been unleashed onto the public, there is no going back. Pandora's box cannot be closed.
I think they said the same thing about NFTs
The box might not be able to be closed but it can be starved btw. A key part of the progression of art is iteration/ideation, adaptation and evolution, and if these foundries are clamped down on regarding where they scrape their data from, without a regular influx of artist's work, the results you get from prompting with hit a ceiling.
@@readysetpanicit is. I don't see a reality in less than 10 years where every ticket you buy online is not an nft
@@aoterouand it will keep getting worse, the companies made a fatal mistake (as far as I know) by not incorporating metadata to generated images made on their oldest software.
We are seeing it right now, AI is using crappier AI because it’s just scraping the internet, not actively searching for quality art to add to its database.
And artists can try and speed up this process by generating billions upon billions of crappy AI generated images using DALL-E 1 or early versions of MJ and SD
@@readysetpanic > *I think they said the same thing about NFTs*
IMO it's not a great comparison given the much wider use cases here compared to NFTs.
Clamping down on these models might not be fully possible since open source models exist - and on top of that countries that ignore any such regulations would probably be where the unscrupulous would just go to.
Such high-quality content! I recently enjoyed a similar book, and it was a real game-changer. "Game Theory and the Pursuit of Algorithmic Fairness" by Jack Frostwell
Click one button and instantly get everything, remove all process and only get the answer/result. Better yet u wont even need to click a button ai will learn what u like and click that button before u even wake up, whats the point of humans exsisting at that point? Might as well just stay asleep and never wake up. future of ai sounds bright for sure 😂😂😂
Learn to draw! Problem solved.
AI art is theft.
Bingo!
I’m not gonna deny that but if a human were to do the same exact thing people wouldn’t want that person to be in jail.
yeah its the same as if someone just took a game model from like the game files of like call of duty coloring it different and then calling it their own original work
Does that mean deepfaked Luke Skywalker isn’t protected?
So, we end up with the same boring question on Art Schools all around the world, for centuries. What is art?
This called disruption, wind and solar is doing this to the fossil fuel industry, so we’re told. EVs are doing this in automotives, Some communities are losing out, but no one really cares, while others gain at great expense and offering inferior solutions. AI could reduce the cost to society, making life cheaper in a cost of living crisis? Personally, I prefer the creative human touch.
This one goes all the way to the massmarket. Just yesterday my mom brought in the most standard straight "dragon pattern" mug with about 50 "different" yet "identical" pictures for about $3. At the same time, I know a few people doing handmade mugs and their items sell out within a couple hours of being posted
If people want to eat cheap Soybeans with dyes on it that say "chicken" - I can't blame them
I understand the sentiment of the artists but telling the AI companies to exclude their art from their training data means Artists excluding their contributions in art from the future generations. I don't see any middle ground here whatever the verdict may land to Artists they should know that they're f**ked. Same thing will happen with other fields as well its just about time?!
Okay and do you think the internet is going to e same with all of these new AI tools and so?
I have some opinions: If somehow human works will be stolen and used to train artificial intelligence, Would it be better for human painters to first input all their works into artificial intelligence, then train their own artificial intelligence model. And make a trademark registration for this specific artificial intelligence model. Any one without prior authority permission, will not be able to use this model to create specific art works from this model. Is it one of the solution to solve this problem of arts stolen happenings ?
No. AI needs billions of images to even start amalgamating into something that doesn't look like a nightmare.
They made a tech that can't possibly work without theft, and just didn't care.
The first GAN AI artwork in 2016 was also stolen and mediatized by the art market... Learn about it
75+ years is pretty long to call temporary
While I try to be more open about this development (which frightened me from the start to my core) I will NEVER understand how someone would like a machine to have the same rights as a human.
people may try to slow the inevitable, artists are going to be completely out of work along with many other industries, is just the truth
Yes, all the artistic painters weren't able to find work after the photograph was invented. No can make money from sculptures anymore because of 3D printers. Artist that us AI will compete in a market with more options. If there are people willing to pay them money for their work, and there will be those people, artists will move beyond this. This is just a transition stage.
Shouldn't it be based off of the intention ? If the intention of the human executing the prompt was to copy the style then it should just fall back to how many percent of similarities and then judging on that to decide whether there is an infringement.
If its a program that automatically prompts an image copied everyday, then it should be the person who create the program.
Unintentional similarities may be dorgiven i suppose ?
I get the point but the first example was thw worst possible one because the pictures on the right looked NOTHING alike to the orirginals lmaooo
Sarah Andersen is exactly how I'd imagine she'd be.
The space opera theater is just Klimt’s Karlovy Vary
Is it legal? Well, it shouldn't be.
Late the party I see?
This video drew me in very interesting video 😮
So I can’t use AI and generate random photos to sell printed t shirts?
