@@rhadiem TBH, I actually made it myself and created a meme before. It's a reference using Frieren's Quote on Frieren: Beyond Journey's End Anime Episode 21 (Time: 00:03:56) She said "The greatest joy of magic lies in searching for it."
You won't get me agreeing with that line. Not every artist enjoys the drawing process, nor does everybody create just for the sake of it. I been drawing longer then a good bulk of the people from this video's comment section have been alive, and I still really don't care about the effort & time I put into my art. All that really matters to me is the ideas that went into it & the results. I create to see my ideas come to life in a way that pleases me, which is why I personally say the conclusions was worth the effort.
one of the biggest things i feel people dont mention is how most of the time people are using AI its either people trying to get clout or people who just want the end product itself. both only see art as a product to be consumed and cant fathom how the process of creating such art is just as important if not more than the end product itself.
you are 100% right, the end product is what those people are after, including me. Dont get me wrong, I dont mind people enjoying the process, but they can do that by just not using ai. So, from the purely practical point of view, ai is great
Yeah, I get your point, but thats how it generally is. Most people (including artists) only care about the end product. When you order food at a restaurant and its taking long, you care about the food and not the process, when you buy from aliexpress, amazon, temu? only the end product. Whenever you buy something from a factory that could've been bought from an artisan? same again. Some may think these comparisons are outrageous, but in every case theres people who cares about these things and have something to say against each of those. This time the affected ones are the artists, and its just expectable for them to feel negative about this technology (like me), but like any other case, they need to understand that people have different cares and views and accept that reality is like that. The way AI is being used in generative processes its just awful and oportunists and scammers are making it worse for everyone. Remember, guns dont unalive people, people unalive people...
This is an extremely generalizing comment that refuses to accept that there can be more to generative AI than "punch in a prompt and get a result". Many artists use AI for inspiration, or partially completing their work, or simply to accelerate their workflow. There's more to it than simply churning out images. Reminds me of the time when artists said that photography would "destroy the field of art entirely" because they could not fathom there being more to art than photorealistic representations of real-life scenes... Instead photography and digital art extended and improved the entire field of art, allowing us to create stuff we could never imagine.
@@kimeojin1234 As an artist who tried using genAI for those things, it was a waste of my f'ing time. I can be inspired by real people's work, get ideas from word generators, and the time I spend fixing the output is the same time I can spend fixing my own authentic artwork. Also, photography was not made to replace artists. It did not rely on artist's work to operate. And those artists whose work it did displace (for things like technical accuracy) still had skills that applied to portraiture and scientific diagrams. And AI literally can't create stuff we could "never imagine" because it's by definition limited in scope of variables and training data of pre-existing concepts. Just like how Photography cannot create, only capture. The skills involved with photography have more to do with composition, lighting, and compositing/editing than to do with the camera.
"What people confuse for talent is in fact the willingness to spend hours upon hours honing and perfecting a craft." PERFECTLY said. I know people mean well when they say "Oh you're so talented it's amazing!", but actually it ends up feeling like an insult. Like, "You don't have to put in any effort to your work, wow!". Feels kinda bad after spending years learning your craft, yknow. Thank you for speaking on this.
YES I always hate when people say “wow you’re so talented I can’t even draw a stick figure” art is not an innate ability ANYONE CAN DO ART IF THEY SPEND TIME ON IT. it kinda devalues the effort I put in to get to a point where it *looks* effortless (it is still in fact a lot of effort regardless)
And? So what? Should cars have been banned to protect the horse and buggy driver that spent years honing their craft on how to get a horse to obey them?
@@Ilyak1986the thing is that cars made transport better and AI makes art worse. By „worse” I mean boring, repetitive, stripped of this personal touch which makes people relate with art. AI art is empty and soulless. It might be good replacement for stock pictures used for mass production of everyday stuff but not for smth more deep and meaningful like illustration, game art, tattoos etc
by its very nature, today's generative AI can't Truely innovate. To put it simply, if AI had been set up in the medieval era, and humans stopped feeding it, it would only be able to make medieval art, even three hundred thousand years later. It couldn't have invented Van Gogh. A world where AI does all the art is a world where art no longer evolves!
Ik someone already said this but this is SUCH a good point! AI can’t evolve without human artists so therefore AI couldn’t have more worth than a human artist
By its design AI tends to be innovative. Of course we still need to feed to be keep it updated, but we can use anything to do it so. And yes, the studies that showed "AI inbreeding" were disproof, it was more like a skill issue with who was training it than a problem with the machine.
@@SoloAnima1 The study that said training AI with AI I make worse results was disprove. The problem is caused by a low skilled training process rather than a problem with the machine, so you can train AI with AI if you know what you are doing.
No no, you don't get it. I had to order that food, without me it wouldn't have been made so actually I am the one who made it and I should be credited for it the same way as if I had made it from scratch! What, next you're going to say a chef isn't a chef just because they didn't grow the fruits and vegetables, and raise the livestock that went into their meals? (Yes this is legitimate reasoning from AI defenders.)
There's something extremely special about the art that traditional/digital artists create and it's all in the feeling, the genuine aspect of it, which AI doesn't have
@@korkor9699 still doesn't make up for the fact that it's being trained on said human artists without permission which still makes the process feel fake and insincere
@@korkor9699 it can't mimic human artstyle, it can copy human artstyle. That's an important distinction, because it means it can only steal the work of others and mash it togethet into "AI's own artstyle" To explain what I mean in a bit more detail: To mimic is to look at something, and create something similiar, perhaps nearly identical, yet still new. This AI doesn't do that, it takes thousands of human-made images, mashes together elements of them all, and spews out the mix from these thousands of images that seems to be something new, but in truth has nothing but parts of these thousands of stolen images. Nothing new, all stolen, death of creativity.
I've seen the argument that gen AI "helps disabled artists", which implies the thought process that disability somehow nullifies creativity and/or the ability to express oneself through any of the many, _many_ ways to make art. Like, what?
Techbros suddenly care about ableism and accessibility when it's convenient for them. I would not expect less from people that only view others as tools.
It does help people tho, regardless of your inability to imagine how. My dad was a writer, and was paralyzed. I WISH these tool existed when he was still alive, he would've loved them.
GrumpDog would he? I don't know your father but if I, as an artist and writer, if I suddenly became more disabled than I already am, I'd find another way to create, not drop that task on a computer. I feel no joy asking an algorithm to do my hobby for me
People don’t understand why we don’t like AI generated images over human created works, and I usually shoot back with we have machines that can throw the perfect pitch and hit a home run every time yet people still pay hundreds of dollars to go watch people, who are not nearly as good as the machine, do it instead.
Dunno, people really love seeing both the fastest humans of our time compete with each other , AND seeing the fastest car possible. It's a matter of seeing both human achievements on the individual level and on "the entire humanity" level
Yea this isn’t about you or me using AI for fan-art. This is about putting studio artists out of a job, imagine having a shonen jump done in minutes, or a Pixar flick done in a few hours, comic books that takes days to finish now have the artwork finished during a lunch break, and put to market and sold by the largest distributors. And it’s all to put workers out of a job. That’s why companies invest in AI technology, to decrease their labor costs, that’s literally the whole pitch of the technology to investors.
@@saramations i think the most you could say is some concepts were developed with help from a text generator, but no, if youve seen ai's current attempts at animation... we're a few years from anything even remotely competent.
in all fairness , they could throw out some person with this , like scenarist , keep in mind that big company are up to a decade of advance in technology
Are you implying that technology never removed artists jobs before? Like, when 3D was invented, the majority of stop-motion studios vanished. With digital art too, lots of traditional artists lost their jobs. Even with AI before GenAI, into the spider verse was created with AI which removes interpolation artists from the team. That stuff always happens with technology.
I really don't understand how ai can be the future of art, when all it can do is create analogues of what has already been seen. If ai had magically appeared in the 1800s, it would never have generated a Pixar cartoon like picture because nothing like it had been done by humans before. Therefore, if there are no human artists, where will progress come from? Besides now that many artists are aware of the dangers of ai and are making efforts to protect their works, it will be harder and harder to get NEW materials to train neural networks.
I dont understand people that want Art to progress when it doesnt progress anymore, since artists from modern era doesnt work the same as ancient artists, there is no evolution because we got everything we can imagine from at least one artist on the planet, and it will be like this forever, so there is no progress. Like generative AIs, I couldnt see every possible output of them because I dont have the time and I dont have the will to ask an unusual prompt that no one asked before
> now that many artists are aware of the dangers of ai and are making efforts to protect their works, it will be harder and harder to get NEW materials to train neural networks If it's on the internet, it can be scraped and learned from. If it's not on the internet, then those artists will have that much more trouble marketing themselves and their portfolios.
There is already enough stuff on the internet to train any AI for any purpose. The problem is tagging and sorting the data before training. Plus specialised versions of AI models called LORAs exist that are trained on small sets of specific types of art (like one set for anime, another for game concept art, etc).
One of the bigger reasons on why I'm not a big fan of genAI is that it produces a ton of e-waste, it consumes a ton of energy & water, and it also adds to grid congestion. So like it's just enethical to use all around. There is quite literally no way to justify and brag about being able to AI generate anime girls 😿
see, THIS is an argument I can get behind. People get way too emotional when it comes to AI, most arguments against it are basically "no more human creativity", which is just unfounded.
This is an incredibly short-sighted comment, because it ignores the fact that most technology start off incredibly ineffecient, then gradually and quickly turns effecient as the technology around it evolves. To put it into perspective, the first computer, the ENIAC, consumed a whopping 140~200 kilowatts of electricity per hour, and could handle about 500 FLOPS. The iPhone 15 pro can handle 2,147 GIGAFLOPS - Yes, that is a 4.29 BILLION times difference. Yet it only consumes 0.025 kilowatts per hour. According to your argument, we should've stopped developing the computer as it was ineffecient and consumed too much electricity.
nah AI is slop factory corpos wants to lowball artist but they either refused or have dignity so AI was made in their imagine by stealing their style meanwhile AI bros or as i call them scamdefenders
Most companies paying for art don’t want ART, they want slop to decorated websites, flyers etc. They have never cared about Art and it is expected that they instantly jump at AI art. Backgrounds and inbetweens for animation could be next.
I remember years ago, when I talked about "intelligent robots doing our jobs" with friends. We meant "AI doing the shitty jobs", not "AI doing the creative jobs".
Holy shiet, you are really good at drawing creatures, your line stroke weight are really skillfully distributed. Not to mention the the utilization of the shape and your understanding of perspective, really cool!
Don't forget that generative systems are ALSO huge energy and water hogs and are drawing a ridiculously disproportionate of both resources and the servers are often in places where water is scarce (like Arizona). Imagine tossing away a 500ml bottle of water every time you make a thumbnail sketch - that's what people are effectively doing for every prompt request When we're in a situation where 2024 has been a horrific year for extreme weather patterns, are we REALLY wanting to add yet another energy hog system to add to the chaos we already have?
@pipegrid nihilist much.... it's not because we all die anyway that we can't live it, and that future generations can't either. Hope you get a better view of life eventually. Life can be hell but we gotta continue, i know that all too well.
If we follow this argument, the entire internet should cease to exist. Because it’s basically all servers - the video you watch was rendered and placed on a server. The fashion industry is known for heavily polluting water, not to mention the waste generated from fabric scraps, and guess what? Fashion is a huge art form. Not to mention how easy it is to act like an environmental moralist on the internet, sitting in your plastic gaming chair, typing on your iPhone that uses batteries that also pollute.
@@Null_Experis Thanks for sharing? I think you need to follow up on how that’s comparable in any way to wasting resources on AI image generation. Cause you aren’t really making an argument atm
I have used AI before i started my own art journey. And every "piece" i made or it made feelt hollow meaningless, why? Because i didnt make it myself. It was not a cool character that i worked hard to create. It was a empty piece of digital slop that made me feel nothing. Tbf i am still very bad having only been doing this by myself for about 10 months and its tuff and i will be honest i am LAZY. So i will most likely never reach my goal but atleast i tried. And thats all that matters cus i will not stop drawing. I am waiting for that wow moment when i truly start pursuing this a 110 but atm that has not happened. Sry for the bad grammer. 😊
trust me,it's all about taking that first step and keeping it up after that! the fact that you tried already says a lot ^ ^ I've been drawing for many years to get where I am but before that I had to go through an "ugly phase" too,, the trick is to stop bringing yourself down and thinking "what does this artist do that Iike" and before you know it you'll be doing a lot better!!
For me it's also about control over the end result. AI takes away that control and replaces it with a random number that always leads to some unpredictable result. As long as I'm not fully in control the output will never be my creation. I want to create what I have in mind, not 10 images that kinda resemble a text description.
цель не так далека как кажется друг, пройдёт время и ты сможешь изобразить то что задумал. И когда это случится дрожащими руками будешь смотреть на свою иллюстрацию повторяя слова " я сделал это?!"
The way I started my journey was hearing another artist tell me that you could do more with an eraser than a pencil. Then he scribbled a thick line, then erased the sides of it to essentially make a straight line. It's not the most efficient way to draw a straight line (you do that by using your forearm), but it basically taught me all the basics of art in one lesson. I'm glad you at least tried, and I hope that this lesson does the same to you as it did for me.
Keep at it. Before I started drawing, I didn't fully appreciate how much I perceived as "talent" is actually just hard work. Years of it, usually. If you put in the time and practice intentionally, you will get better :)
What's your point exactly? Neither does changing the name of people who use AI help with any of the issues mentioned nor was it talked about in the video.
@@KwehShiro I wouldnt even say that the people coding the machines are artists if we’re talking about the actual images being generated. If you mean that making the LLMs is an art form, then that I can tentatively agree with.
To me looking at ai art is like looking at two computers playing chess. Sure, they can both play better than Magnus Carlsen, but I don't care. I only care about what humans are capable of doing. You can call me racist towards AI.
There is a supermarket in my town that has 4 automatic checkout registers and only one "human operated" register. Every time I go there there on a busy day there is a line of 10+ people on the register with the automated one being empty. And I don't think it's because all those people consciously decided to rebel against robots taking away jobs, it's just that in our allready isolated life's that so many of us have nowadays, the small human interactions we get with cashiers, waiters and so on is just pleasant. We like interacting and working with other humans. For that reason I don't think artists will die as a profession because there will be people that prefer working with humans rather than robots. Maybe I'm wrong and in 20 years 99% of art in video games and shows and so on will be made by robots, but I just don't see it happening personally.
It's kinda true on my side of the world too but it's mostly boomers who don't understand how it works or people with their hands full who can't scan it themselves. The cashier line will always have people but it's about 50/50 with the self checkouts
No. As someone who prefers the human cashier to the machine, the reason for that is that the cashiers are trained to do that same thing *faster*, and when it comes to things like digital coupons, or something else the cashier needs to do, the cashier will do it faster. The cashier is smarter than the machine, that's all. Forced interaction with an obese, nose-pierced, not-remotely-interested-in-me individual is the last thing on my mind.
Funny, I prefer Cashiers because they do the work of both scanning and bagging my goods for no additional cost. Then again, that sounds just a bit familiar, doesn’t it? How interesting.🤔
I think two types of people are gonna rise out of this AI thing: 1. People who openly admit they use AI and even embrace it, creating a small community for themselves. 2. Pro level liars and gaslighters.
@@rhadiem You would be surprised how many young people actually have an issue with "Ai-art" while a lot of boomers (my generation) just cant get enough of it.
The difference in my reaction to an art piece comes down to- If an AI generation program made it- eh that's alright If a person made it- WOW really?? That's amazing!! Incredible how you pulled of such detail, and your colours are so pretty!!
Ugh I love my Dad, and he used to be a legendary artist, enough that he inspired me to draw. He’s not drawn in a long time, and in the last year he’s gotten himself deep into AI art, he thinks it’s sooo cool and whatever he makes is his own creative idea. He makes HUNDREDS OF THEM. I just wish he’d go back to drawing. :[
Let him enjoy it...? I mean, you sound like a parent saying "My girl had a boyfriend that was Soo promising but she left him for a girl and now I won't have grandchildren anymore :("
@@tale7955 dude when I say he was a legendary artist I mean he was a *legendary* artist. And he’s basically quit making art now in favor of making a bunch of ai art
My favourite argument against ai I heard was how skills carry over. What I mean is if someone who played the guitar tried to play the drums, they don’t know how to play the drums but they’ll understand the core parts of music like being able to read notes and understand the timing, even if they never touched a drum until that moment. If ai is real art the “skills” would carry over, for example I as a 2d artist have been able to successfully use 3d easier than someone who didn’t know 2d before starting 3d because certain skills like anatomy carry over, meaning an ai bro who can make an anime girl that looks good using ai should be able to make an anime girl in another form of 2d or even 3d art, because anatomy, colour theory, etc. should carry over, but if they NEED ai to make a decent anime girl then ai isn’t art.
yeah. It's something people bring up against AI images on the more practical side of thing. If an artist can make good sketch in PS it's reasonable to expect them to able to replicate art of the same quality using CSP, Illustrator, etc. even if they'd need to adjust. Their skills shouldn't disappear/decrease dramatically bc they change program. I've also seen good points like how if you ask an artist to make certain revisions on a design/drawing they'd likely be able to do so more effectively, unlike AI prompters whose result would probably vary wildly, churning out lots of quick images without addressing the revision in the first place
there is ongoing research about improving AI algorithms to better match the brain. Neuroscience and Machine Learning are heavily linked, they are both basically feeding each other, MLs being inspired by simplifications of neurons, and neuroscience getting large scale experiments of pseudo-brains, which give clues about figuring out brains. Its really interesting
I think the issue is the comparison. People who use AI are the same as people who program in bytes. Put them to program in c++ and nothing would carry over because it's two different skills. The idea that just because an art form doesn't accommodate a specific definition of art is just... Retrograded. Dancing is an art form, yet you wouldn't say a dancer is a good singer. Same would apply here, they could claim knowing how to manipulate an AI tool is an art form and the results are the visual representation of their skill... How could you then say "Okay, but can you dance the Macarena" as an argument? The core of the issue comes from defining what art is, and then using that to define if an "AI artist" is an artist or not. And in that regard, you're screwed.
@@tale7955 not really, most ai bros just use premade generators and don’t do anything other than write a prompt Dancing and singing are different, you couldn’t get a dancer to sing but a ballet dancer would be able to do something in another type of dance . Your example isn’t great because I am talking about types of visual art (ex: 2d drawn images, 3d models, etc.) in which I’m saying ai is not, but your example uses two completely different things being singing and dancing. Besides why would you defend ai anyways, it’s still horrible for the environment and it uses people’s art without permission.
Another thing I'm worried about is impersonation. Someone can't copyright an art style, but in practice, your name gets associated with quirks in the art. Like, it's not ukiyo-e with western comic book influences, it's Yoshitaka Amano's art style, or it's not romantic cityscapes and fairy tales, it's Anton Pieck's work. Since generators train on an artist's name too, you can infect their portfolio with fake pieces or even slanderous ones (like child prn or images supporting controversial political views), causing reputational damage in an industry where a good reputation is important
Styles aren't copyrightable, though, thank goodness. Imagine never getting all of anime if Osamu Tezuka sued the next person that tried to create Japanese animation after astro boy.
So, like, I know buisiness guys do not care about anything outside of money. The argument that AI art is "soulless" or critiques of its common, unfixable visual flaws will never sway them. What does sway a buisiness guy, however, is the fact that items produced en masse rather than intricately by human hand will _always_ have inherently less value. Though we have a lot of hype around AI right now, we've already hit an oversaturation of AI outputs flooding the internet (and flooding the market), as well the AIs themselves have plateaued in their ability to improve and inbreeding and corruption is occuring on a massive and increasing scale. To conclude this, with the upkeep and energy cost of AI, plus the legal issue of not owning any copyright for outputs, it's not actually feasible to use AIs for a steady profit. The only people who are currently benefiting are people who rent out their AI via subscriptions and scammers who disguise AI as work by an actual artist, thereby inherently giving it more value. It's basically a repeat of NFTs. Even if continued AI scams don't result in new or updated laws across various countries eventually, if existing law cannot be applied already, this is a bubble that is already close to popping.
To be honest, I see ads using AI all the time to advertise their products. I make a point to actively avoid their products and company after that :) I hope more people gain that mindset to avoid products using AI images or music.
A concern I have that not a lot of people seem to mention is how generative AI will impact childhood development and education in general. Is it hard to imagine school boards and politicians voting to allocate funding to schools to decide to cut funding to art programs, especially if computers can generate images better than many people? What about reading and writing comprehension? As more kids grow up with this technology that has the capacity to perform valuable skills for them… is there going to be societal impact? Also the argument of “but it won’t have the same ‘soul’ as something made by a human. So it won’t really replace artists.” bugs me. For the millions of people that aren’t artists that means nothing, and they are the ones that will drive this technology to the point of destroying the professional artist community. Just like mass product manufacturing essentially ruined the ability to make a living as a craft artist. The amount of people unwilling to buy a hand knit blanket for potentially $200-300, when they can go to a department store and get one for $40 far exceeds the amount of people willing to support a craft artist.
@@samuraitadpole5459 AI is literally replacing thousands of humans already, open your eyes. Thousands upon thousands of people are getting fired every month. Every company under the sun is firing tons of people while bragging about how they're embracing AI. It's all gonna massively backfire in the long run, but the CEOs don't give a shit because they'll just escape with all their money.