You can. And so can 100500 other geniuses every day
Eh. Computer aided design is nothing new. Artists just don't like the sudden increase in competition.
If you hire an artist to draw something for you and you explain to them what you want in 600 different ways, so they understand exactly what you want. Does that mean you created the art or was it the artist? AI is not a tool for art.
I think if they ban AI because AI looks at existing art and uses it to make similar art, they need to ban every artist ever, because that's exactly what every artist ever has done-look at existing art for inspiration.
Except the artist had to put in their own personal ideas, and make something distinguished from the original. The artist also doesn't have the advantage of copying and processing millions of pixels, when the content originates from real world art supplies.
Love videos like these, great content!
AI-generated arts are NOT arts.
But a banana duct-taped to a wall is?
@@Eisenbison No. And I never said it is.
Who’s the guy reading the ad? 😅
41k views 😂 I remember when the Verge mattered. RIP
😅
Nice overview, thank you!
i shoulda been a fooken lawyer
Legal shmegal...
All industries are affected by something at some point. Artist are now being affected and are rightfully upset about changes in their world. Think of all the other professions that have been affected by all kind of random inovations in technology, or sometimes, just a new way of thinking, like when we apply business principles to create super wealth at the cost of many more people finding out what poverty is like. The fact is, AI is here, we aren't gonna get rid of it and art is something new again. I am so on board with this change in the world, it opens up ways to express myself that I never had!
👨🏿💻🍿
🤔😮🤔
The world is not only United States.
All art is based on ripoffs so it is what it is.
Would have been far more intriguing if the LLMs didn’t require an initial injection of vast swathes of scraped data for ‘ignition’.
If there had somehow been a combo of hardware/software built to let a machine out in the real world, like a human, and just see if it felt like creating…
The AI training is learning patterns like how human learn things, just not as well. Human learn how to paint from other artists and art pieces from years ago, so doesn’t training human artists with other artists’ work the same? Same with writing, AI’s just haven’t been as smart enough to make that 1 further step to be disciplined with all the human rules that human also have been practicing. AI will eventually reach the state where creations avoiding more or less direct pattern copying or plagiarism will be no longer questionable. But before that it is hard to say.
Adobe has been using AI since years, no one has a problem, the problem is this tech has been given to the public for free, which is what the artists are hating.
If generative AI was only introduced by Adobe in photoshop for stuff like INPAINTING, OUTPAINTING, REPLACING OBJECTS, etc
no one would have any problem, but now that this same thing is given to public, everyone starts having a AI is not gonna replace artists, but ARTISTS USING AI will definitely will
edit: Google Translate is also an AI trained on stuff of so many people.
So what ? stop it and instead start learning Languages ?
@@aoterou no art was lost in the creation of this product, read the court rulings about this stuff.
ai isn't stealing its training. there is no reverence image left in the data set of the ai there is no collage.
"artists using AI" is an oxymoron.
Certainly these human artists have never taken any art classes or studied existing works of art, right?
I mean, one might consider that to be "training" on copyrighted "datasets", and obviously these human artists wouldn't be morally okay with that... right?
I see no difference between a Human learning from previous artists and an AI doing the same. standing in the way of AI art is like standing in the way of Automobiles.
I saw this coming over 10 years ago.
New ways to take money from companies, this is just stupid. All art is just copies anyway
Great ... Long live AI ... 😂
All art today is created in the art style of something that was created hundreds of years ago. It's just done buy AI today.
Even Sarah Andersen was just creating art styles that have been around for hundreds of years ago. It's called drawing.
Right by humans inspired by what they see to create their versions that exist in their imperfect memory, not an AI just mashing together a huge database of images it didn't pay for to undermine the very people that it took the images from.
@@BluurIt is no difference if a person, or an computer done it.
@@saulgoodman2018 It's a huge difference, hence why the entire art community is so upset and worried.
@@Bluur Then what is that difference?
@@aoterou People can't even give an answer to how it '"stealing". They just keep dancing around it.
Have you thought about people who are handicapped? Quadriplegic? With image prompts, their world is suddenly open to whatever they want to create. To say that whatever they could think up via image prompts to realize their art vision (that their body can't physically do) is simply a "rip off" is the most crappiest "human" thing you could say.
Idk if it is really the most crappy thing that could be said lmao
I mean. inspiration is similar. Doubt this will be a legal battle that can be won.
I make adult content using AI and if I “steal” your art by mistake, then take it up with the AI; not my problem.
Generative AI is great. Artists must just step up rather than crying over copyrights.
adi does great reporting!
Boo hoo.
I mean get another job? Bound to happen sooner than later and it’s not the only one to be taken over soon
Then I'll wait until everyone wants robots and we'll just eat the food it makes and watch the movies it makes. What's the problem?