@@samuraitadpole5459 Correction: _Current_ AI can't replace humans. If you think it is impossible for the tech to to equal or surpass us at all, you are very mistaken.
@@crowe6961 by the time that happens we're all dead and gone, I use ai and I practice drawing and drawing is much easier even though I suck. The things you have to type to get the pic you want is way too much
I think the other major flaw with AI is that it's just visual noise. Art is usually the creation of something we see or imagine. Even in photography, the framing, angle, moment, lighting, etc are all factors the photographer takes into account as they look through their lense. There is intent and planning to get the image they want as they move around their subject. If I use an AI prompt, what ever prompt I use, the image will not be what I was seeing in my head. The composition, design, color choice, lighting will all be an amalgamation from stolen works I have probably never seen. I might as well be another viewer of the piece, having no connection to the image's creation.
ai does in fact take into account those factors. It stores those variables as patterns that it finds in its training, and its the reason why AI pictures look as good as they do. Its missing a LOT, but it also has achieved a lot.
ControlNets, IPAdapter, T2I Adapters, inpainting, outpainitng, ComfyUI nodes and workflows, LoRAs, DoRAs, Lycoris, finetunes and a ton of other tools, models, extensions and methods. Did you really think AI image generation ends with basic apps like Midjourney? lol No wonder artists are losing jobs when they don't even know what they're going up against.
@@Smug-Smirk They've got no idea, man. I'm more on the language side of things, but no, they do not know the level of detail it can dive into without seriously fouling up these days and do not know what they're going up against. The smartest models can take some fantasy creature you have only the vaguest concept of and, as long as it is vaguely realistic, can now help you figure out its dang skeletal structure, where the organs might go, how it's strange (or actually rather mundane) compared to a normal animal, what it can and can't do, give a general estimate of its metabolism, how much food it eats and what traits it should have, along with necessary alterations based on a combination of its original description and revised biology, along with whatever fantasy-world shenanigans you've added. And then you get a much better idea as to what it actually ought to look like before the rest of the artistic process starts. Or, you know, going big-picture and almost casually building a whole fictional ecosystem if you know which questions to ask. You can wind up with far more starting material and food for thought than you possibly need, in short order, but also be prevented from falling into classic immersion-breaking traps, like a world of monsters that has far too little to eat to support them with no explanation.
@@crowe6961 Do you know when generative AI is finally going to turn a profit? The visual arts are an incredibly competitive field as it is, what edge does AI have that compensates for the running costs? Edit: Now that I think on it, what issues are generative AI solving? The issue of having to pay for a human artist for visual assets? If that's the case, what's stopping clients from learning how to use these AIs themselves? If the answer that utilizing one of these models is too difficult for the lay person to achieve, then they would still have to pay someone else to get the result they want. So what would make a client want to employ an ai prompter over a human artist? I assume it is to cut time and costs, and in some cases achieve a better output. However, without large investment and subsidizing in order to keep their servers running, how will these models function?
@@_B_E appeal to emotion IS valid and can be level headed. Simply for the fact that something appeals to emotion doesn’t always demerit its point nor does it mean the person who is using that tactic isn’t levelheaded
@@_B_E Manipulation occurs in everyday life and it’s not necessarily bad. Hyping yourself up in a mirror is manipulation. Saying “hello” is manipulation. Giving compliments is manipulation. Using logic is manipulation, citing evidence is also manipulation. Plus, this video isn’t a giant appeal to emotion, please rewatch it. It contains pathos, but also a good amount of logos.
@@_B_E it's not an appeal to emotion. She doesn't have the stance of "look at us poor artists! Don't you feel bad about us!??!?!?". What she's saying is that AI doesn't possess the passion nor determination and doesn't derive pleasure from creating art, thus getting rid of the point of art almost entirely. Tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me you didn't watch the video.
the problem with ai art, is the lack of a story. the story of the artist, and the process that went through while drawing. which is an indevindual tied experiance. the ai is to genral and practical, to devolp a meaningful art with a story.
It's the first time I've seen someone I agree fully with on this complicated subject. Thank you for making this. Your "scripted RUclipsr" example was particularly insightful : I think what we crave, as human beings looking at art, is connection. When we tear up watching a sad scene in a movie, it's because we feel empathy for the characters. I think it's the same when we look at other forms of art. Look at the commenters here, happy that you, too, love Monster Hunter, and drew the funny big lizards. We're social animals craving a link to our peers, and learning that a drawing was made by an algorithm makes us feel either betrayed, or apathetic.
Me too. I was happy to finally see a really nuanced, thoughtful take. I think a lot of people resort to intellectually dishonest arguments like, "It looks bad," to justify their disgust for AI. Like, I agree with their conclusion: gen AI stinks. But reasons like that are easy covers to slap onto more difficult-to-explain feelings of disgust and unease.
Without watching the video, heres why (in my opinion) : 1_ its art theft, no one allowes for their art to be used , no one was allowed to opt in or out. 2_ it allows people to imitate artists and act as though they truly were, allowing for scams and whatnot 3_ it lowers the value of art. Art is a LUXURY because only TIME EFFORT AND EXPERTISE will result in art. However the existence of AI has changed that. (Side note, since ai makes mistakes you cant really say that its good for learning AND if ai is capable of drawing something that means thousands of artworks exist which have already drawn that, yet much closer to perfection than the ai.)
4. It actively prevents people see new artists 5. Its propagate misconception for people that art is easy to make 6. It dumbs down people by preventing them learning from our forefathers such as Andrew Loomis, JC Leyendecker, Howard Pyle, Osamu Tezuka 7. It antagonizes the clients to the artists by gaslighting them and impersonation and scams 8. It's a degeneracy to mankind as a whole using garbage feedback loop, people think creativity and freedom is no longer something worth nurturing or passionately seek to enrich their perspective or life experience 9. It's royalty theft on top of IP theft 10. It's a massive breach to GDPR in Europe especially with Facebook caught feeding data as far as from 2007 to their AI (Sourced CNBC, The Verge) 11. It allows people to commit crimes on a scope we hadn't foreseen (deepfaking medical images violating HIPPA) 12. It's a massive resource sink with investments, electricity, water, and fossil fuels appropriated to solve problems that weren't exist to begin with 13. Market degeneracy, AI products are getting more expensive for worse quality for startup solving problems that already has solutions or artificially made by corporates 14. It cultivates a "Tech Bros and AI Bros" cult using psychological fearmongering and financial scams threatening of FUDs, FOMOs, Luddites, and other jargons repurposed as mantra.
I'm not pro-AI and art is not a luxury....It's a core feature of human society and making it a luxury deprives humanity of its own soul Saying it's a luxury is basically saying that only elites are deserving of our efforts which ironically creates the circumstances where artists are not valued because it is completely putting our own labour at the mercy of people with capital
@@ThatsABean Yeah, that’s one of the weirder arguments that ai bros make, that we all want to “gatekeep” the ability to make art from them. Calling it a luxury makes them think their little conspiracy is right
@@ThatsABean no not really, art is just like a designer hand bag. Yes that hand bag looks awesome but it costs thousands of dollars. However it's a luxury, not a necessity. It study something to be pretty to look at. Art is the same. Not just elites can get it, anyone can. You can either get art as an elite for millions or as a normal person for hundreds or less depending on the person. Doesn't change the fact that it's a luxury not something that is necessary or something that is your right to have.
I find your opinion very relatable ! To me an important part of appreciating art is the connection between the artist and the piece they did/posted ! And in a certain way it connects with you, by being a fan art of a show you really like, a concept you like a lot or a compososition that just stuns you. But when you realise that it was generated you instantly lose this connection because it was not intentionnal or it took so little time that it was not important to the person that generated it, it feels instantly a lot more distant
I started drawing again after way too long not doing it and basically starting from 0. I played around with AI images before and while it's fun to do, it's nowhere near as satisfying as doing it yourself. I mean I could also just as well create a program that creates every possible image (though it might run a few hundred years to complete and most would just be noise), and say that I'm the best artist in the world, but I'd say everyone would agree that it's nonsense. Let's keep the human element alive in art. Even if it's bad art, I prefer it a lot to AI stuff.
i honestly wouldn't have much of an issue with AI if: a- the people making the ML Tools weren't so proud of their Plagiarism Machine being the end of all art b- the consumers weren't so eager to just Flood every space possible because they legit think "More art = More good" also the difference with Photography is that for Photos you still need to be intentional about it & have SOME knowledge of what you're doing to get a good result
"you still need to be intentional about it & have SOME knowledge of what you're doing to get a good result" This is also true of AI generators though. Sure, anyone can type in a single line and get a result, but the actual prompters who care about their outputs will refine their result and put it through many iterations, often using external tools like photoshop to in-paint for a specific result. They care about lighting, anatomy, perspective, and composition just as much as a "regular" artist.
@@_B_E i will put that last point on heavy doubt. but i will give you there is refinement & iteration in Machine Generating... but i don't know how much of that would really be called a creation process compared to even things like CAD
@@Artista_Frustrado doubt what you like, it's not as if ALL "real" artists actually put in the effort you describe. I think "artists" play themselves up way to much and are very self important, and i say that as an artist myself. Iterating to achieve a specific result is absolutely part of the creative process, regardless of the medium though.
if they have to do that much manual editing to fix AI generator's lighting, anatomy, perspective, and composition flaws... why not just draw it themselves?
Im just sick of it in general, i hate having to question every piece of media. Pluto on netflix looked fantastic... FIRST episode used AI for an ACTION scene. Textures blurring, proportions not just exagerated, but DEFORMED. Dont even get me started on the content slop youtube channels are pumping out, targeting kids with generated scripts and narrators that they just soaaaak up.
I don't believe that the technology itself is inherently unethical, but I do believe that greedy CEOs and corporations insist on taking unethical and even illegal shortcuts in order to make more money. You could train an AI using only public domain art, or art that has been commissioned for that purpose. But they want to scrape anything and everything in order to make the models "large" enough to make flashy, highly rendered looking results. The reason (if my own research is accurate) the previous versions of these AIs made such bad looking images was that they didn't have a big enough data set. If some big tech CEO wants to start paying artists to create work to train an actually ethical AI system, then sign me up, I could use the cash. Until that day, more lawsuits while the market goes from bad to worse.
The crux of the issue is basically just tech bros simping on behalf of corporate interests. It feels like there’s always something new and terrible for them to try and gaslight us about “not being that bad”.
You *could* make a model only on public domain art or art licensed specifically for the purpose, but why? Who would it be for and what purpose would it serve? Probably the wealthy and the corpos, but even if it was available to everyone for free, even if there were no environmental concerns... why? There is already more human art (and more being made daily) than you could engage with in a lifetime... why pollute history and culture with artificial mimicry? I don't want to see generated "art" any more than I want to see a generated sports match. More of a question than "should we," vs "can we."
Machine learning is an incredibly cool technology with exciting implications for many scientific fields. However, content generation is quite possibly the most worthless and damaging use of machine learning.
Not just ceo's either bullies and propaganda spreaders are using it for evil people have already had terrible things hppen to them with this technology there has to be laws put in place like no unwilling human likeness and only copyrighted works that was put in the generator so the artists that joined in gets a share of profits like off the top of my head restrictions for this
with all the art youtubers ive seen defend ai, I'm so glad to see you set the record straight on why so many artists DONT like ai and explain it so eloquently
They largely remain a pile of emotional arguments rather than rational ones, at their core. This is not how you connect with with people who are supportive of complex _logic engines._
@@crowe6961 Who is your favorite ai artist? What is your favorite AI piece, what did it make you feel, how did it reflect your life or make you consider the lives of others, and how did it change how you view the world?
Im both an artist and programmer. This makes it that I see the effort that went into developing the software and also how easy it is to market it as the be all end all. My main issues with AI are the use of stolen works and how entising it seems to corporations to just use AI istead of having people that need salaries and benefits.
This is a great video. I really liked how you pointed out many opposing points and addressed them in a thoughtful way. You gave credit where it was due, explored some hypotheticals, and held your ground on issues you feel are solid. There are some points I think the conversation should go further on, but man, it doesn't even feel like that conversation can happen. I mean, hell, most of the top comments don't even seem like they watched the video
Yeah...I feel disheartened seeing modern discourse around Gen AI and even the comment section of this video. There's so much dogma and so many intellectually dishonest arguments going around that anyone trying to have a conversation immediately gets bogged down trying to respond to people bringing up the most inane, obviously terrible arguments. This video is great and I really like the more nuanced reasons pikat offered for disliking gen AI!
The biggest problem about AI in my opinion is that it takes serious self moderation to use. A lot of people claim to use it as a tool, and it certainly can be used as a tool (I have personally used it in the past to generate reference pictures, but it may also be used to generate color pallets or mood boards). The issue is that the line between aiding creativity and replacing creativity is so thin, that most people end up just using AI to replace the entire creative process.
I would say that the current problem is more that it isn't based around viable use cases, and EVERYONE involved has been garbage at communication. There are a lot of tasks it could potential used for, but fancy tech demos are rooted around finished products, and it doesn't deliver those results with good enough quality. Worse yet, the way in which is makes mistakes makes it take lots of work to fix, to the point that you need about the same amount of time and skill.
The problem with generative AI is that it aims to automate the artist, not the drawing. They're not trying to create a program that can draw, they're trying to make a program that will make the art itself.
I think you’ve perfectly illustrated my thoughts on AI and the counter arguments I’ve seen AI bros make. Art has always been about the process of translating your ideas into a chosen medium and improving at that process; the journey matters as much as, if not more than, the destination. Every single action you take in the process of making a piece has intention and thought behind it. The process is what gives art its humanity, it’s what makes it fun, it’s what makes it *art*. There’s nothing to appreciate about a generated image, the reasons for its details are self evident, and there is no thought or intent behind its creation. Using AI and calling yourself an artist is like calling yourself a weightlifter while lifting weights using a forklift. If AI were a tool, you would be able to make art of the same quality without it, but you can’t, because it’s a crutch. If AI were in any way like photography, it would be able to become its own form of art, but it can’t due to its parasitic nature. The problem that AI bros seem to have is that the destination is the only thing that matters to them; the aesthetic qualities of a piece matter more than the means of its creation and what it’s trying to convey. They see artists and craftsmanship as just a pesky middleman that should be cut out, and AI gives them the opportunity to do so. They don’t actually care about art or artists, and that’s why the ethics of generative AI and the quality of what it produces will always be secondary to me, because I simply do not want to live in a world where it’s normalized for art and creativity to be delegated to cold, mindless machines rather than humanity.
As someone said previosly, AI art isn't gonna get better if it comepletely takes over human art (it would be stuck in that era), elaborating on this, if AI uses their own self made art to feed themselves again it will actually hurt itself, and it is doing that, as the internet is filled with AI "artpieces"
What is 3DS MAX but a simple crutch to cripple oneself. If you aren't physically forging a sculpture from sheer rock with a chisel, is it even really art? You see why this is a dumb comparison? Hard work and implementing AI into a workflow aren't mutually exclusive. AI generators are as much or as little of a crutch as the person using it makes it, which applies to literally every tool out there.
something being hard does not immediately make it good if that were the case then the only way to experience the most amount of fun from a task would be to do it for the first time as a complete newbie and never touch it again
@@_B_E With a 3D sculpting program you're still choosing how to sculpt, what to keep and what to remove. It still takes a ton of skill, patience and a creative vision to do it. Meanwhile, writing "beautiful woman, blonde hair, 4k, beautiful light" in a generator takes literally 0 skill, 0 effort, and next to no time. You can even google prompts to use so you don't even have to think of words yourself. And that is what 99% of the AI slop is. Next to no one is using it as a tiny little tool to help the process, they're just using it as a photo copier to print finished images en masse. It's not a tool if it replaces the entire process.
@leetri we are talking about AI generation as a helper, so when you tell it to generate a sketch its now your turn to modify it. it just simplifies work and gives you a blueprint to work with.
@@buycraft911miner2 yeah, but it would be cooler just do make the sketch from ground up, myself? Like I know what the idea is and I lay down the foundation, from the pose to the details.
I love art more than anything in my life, i grew up understanding how much work goes into creating art, art is not only drawing but everything around us, its so inhumane and terrifying watching the world becoming a huge mesh of "if we don't have it we can steal it"...I don't want to live in a world where my favorite thing is nothing but only a profitable business. I hope and pray that one day AI will fall, because this is not fair for anyone.
Any activity gains meaning knowing there's a will behind it. Something as trivial as playing a game against the software or a person changes everything. You know the software doesn't care about the results. There's no frustration at losing, no joy at winning, no rivalry, no emotion, no purpose. Imagine taking those things away from art.
Generative AI may have similarities with photography, but photography still requires skill. Sure, just like anyone can draw, anyone can take a photo. But also just like professional art, professional photography is not on the same level. It requires a level of knowledge, experience and passion that clearly makes a difference. Anyone can make a little doodle and anyone can take a selfie, but for artists and photographers, even if they're not professional, it's much more than that. Can you say the same thing for generative AI ? I don't think so. No matter how good at writing a prompt someone may be, there isn't much of a difference between them and any other person who generates AI images. There is no passion in what they're doing. No effort either. Unlike with photography, AI is basically just pressing a button. There's nothing more to it than that. There is no "professional AI image generation" Anybody can write a prompt, and that's all generative AI requires them to do, even if they couldn't care less about the passion, effort and skill behind an artist's work. Which they probably do since they use AI in the first place.
A photographer is not as close to AI . A photographer needs to plan a lot, such as determining when and where to take a shot, knowing how bright of the environment, knowing whether the object is moving or not, and finding the best composition. Sometimes, the cost of a photo is high due to the camera equipment and the object being photographed. Sometime, photographer risking their life to take a photo from a dangerous inviroment or photo of a wild animal.
One little issue I’ve had when trying to use even the better Ai image generators, I have VERY a specific vision for what I want my art to look like by the end. And Ai just can’t create my vision, because it has no vision for itself, and that’s something I don’t think it will ever be able to do. I’ve even tried getting AI to make very specific art that I’d already made, just to test if it could come close to my true vision. And nah, it doesn’t come close, it’s always ultra generic or completely incorrect.
The same thing usually happens to me, but I'm sure I'm missing something. I probably need to use a better one or take a different approach for prompting, but I prefer to draw things on my own.
In less than 3-5 years, with brain computer interfaces (like neuralink), we'll be able to generate anything we can think of directly without having to use words
You know, at least kudzu vines in the American south *didn't* sprout mouths and say to humans, "Hey guysth, I'm not an invasthive weed *I sthwear.* You can eat me like sthpinach; I belong in thisth ecosthysthtem." (I'm sorry if writing out that lisp made this harder to read, but I couldn't imagine that obnoxious tripe any other way.)
Oh, and for those that claim photography is easy, I’d like to see them fly out to South America, drive to the Okovango Delta, then lay on the shore of a river for twelve hours a day without moving for three straight weeks just to maybe get a photo of a Lion drinking water from the wrong angle and at the wrong time of day.
There is no good excuse for generative AI “art.” I had to learn to use this shit for my graphic design class and I felt so wrong doing it. I was letting the computer doing my job. Literally typing in a few prompts and selecting a “nice” image like what? How to do you feel accomplished from that? How do you get any fulfillment from it? People who genuinely use this shit lack depth and understanding of what art is and settle on it looking “close enough” to what they want it to look like… despicable
Wait... they literally made you use it? Wouldn't they just be putting themselves out of business, basically telling everyone "doing this is quicker and maybe even better"? Why would anyone end up paying for that course if that is basically what they teach you ): I am sure they teach you a lot of useful stuff, but I feel like if the course made you use that it's just a slap in the face and really insulting
*Eugh,* I feel so bad for you. It's unfortunately quite similar to a time that *I think* one of my instructors on a college course mentioned using ChatGPT to help write thank you letters for scholarship offers. I don't care if, "it's a tool"; I refuse to use that thing on the principle of the matter.
Im quite the lazy person but art is one of the few things that give me the motivation to put effort into something. If Gen AI was made 10 years ago, before I got passionate about art, then I might have went down that road and never felt the satisfaction of hard work, I dread this scenario and the thought that exactly this is happening to people right now.
Ai isn't creative though it can only rip off other artists it can't draw the stuff I draw for that reason as it's quite unquie. It simply never replaces drawing yourself because it cannot read your mind if you get good and draw something it will look exactly how you picture it with an ai it's never gonna look like that.
As much as I agree with these points, none of these are going to convince any non artist that AI is bad. As someone who makes a living working with AI, the point I bring up to convince non artists is how gen AI works. Generative AI when placing the next element of their output, guesses the average next thing to place based on the last thing they placed. This means the output of an AI will always be a series of average looking things, which is okay for most situations, but the oversaturation of AI art specifically would be very bad. The flood of average answers to the question of what is beautiful will satisfy nobody, and because AI needs more and more data, it will eventually be trained on AI art. Putting average answers into a machine that used to use amazing ones will decrease the quality even further. If all artists get replaced with gen AI, the world will become filled with worse and worse art. Plus, if AI only puts out average art, then average level and worse artists could lose their jobs. Then, no one will be able to have the time or resources to become great artists. If gen AI becomes standard, this will be the last generation where good art is made.
it makes you think, what are our brains doing that ai isnt? our brain seems to have a similar structure, and AI and our brains having many similarities (good at pattern matching, impovising sentences word by word, acting confident even when wrong) seems to point towards this being right to some extent. However, there are glaring differences that are painfully obvious, like training data amount, not being able to switch between tasks like humans do, and short memory, if any. Its an interesting field of research for sure
Excellent video! I'll definately be directing people who have questions about generative AI towards this. Two other points i feel are worth bringing up: AI inbreeding and the Environmental Impact 1: The sheer volume of generated images flooding the internet and art centric platforms, the next generations of image generation are coming across the problem that their newer datasets are going to have these AI generated images, from previous, worse generations of AI, which will teach them bad data. The potential solutions are to either curate these absolutely massive datasets manually, find a way to detect any and all forms of ai generated imagery to filter them, or completely start from scratch or mothball AI. Only the second option seems likely to happen, and even then, AI detection isnt foolproof. This might lead to a sort of "snake eating its own tail" problem, where even if the technology to learn gets better, the AI might be getting worse material to learn off of. 2: Currently, the processing power to power generative models of AI take an absolutely huge amount of processing power, and insane amounts of water to cool it off, to make work properly. Most generative AI doesn't just happen on a single phone or computer, most of the commercially available ones request that a massive data center fufill the request in the short timeframes needed to be appealing to consumers. As various forms of LLM based technology becomes more widely used these data centers are going to become bigger, hungrier, and more expensive. Unless quantum computing and fusion technology suddenly become as commonplace tommrow i dont see this issue being solved by just making it more advanced.
the only way i could see it being used as a tool if it was made morally is if it was used for reference, to get your brain going on some ideas during an art block, it's like browsing internet looking at pictures pretty much. you're not directly using the ai generated pictures on your canvas, just getting inspiration.
Why though? If it's like browsing the internet for pretty pictures, why not just do that? Why not use physically accurate photos of real life, or intentionally abstracted artist interpretations from human artists that you can analyze learn from? If, "it doesn't exist," 1.) it probably does 2.) if it really doesn't, photobashing is a thing.
I'd rather get references from real life and from real people. Generative AI for generating either risks getting things wrong or just makes things derivative. Being able to find inspiration that suits your specific tastes and goals is an important skill. I'd rather study and be inspired from real artists because they are a primary source. AI is a secondary source because its content is only derivative from things that already exist. It is trained to predict what an image MIGHT look like given a specific prompt. Humans are a primary source because they experience the world and then add their own personal biases, experiences, and ideas to it, creating something new. AI takes practically minimal input from the person making it, thus it's just a secondary source that aggregates training data associations from what the prompt MIGHT look like. After learning how AI actually works, it's even more worthless than it seems.
Nice video, and good perspective on including non-drawing people so they can notice what artists are talking about. Also, got me humming the Touhou Project BGM, nice choice.
As a fanfic writer who wants to make this a full career, I am 100% against generative AI and I guarantee that every fic I write was typed out by my own two hands.
this video scares me, more like the idea. i just started drawing, as its something that i like to do and mybe one day i will be good enough to make money from it. but this idea (ai) makes me doubt myself .people often online say its alright, ai would never be good enough as a human... but looking at how much this technology improved in the last 2years and knowing this is just not going to stop, idk :(
The distinction you have to do here is the same as what happened with the arrival of photography. Yes, a photography may replicate better a portrait, an environment, a place, a thing, but that led artists to think about what are the capabilities of the medium that differ from those of photography and use them as vanguards of what painting, sculpture and so on could be (this is not to say that photography is not a form of art indeed it is, but that's another topic). Yes, AI-generated art may look good and maybe in the future it will look better, but the trick here Is that in-it-of-itself AI-generated art has nothing to say, but you do. You have something to say about any theme you like, any unique aproximation, any thought process. Art is an intersubjective matter like an open conversation, so of you can came with something interesting it doesn't really matter if we as artists are techinically as good as AI, we are not at anathomy as Da Vinci nor Michelangelo but that didn't killed art either :D
While watching this video, I was knitting socks. Some time ago, someone asked me, why I would even bother to do that. I could just go ahead and buy some, but it wouldn't be the same. I think, you could say the same about AI art. It's just artificially manufactured without real work put into it. No one spend time making that art and even if AI is constantly evolving, it can't put "effort" or "passion" into it's final results. I could buy the manufactured socks but they wouldn't feel as valuable as the ones I knitted myself, with all the time and effort I put into them and the fun I had doing so.
As someone who has developed AI applications. (skin cancer recognition on edge devices) No, 'AI art' will never be art. People in the research side of artificial intelligence like seeing what can be done with technology. They like pushing boundaries and seeing what new things they can do and what challenges they can overcome. Generating an image is something that is physically impossible with standard programming the fact that it works is incredible! What isn't incredible is tech bros and finance majors trying to capitalize not only off of the work of thousands of artists but also underpaid and overworked researchers at top schools. Anyone who claims an image generated by a deep learning model needs to reevaluate themselves. It is just an image (with a giant carbon footprint). Artists aren't the only people fed up with this AI hype, us developers are fed up too. There are so many genuinely useful products that can be made with AI (for example optimizing existing data centers to draw less electricity and identifying cancer early) instead developers are being forced to cram pointless features that will be used than
Honestly, the theft isn't even the worse part, it's the fact that it is being stolen to feed a monster that seeks to replace the artists who made it's food in the first place.
For the same reason I cook and play music: I like to create. I like to do things myself. Even if they invent the ultimate machine that can make all of this flawlessly and in mere seconds, I would still choose to do them myself.
i only use AI for copyright free references at best some times or brain storming if i get stuck on ideas ... that's it i am a artist myself and i know the feel when you get the anxiety that you waist 30 or 50 years on you life mastering a skill only to get replaced by a bot
I’ve always thought that defending AI using photography is extremely hilarious given that there are literally _models and checkpoints specifically designed to produce falsified photography_
I don't think she did, it's just a normal perlin noise filter used in Clip Studio Paint and it doesn't replicate the effects of glaze. I'll say a lot of us use it to texturize or stylize our illustrations and replicate photorealism as if it's scanned or actually taken by a camera.
I wholy agree with you! But another point on why I as an artist won't use AI, is the fact that it is extremaly limiting. I can't just put a swirl where ever I want, the AI will decide where and how it will look, and I hate having so little input in what I acually want to make.
AI generated images reduces art to the final money worth product which goes agaisnt what the fundamental reason why most humans do art to begin with which is for the more emotinal purpose of making the art and sharing it with others. Ofc, love and money have always been things that tend to clash a lot and money always ends up on top, but I at least know that given the day I may have to just look for another job I began doing art cuz I liked it and I'm still gonna be making art after.
I've studied and practiced a lot just to revise and check what a machine does. I work in games and we are encouraged to use ai for our projects, but I would never put that stuff in my portfolio, there is no reward in that, I feel proud only in what I do, but the people up, only care about production times and monney.
I love the quote ”I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes.”
I'm pretty sure most of those layoffs you just mentioned have very little to do with AI and more with the fact that the tech bubble is bursting in recent years.
doing the work manually is where the real magic happens. If I didn't do the things I do on my own with my own hand dexterity, time, pondering and fixes, I wouldn't have what I have now in the way I like it. No matter how good gAI is, it can never give you 1:1 precisely what you want - only an approximate, even if technically supposedly flawless. P.S. I would still find an ethical AI model a bad thing since it would literaly lead to the same thing as it does now BUT artists would have no legal ground to oppose it. The only ones who would benefit are the ones who, at the time, get their art licensed/purchased for the model to train on. The artists that come afterwards will have nothing to gain from it as we go back to square one - people generating audiovisual media instead of looking for organic artists. Fraudsters would still say they did it and there would be tons upon tons of beautiful copied rainbows and thousands of dead peacocks - legions of uninspired copy + paste media generations.
"The Greatest Joy of Art Lies in the Process of Creating it"
🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥🔥 banger line
ABSOLUTELY🗣📢🔥🔥🔥
I imagine someone really enjoyed writing that sentence. The meaning and intent embedded in the words, which crafted the ideas in our heads. ;)
@@rhadiem TBH, I actually made it myself and created a meme before.
It's a reference using Frieren's Quote on Frieren: Beyond Journey's End Anime Episode 21 (Time: 00:03:56)
She said "The greatest joy of magic lies in searching for it."
You won't get me agreeing with that line. Not every artist enjoys the drawing process, nor does everybody create just for the sake of it. I been drawing longer then a good bulk of the people from this video's comment section have been alive, and I still really don't care about the effort & time I put into my art. All that really matters to me is the ideas that went into it & the results. I create to see my ideas come to life in a way that pleases me, which is why I personally say the conclusions was worth the effort.
one of the biggest things i feel people dont mention is how most of the time people are using AI its either people trying to get clout or people who just want the end product itself. both only see art as a product to be consumed and cant fathom how the process of creating such art is just as important if not more than the end product itself.
you are 100% right, the end product is what those people are after, including me. Dont get me wrong, I dont mind people enjoying the process, but they can do that by just not using ai. So, from the purely practical point of view, ai is great
Oh man, I totally love how you villanize the people who “Just want the end product” like that. Really just generalizing a large group.❤
Yeah, I get your point, but thats how it generally is. Most people (including artists) only care about the end product. When you order food at a restaurant and its taking long, you care about the food and not the process, when you buy from aliexpress, amazon, temu? only the end product. Whenever you buy something from a factory that could've been bought from an artisan? same again.
Some may think these comparisons are outrageous, but in every case theres people who cares about these things and have something to say against each of those. This time the affected ones are the artists, and its just expectable for them to feel negative about this technology (like me), but like any other case, they need to understand that people have different cares and views and accept that reality is like that.
The way AI is being used in generative processes its just awful and oportunists and scammers are making it worse for everyone. Remember, guns dont unalive people, people unalive people...
This is an extremely generalizing comment that refuses to accept that there can be more to generative AI than "punch in a prompt and get a result".
Many artists use AI for inspiration, or partially completing their work, or simply to accelerate their workflow. There's more to it than simply churning out images.
Reminds me of the time when artists said that photography would "destroy the field of art entirely" because they could not fathom there being more to art than photorealistic representations of real-life scenes... Instead photography and digital art extended and improved the entire field of art, allowing us to create stuff we could never imagine.
@@kimeojin1234 As an artist who tried using genAI for those things, it was a waste of my f'ing time. I can be inspired by real people's work, get ideas from word generators, and the time I spend fixing the output is the same time I can spend fixing my own authentic artwork.
Also, photography was not made to replace artists. It did not rely on artist's work to operate. And those artists whose work it did displace (for things like technical accuracy) still had skills that applied to portraiture and scientific diagrams.
And AI literally can't create stuff we could "never imagine" because it's by definition limited in scope of variables and training data of pre-existing concepts. Just like how Photography cannot create, only capture. The skills involved with photography have more to do with composition, lighting, and compositing/editing than to do with the camera.
"What people confuse for talent is in fact the willingness to spend hours upon hours honing and perfecting a craft."
PERFECTLY said. I know people mean well when they say "Oh you're so talented it's amazing!", but actually it ends up feeling like an insult. Like, "You don't have to put in any effort to your work, wow!". Feels kinda bad after spending years learning your craft, yknow.
Thank you for speaking on this.
YES I always hate when people say “wow you’re so talented I can’t even draw a stick figure” art is not an innate ability ANYONE CAN DO ART IF THEY SPEND TIME ON IT. it kinda devalues the effort I put in to get to a point where it *looks* effortless (it is still in fact a lot of effort regardless)
And? So what? Should cars have been banned to protect the horse and buggy driver that spent years honing their craft on how to get a horse to obey them?
Talented folk, seeing this: “Am I a joke to you?”
@@maw5646Please show me one person who truly believes that their skill that impresses other people is something they were born with.
@@Ilyak1986the thing is that cars made transport better and AI makes art worse. By „worse” I mean boring, repetitive, stripped of this personal touch which makes people relate with art. AI art is empty and soulless. It might be good replacement for stock pictures used for mass production of everyday stuff but not for smth more deep and meaningful like illustration, game art, tattoos etc
by its very nature, today's generative AI can't Truely innovate. To put it simply, if AI had been set up in the medieval era, and humans stopped feeding it, it would only be able to make medieval art, even three hundred thousand years later. It couldn't have invented Van Gogh. A world where AI does all the art is a world where art no longer evolves!
that's a good point!
Ik someone already said this but this is SUCH a good point! AI can’t evolve without human artists so therefore AI couldn’t have more worth than a human artist
By its design AI tends to be innovative. Of course we still need to feed to be keep it updated, but we can use anything to do it so. And yes, the studies that showed "AI inbreeding" were disproof, it was more like a skill issue with who was training it than a problem with the machine.
@@caryonplays9024tf you mean “disproven” when it’s inbred it does negatively effect it
@@SoloAnima1 The study that said training AI with AI I make worse results was disprove. The problem is caused by a low skilled training process rather than a problem with the machine, so you can train AI with AI if you know what you are doing.
Calling yourself an AI "artist" is like heating up resturant leftovers in the microwave and thinking youre a chef.
EXACTLY
who let them cook fr 🔥🔥🔥
😂😂😂
Amen ☝️
No no, you don't get it. I had to order that food, without me it wouldn't have been made so actually I am the one who made it and I should be credited for it the same way as if I had made it from scratch! What, next you're going to say a chef isn't a chef just because they didn't grow the fruits and vegetables, and raise the livestock that went into their meals? (Yes this is legitimate reasoning from AI defenders.)
There's something extremely special about the art that traditional/digital artists create and it's all in the feeling, the genuine aspect of it, which AI doesn't have
Also, generative ai tends to make everything in the exact same artstyle, which gets really boring really quickly
AI can mimic those human things too and the style depend in how you train the AI,so you can make a lot of drawings with different styles.
@@korkor9699 still doesn't make up for the fact that it's being trained on said human artists without permission which still makes the process feel fake and insincere
@@korkor9699 it can't mimic human artstyle, it can copy human artstyle. That's an important distinction, because it means it can only steal the work of others and mash it togethet into "AI's own artstyle"
To explain what I mean in a bit more detail:
To mimic is to look at something, and create something similiar, perhaps nearly identical, yet still new.
This AI doesn't do that, it takes thousands of human-made images, mashes together elements of them all, and spews out the mix from these thousands of images that seems to be something new, but in truth has nothing but parts of these thousands of stolen images. Nothing new, all stolen, death of creativity.
@@korkor9699 the point completely went over your head didnt it ?
I've seen the argument that gen AI "helps disabled artists", which implies the thought process that disability somehow nullifies creativity and/or the ability to express oneself through any of the many, _many_ ways to make art. Like, what?
Techbros suddenly care about ableism and accessibility when it's convenient for them. I would not expect less from people that only view others as tools.
It does help people tho, regardless of your inability to imagine how. My dad was a writer, and was paralyzed. I WISH these tool existed when he was still alive, he would've loved them.
GrumpDog would he? I don't know your father but if I, as an artist and writer, if I suddenly became more disabled than I already am, I'd find another way to create, not drop that task on a computer.
I feel no joy asking an algorithm to do my hobby for me
@@amarimochibecome paralyzed then talk because that's easy to say now
Hello, person with their left hand disabled here. Hear me out, if you can somehow still hold pencil and can get paper, you can do art.
People don’t understand why we don’t like AI generated images over human created works, and I usually shoot back with we have machines that can throw the perfect pitch and hit a home run every time yet people still pay hundreds of dollars to go watch people, who are not nearly as good as the machine, do it instead.
Dunno, people really love seeing both the fastest humans of our time compete with each other , AND seeing the fastest car possible. It's a matter of seeing both human achievements on the individual level and on "the entire humanity" level
Fully agree with your point, but also I would absolutely watch a mashup of baseball and Robot Wars
Yea this isn’t about you or me using AI for fan-art. This is about putting studio artists out of a job, imagine having a shonen jump done in minutes, or a Pixar flick done in a few hours, comic books that takes days to finish now have the artwork finished during a lunch break, and put to market and sold by the largest distributors. And it’s all to put workers out of a job. That’s why companies invest in AI technology, to decrease their labor costs, that’s literally the whole pitch of the technology to investors.
Wait... Are you telling me that Pixar movies haven't been generated by AI in the last 6 years?
@@saramations i think the most you could say is some concepts were developed with help from a text generator, but no, if youve seen ai's current attempts at animation... we're a few years from anything even remotely competent.
in all fairness , they could throw out some person with this , like scenarist , keep in mind that big company are up to a decade of advance in technology
@@saramations no, who told you these conspiranoic fake news
Are you implying that technology never removed artists jobs before? Like, when 3D was invented, the majority of stop-motion studios vanished. With digital art too, lots of traditional artists lost their jobs. Even with AI before GenAI, into the spider verse was created with AI which removes interpolation artists from the team. That stuff always happens with technology.
I really don't understand how ai can be the future of art, when all it can do is create analogues of what has already been seen. If ai had magically appeared in the 1800s, it would never have generated a Pixar cartoon like picture because nothing like it had been done by humans before. Therefore, if there are no human artists, where will progress come from? Besides now that many artists are aware of the dangers of ai and are making efforts to protect their works, it will be harder and harder to get NEW materials to train neural networks.
It's the future not just for art
I dont understand people that want Art to progress when it doesnt progress anymore, since artists from modern era doesnt work the same as ancient artists, there is no evolution because we got everything we can imagine from at least one artist on the planet, and it will be like this forever, so there is no progress. Like generative AIs, I couldnt see every possible output of them because I dont have the time and I dont have the will to ask an unusual prompt that no one asked before
> now that many artists are aware of the dangers of ai and are making efforts to protect their works, it will be harder and harder to get NEW materials to train neural networks
If it's on the internet, it can be scraped and learned from. If it's not on the internet, then those artists will have that much more trouble marketing themselves and their portfolios.
There is already enough stuff on the internet to train any AI for any purpose. The problem is tagging and sorting the data before training.
Plus specialised versions of AI models called LORAs exist that are trained on small sets of specific types of art (like one set for anime, another for game concept art, etc).
@@jimmygibs damn, that's pretty cool
as a wise perso once said "Ai made me belive in the existence of a human soul after showing me how art looks like without it"
One of the bigger reasons on why I'm not a big fan of genAI is that it produces a ton of e-waste, it consumes a ton of energy & water, and it also adds to grid congestion. So like it's just enethical to use all around. There is quite literally no way to justify and brag about being able to AI generate anime girls 😿
see, THIS is an argument I can get behind. People get way too emotional when it comes to AI, most arguments against it are basically "no more human creativity", which is just unfounded.
This is an incredibly short-sighted comment, because it ignores the fact that most technology start off incredibly ineffecient, then gradually and quickly turns effecient as the technology around it evolves.
To put it into perspective, the first computer, the ENIAC, consumed a whopping 140~200 kilowatts of electricity per hour, and could handle about 500 FLOPS.
The iPhone 15 pro can handle 2,147 GIGAFLOPS - Yes, that is a 4.29 BILLION times difference. Yet it only consumes 0.025 kilowatts per hour.
According to your argument, we should've stopped developing the computer as it was ineffecient and consumed too much electricity.
Have you seen the AI r34? Even if you just use it for shading it does make for a more realistic result.
And they also all looks the same - they looks like shit)
I feel that this logic is only one step away from "humans consume too much energy and breathe out CO2, they should be eliminated".
remember, you are an artist, and YOU and only YOU have the power to draw the ai "artist" pregnant
Problem is they’re not creative enough to have an oc I can draw
ai also can do that.
@@jackblades90why u just a hater bro lmfaoo
@@ashe_ashe_ashe_ashe
"lol u can't do THIS tho! loser!"
"actually, i can"
"waah why are you hating???"
this is you
Upgrade people, we should draw ai "artist" giving birth
Ai just gets rid of the whole point of art.
nah AI is slop factory
corpos wants to lowball artist but they either refused or have dignity
so AI was made in their imagine by stealing their style
meanwhile AI bros or as i call them scamdefenders
Heck, its´t the journey, not the destination! darn it so obvious, but techies are so narrow sightedf they miss everything.
@@Nogardtist exactly, people act like corporations haven't always been greedy
What is the point of art? And why do you decide
Most companies paying for art don’t want ART, they want slop to decorated websites, flyers etc. They have never cared about Art and it is expected that they instantly jump at AI art. Backgrounds and inbetweens for animation could be next.
I remember years ago, when I talked about "intelligent robots doing our jobs" with friends. We meant "AI doing the shitty jobs", not "AI doing the creative jobs".
Holy shiet, you are really good at drawing creatures, your line stroke weight are really skillfully distributed. Not to mention the the utilization of the shape and your understanding of perspective, really cool!
With the OWOnekko controversy that just happened, this feels ESPECIALLY relevant. Can't wait to watch the video!!!
If you can’t compensate 100 million artists for their work, then maybe you’re business idea is bad
Don't forget that generative systems are ALSO huge energy and water hogs and are drawing a ridiculously disproportionate of both resources and the servers are often in places where water is scarce (like Arizona). Imagine tossing away a 500ml bottle of water every time you make a thumbnail sketch - that's what people are effectively doing for every prompt request
When we're in a situation where 2024 has been a horrific year for extreme weather patterns, are we REALLY wanting to add yet another energy hog system to add to the chaos we already have?
@pipegrid nihilist much.... it's not because we all die anyway that we can't live it, and that future generations can't either. Hope you get a better view of life eventually. Life can be hell but we gotta continue, i know that all too well.
@pipegrid "theyll all think im cool and edgy for this one"
If we follow this argument, the entire internet should cease to exist. Because it’s basically all servers - the video you watch was rendered and placed on a server. The fashion industry is known for heavily polluting water, not to mention the waste generated from fabric scraps, and guess what? Fashion is a huge art form. Not to mention how easy it is to act like an environmental moralist on the internet, sitting in your plastic gaming chair, typing on your iPhone that uses batteries that also pollute.
The average human uses about half a gallon of water for every hour they exist.
@@Null_Experis
Thanks for sharing?
I think you need to follow up on how that’s comparable in any way to wasting resources on AI image generation.
Cause you aren’t really making an argument atm
I have used AI before i started my own art journey. And every "piece" i made or it made feelt hollow meaningless, why? Because i didnt make it myself. It was not a cool character that i worked hard to create. It was a empty piece of digital slop that made me feel nothing. Tbf i am still very bad having only been doing this by myself for about 10 months and its tuff and i will be honest i am LAZY. So i will most likely never reach my goal but atleast i tried. And thats all that matters cus i will not stop drawing. I am waiting for that wow moment when i truly start pursuing this a 110 but atm that has not happened.
Sry for the bad grammer. 😊
trust me,it's all about taking that first step and keeping it up after that! the fact that you tried already says a lot ^ ^ I've been drawing for many years to get where I am but before that I had to go through an "ugly phase" too,, the trick is to stop bringing yourself down and thinking "what does this artist do that Iike" and before you know it you'll be doing a lot better!!
For me it's also about control over the end result. AI takes away that control and replaces it with a random number that always leads to some unpredictable result. As long as I'm not fully in control the output will never be my creation. I want to create what I have in mind, not 10 images that kinda resemble a text description.
цель не так далека как кажется друг, пройдёт время и ты сможешь изобразить то что задумал. И когда это случится дрожащими руками будешь смотреть на свою иллюстрацию повторяя слова " я сделал это?!"
The way I started my journey was hearing another artist tell me that you could do more with an eraser than a pencil. Then he scribbled a thick line, then erased the sides of it to essentially make a straight line.
It's not the most efficient way to draw a straight line (you do that by using your forearm), but it basically taught me all the basics of art in one lesson.
I'm glad you at least tried, and I hope that this lesson does the same to you as it did for me.
Keep at it. Before I started drawing, I didn't fully appreciate how much I perceived as "talent" is actually just hard work. Years of it, usually. If you put in the time and practice intentionally, you will get better :)
AI Artists ❌
AI Prompters ✅
Yeah, I ask for wholesome or angsty art prompt for different ocs
What's your point exactly? Neither does changing the name of people who use AI help with any of the issues mentioned nor was it talked about in the video.
@@Narumasano ai prompters aren't artists. people who created the coding of the ai can be artist.
@@KwehShiro
I wouldnt even say that the people coding the machines are artists if we’re talking about the actual images being generated.
If you mean that making the LLMs is an art form, then that I can tentatively agree with.
@@Narumasano no
To me looking at ai art is like looking at two computers playing chess. Sure, they can both play better than Magnus Carlsen, but I don't care. I only care about what humans are capable of doing. You can call me racist towards AI.
nice comparison :D
i am a intelligist (discriminates against intelligence that is artificial)
Omg yes, thats what I think of it too, also like two bots in a fighting game, or in anything competitive really
chess bots are savage though, they do some crazy plays when pitted against each other. Its cool, for me at least.
btw, human top play is also great.
Ok totally a real human..
There is a supermarket in my town that has 4 automatic checkout registers and only one "human operated" register. Every time I go there there on a busy day there is a line of 10+ people on the register with the automated one being empty. And I don't think it's because all those people consciously decided to rebel against robots taking away jobs, it's just that in our allready isolated life's that so many of us have nowadays, the small human interactions we get with cashiers, waiters and so on is just pleasant. We like interacting and working with other humans. For that reason I don't think artists will die as a profession because there will be people that prefer working with humans rather than robots. Maybe I'm wrong and in 20 years 99% of art in video games and shows and so on will be made by robots, but I just don't see it happening personally.
It's kinda true on my side of the world too but it's mostly boomers who don't understand how it works or people with their hands full who can't scan it themselves. The cashier line will always have people but it's about 50/50 with the self checkouts
No. As someone who prefers the human cashier to the machine, the reason for that is that the cashiers are trained to do that same thing *faster*, and when it comes to things like digital coupons, or something else the cashier needs to do, the cashier will do it faster.
The cashier is smarter than the machine, that's all. Forced interaction with an obese, nose-pierced, not-remotely-interested-in-me individual is the last thing on my mind.
@@Ilyak1986 it's not faster if you have to wait for 10 people in front of you
Funny, I prefer Cashiers because they do the work of both scanning and bagging my goods for no additional cost. Then again, that sounds just a bit familiar, doesn’t it? How interesting.🤔
I think people want to be served instead of doing the work themselves. And will rarely admit that.
I think two types of people are gonna rise out of this AI thing:
1. People who openly admit they use AI and even embrace it, creating a small community for themselves.
2. Pro level liars and gaslighters.
The next generation won't care. Content is content. Old people complain about new things, not young.
@@rhadiem Sadly you're right, and it's painful on both sides.
@@rhadiem You would be surprised how many young people actually have an issue with "Ai-art" while a lot of boomers (my generation) just cant get enough of it.
sad thing is, it's most likely happening as we speak
@@CrniWuk Your kids friends won't care though, it'll be normal.
The difference in my reaction to an art piece comes down to-
If an AI generation program made it- eh that's alright
If a person made it- WOW really?? That's amazing!! Incredible how you pulled of such detail, and your colours are so pretty!!
Ugh
I love my Dad, and he used to be a legendary artist, enough that he inspired me to draw.
He’s not drawn in a long time, and in the last year he’s gotten himself deep into AI art, he thinks it’s sooo cool and whatever he makes is his own creative idea. He makes HUNDREDS OF THEM. I just wish he’d go back to drawing. :[
Oh gosh that sounds heartbreaking
Noooooooooooo!!!!!!!
I'm happy for your dad.
Let him enjoy it...? I mean, you sound like a parent saying "My girl had a boyfriend that was Soo promising but she left him for a girl and now I won't have grandchildren anymore :("
@@tale7955 dude when I say he was a legendary artist I mean he was a *legendary* artist. And he’s basically quit making art now in favor of making a bunch of ai art
My favourite argument against ai I heard was how skills carry over. What I mean is if someone who played the guitar tried to play the drums, they don’t know how to play the drums but they’ll understand the core parts of music like being able to read notes and understand the timing, even if they never touched a drum until that moment. If ai is real art the “skills” would carry over, for example I as a 2d artist have been able to successfully use 3d easier than someone who didn’t know 2d before starting 3d because certain skills like anatomy carry over, meaning an ai bro who can make an anime girl that looks good using ai should be able to make an anime girl in another form of 2d or even 3d art, because anatomy, colour theory, etc. should carry over, but if they NEED ai to make a decent anime girl then ai isn’t art.
yeah. It's something people bring up against AI images on the more practical side of thing. If an artist can make good sketch in PS it's reasonable to expect them to able to replicate art of the same quality using CSP, Illustrator, etc. even if they'd need to adjust. Their skills shouldn't disappear/decrease dramatically bc they change program. I've also seen good points like how if you ask an artist to make certain revisions on a design/drawing they'd likely be able to do so more effectively, unlike AI prompters whose result would probably vary wildly, churning out lots of quick images without addressing the revision in the first place
there is ongoing research about improving AI algorithms to better match the brain. Neuroscience and Machine Learning are heavily linked, they are both basically feeding each other, MLs being inspired by simplifications of neurons, and neuroscience getting large scale experiments of pseudo-brains, which give clues about figuring out brains. Its really interesting
Like rhythm games share skills related to geometry dash?
I think the issue is the comparison. People who use AI are the same as people who program in bytes. Put them to program in c++ and nothing would carry over because it's two different skills.
The idea that just because an art form doesn't accommodate a specific definition of art is just... Retrograded.
Dancing is an art form, yet you wouldn't say a dancer is a good singer. Same would apply here, they could claim knowing how to manipulate an AI tool is an art form and the results are the visual representation of their skill... How could you then say "Okay, but can you dance the Macarena" as an argument?
The core of the issue comes from defining what art is, and then using that to define if an "AI artist" is an artist or not.
And in that regard, you're screwed.
@@tale7955 not really, most ai bros just use premade generators and don’t do anything other than write a prompt
Dancing and singing are different, you couldn’t get a dancer to sing but a ballet dancer would be able to do something in another type of dance . Your example isn’t great because I am talking about types of visual art (ex: 2d drawn images, 3d models, etc.) in which I’m saying ai is not, but your example uses two completely different things being singing and dancing.
Besides why would you defend ai anyways, it’s still horrible for the environment and it uses people’s art without permission.
Orders food online: "I'm a chef!!"
I'm with you on ai generated still being a bad tool, even if it was ethical. Great articulated video that covers the topic very well
Another thing I'm worried about is impersonation. Someone can't copyright an art style, but in practice, your name gets associated with quirks in the art. Like, it's not ukiyo-e with western comic book influences, it's Yoshitaka Amano's art style, or it's not romantic cityscapes and fairy tales, it's Anton Pieck's work. Since generators train on an artist's name too, you can infect their portfolio with fake pieces or even slanderous ones (like child prn or images supporting controversial political views), causing reputational damage in an industry where a good reputation is important
Styles aren't copyrightable, though, thank goodness. Imagine never getting all of anime if Osamu Tezuka sued the next person that tried to create Japanese animation after astro boy.
So, like, I know buisiness guys do not care about anything outside of money. The argument that AI art is "soulless" or critiques of its common, unfixable visual flaws will never sway them. What does sway a buisiness guy, however, is the fact that items produced en masse rather than intricately by human hand will _always_ have inherently less value. Though we have a lot of hype around AI right now, we've already hit an oversaturation of AI outputs flooding the internet (and flooding the market), as well the AIs themselves have plateaued in their ability to improve and inbreeding and corruption is occuring on a massive and increasing scale. To conclude this, with the upkeep and energy cost of AI, plus the legal issue of not owning any copyright for outputs, it's not actually feasible to use AIs for a steady profit. The only people who are currently benefiting are people who rent out their AI via subscriptions and scammers who disguise AI as work by an actual artist, thereby inherently giving it more value. It's basically a repeat of NFTs. Even if continued AI scams don't result in new or updated laws across various countries eventually, if existing law cannot be applied already, this is a bubble that is already close to popping.
To be honest, I see ads using AI all the time to advertise their products. I make a point to actively avoid their products and company after that :) I hope more people gain that mindset to avoid products using AI images or music.
A concern I have that not a lot of people seem to mention is how generative AI will impact childhood development and education in general. Is it hard to imagine school boards and politicians voting to allocate funding to schools to decide to cut funding to art programs, especially if computers can generate images better than many people? What about reading and writing comprehension? As more kids grow up with this technology that has the capacity to perform valuable skills for them… is there going to be societal impact?
Also the argument of “but it won’t have the same ‘soul’ as something made by a human. So it won’t really replace artists.” bugs me. For the millions of people that aren’t artists that means nothing, and they are the ones that will drive this technology to the point of destroying the professional artist community. Just like mass product manufacturing essentially ruined the ability to make a living as a craft artist. The amount of people unwilling to buy a hand knit blanket for potentially $200-300, when they can go to a department store and get one for $40 far exceeds the amount of people willing to support a craft artist.
Why do people act like the groups that cut corners should be taken into account?
Ai literally can't replace humans, most people never cared about art but if you know how to market ai is nothing to fear
@@samuraitadpole5459 AI is literally replacing thousands of humans already, open your eyes. Thousands upon thousands of people are getting fired every month. Every company under the sun is firing tons of people while bragging about how they're embracing AI. It's all gonna massively backfire in the long run, but the CEOs don't give a shit because they'll just escape with all their money.
@@samuraitadpole5459 Correction: _Current_ AI can't replace humans. If you think it is impossible for the tech to to equal or surpass us at all, you are very mistaken.
@@crowe6961 by the time that happens we're all dead and gone, I use ai and I practice drawing and drawing is much easier even though I suck. The things you have to type to get the pic you want is way too much
I want technologies to get rid of the boring parts of life, not to get rids of the things that make the life worth living.
I think the other major flaw with AI is that it's just visual noise.
Art is usually the creation of something we see or imagine.
Even in photography, the framing, angle, moment, lighting, etc are all factors the photographer takes into account as they look through their lense. There is intent and planning to get the image they want as they move around their subject.
If I use an AI prompt, what ever prompt I use, the image will not be what I was seeing in my head. The composition, design, color choice, lighting will all be an amalgamation from stolen works I have probably never seen. I might as well be another viewer of the piece, having no connection to the image's creation.
ai does in fact take into account those factors. It stores those variables as patterns that it finds in its training, and its the reason why AI pictures look as good as they do. Its missing a LOT, but it also has achieved a lot.
ControlNets, IPAdapter, T2I Adapters, inpainting, outpainitng, ComfyUI nodes and workflows, LoRAs, DoRAs, Lycoris, finetunes and a ton of other tools, models, extensions and methods.
Did you really think AI image generation ends with basic apps like Midjourney? lol
No wonder artists are losing jobs when they don't even know what they're going up against.
@@Smug-Smirk They've got no idea, man. I'm more on the language side of things, but no, they do not know the level of detail it can dive into without seriously fouling up these days and do not know what they're going up against. The smartest models can take some fantasy creature you have only the vaguest concept of and, as long as it is vaguely realistic, can now help you figure out its dang skeletal structure, where the organs might go, how it's strange (or actually rather mundane) compared to a normal animal, what it can and can't do, give a general estimate of its metabolism, how much food it eats and what traits it should have, along with necessary alterations based on a combination of its original description and revised biology, along with whatever fantasy-world shenanigans you've added. And then you get a much better idea as to what it actually ought to look like before the rest of the artistic process starts. Or, you know, going big-picture and almost casually building a whole fictional ecosystem if you know which questions to ask. You can wind up with far more starting material and food for thought than you possibly need, in short order, but also be prevented from falling into classic immersion-breaking traps, like a world of monsters that has far too little to eat to support them with no explanation.
@@crowe6961 Do you know when generative AI is finally going to turn a profit? The visual arts are an incredibly competitive field as it is, what edge does AI have that compensates for the running costs? Edit: Now that I think on it, what issues are generative AI solving? The issue of having to pay for a human artist for visual assets? If that's the case, what's stopping clients from learning how to use these AIs themselves? If the answer that utilizing one of these models is too difficult for the lay person to achieve, then they would still have to pay someone else to get the result they want. So what would make a client want to employ an ai prompter over a human artist? I assume it is to cut time and costs, and in some cases achieve a better output. However, without large investment and subsidizing in order to keep their servers running, how will these models function?
Literally the most level headed argument I’ve heard about generative ai
Not really, it's largely an appeal to emotion.
@@_B_E
appeal to emotion IS valid and can be level headed. Simply for the fact that something appeals to emotion doesn’t always demerit its point nor does it mean the person who is using that tactic isn’t levelheaded
@@menuvafei6164 It's not really an argument at that point, it's more manipulation.
@@_B_E Manipulation occurs in everyday life and it’s not necessarily bad. Hyping yourself up in a mirror is manipulation. Saying “hello” is manipulation. Giving compliments is manipulation. Using logic is manipulation, citing evidence is also manipulation.
Plus, this video isn’t a giant appeal to emotion, please rewatch it. It contains pathos, but also a good amount of logos.
@@_B_E it's not an appeal to emotion. She doesn't have the stance of "look at us poor artists! Don't you feel bad about us!??!?!?". What she's saying is that AI doesn't possess the passion nor determination and doesn't derive pleasure from creating art, thus getting rid of the point of art almost entirely.
Tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me you didn't watch the video.
the problem with ai art, is the lack of a story. the story of the artist, and the process that went through while drawing. which is an indevindual tied experiance. the ai is to genral and practical, to devolp a meaningful art with a story.
It's the first time I've seen someone I agree fully with on this complicated subject. Thank you for making this.
Your "scripted RUclipsr" example was particularly insightful : I think what we crave, as human beings looking at art, is connection. When we tear up watching a sad scene in a movie, it's because we feel empathy for the characters. I think it's the same when we look at other forms of art. Look at the commenters here, happy that you, too, love Monster Hunter, and drew the funny big lizards. We're social animals craving a link to our peers, and learning that a drawing was made by an algorithm makes us feel either betrayed, or apathetic.
Me too. I was happy to finally see a really nuanced, thoughtful take. I think a lot of people resort to intellectually dishonest arguments like, "It looks bad," to justify their disgust for AI.
Like, I agree with their conclusion: gen AI stinks. But reasons like that are easy covers to slap onto more difficult-to-explain feelings of disgust and unease.
Without watching the video, heres why (in my opinion) :
1_ its art theft, no one allowes for their art to be used , no one was allowed to opt in or out.
2_ it allows people to imitate artists and act as though they truly were, allowing for scams and whatnot
3_ it lowers the value of art.
Art is a LUXURY because only TIME EFFORT AND EXPERTISE will result in art. However the existence of AI has changed that.
(Side note, since ai makes mistakes you cant really say that its good for learning AND if ai is capable of drawing something that means thousands of artworks exist which have already drawn that, yet much closer to perfection than the ai.)
4. It actively prevents people see new artists
5. Its propagate misconception for people that art is easy to make
6. It dumbs down people by preventing them learning from our forefathers such as Andrew Loomis, JC Leyendecker, Howard Pyle, Osamu Tezuka
7. It antagonizes the clients to the artists by gaslighting them and impersonation and scams
8. It's a degeneracy to mankind as a whole using garbage feedback loop, people think creativity and freedom is no longer something worth nurturing or passionately seek to enrich their perspective or life experience
9. It's royalty theft on top of IP theft
10. It's a massive breach to GDPR in Europe especially with Facebook caught feeding data as far as from 2007 to their AI (Sourced CNBC, The Verge)
11. It allows people to commit crimes on a scope we hadn't foreseen (deepfaking medical images violating HIPPA)
12. It's a massive resource sink with investments, electricity, water, and fossil fuels appropriated to solve problems that weren't exist to begin with
13. Market degeneracy, AI products are getting more expensive for worse quality for startup solving problems that already has solutions or artificially made by corporates
14. It cultivates a "Tech Bros and AI Bros" cult using psychological fearmongering and financial scams threatening of FUDs, FOMOs, Luddites, and other jargons repurposed as mantra.
I'm not pro-AI and art is not a luxury....It's a core feature of human society and making it a luxury deprives humanity of its own soul
Saying it's a luxury is basically saying that only elites are deserving of our efforts which ironically creates the circumstances where artists are not valued because it is completely putting our own labour at the mercy of people with capital
@@ThatsABean
Yeah, that’s one of the weirder arguments that ai bros make, that we all want to “gatekeep” the ability to make art from them.
Calling it a luxury makes them think their little conspiracy is right
@@ThatsABean no not really, art is just like a designer hand bag. Yes that hand bag looks awesome but it costs thousands of dollars. However it's a luxury, not a necessity. It study something to be pretty to look at.
Art is the same.
Not just elites can get it, anyone can. You can either get art as an elite for millions or as a normal person for hundreds or less depending on the person.
Doesn't change the fact that it's a luxury not something that is necessary or something that is your right to have.
@@Bubble-Foam it IS a luxury though. Even if they are wrong
I find your opinion very relatable ! To me an important part of appreciating art is the connection between the artist and the piece they did/posted ! And in a certain way it connects with you, by being a fan art of a show you really like, a concept you like a lot or a compososition that just stuns you.
But when you realise that it was generated you instantly lose this connection because it was not intentionnal or it took so little time that it was not important to the person that generated it, it feels instantly a lot more distant
I started drawing again after way too long not doing it and basically starting from 0. I played around with AI images before and while it's fun to do, it's nowhere near as satisfying as doing it yourself.
I mean I could also just as well create a program that creates every possible image (though it might run a few hundred years to complete and most would just be noise), and say that I'm the best artist in the world, but I'd say everyone would agree that it's nonsense.
Let's keep the human element alive in art. Even if it's bad art, I prefer it a lot to AI stuff.
Clients don't care about the process, only the final product.
You are making excellent points. Also, these dragons are so cool!
i honestly wouldn't have much of an issue with AI if:
a- the people making the ML Tools weren't so proud of their Plagiarism Machine being the end of all art
b- the consumers weren't so eager to just Flood every space possible because they legit think "More art = More good"
also the difference with Photography is that for Photos you still need to be intentional about it & have SOME knowledge of what you're doing to get a good result
"you still need to be intentional about it & have SOME knowledge of what you're doing to get a good result"
This is also true of AI generators though. Sure, anyone can type in a single line and get a result, but the actual prompters who care about their outputs will refine their result and put it through many iterations, often using external tools like photoshop to in-paint for a specific result. They care about lighting, anatomy, perspective, and composition just as much as a "regular" artist.
@@_B_E i will put that last point on heavy doubt.
but i will give you there is refinement & iteration in Machine Generating... but i don't know how much of that would really be called a creation process compared to even things like CAD
@@Artista_Frustrado doubt what you like, it's not as if ALL "real" artists actually put in the effort you describe. I think "artists" play themselves up way to much and are very self important, and i say that as an artist myself.
Iterating to achieve a specific result is absolutely part of the creative process, regardless of the medium though.
if they have to do that much manual editing to fix AI generator's lighting, anatomy, perspective, and composition flaws... why not just draw it themselves?
@@cxiuart because there are different ways to make art? it would be kinda boring if all artists were doing everything the same way
Im just sick of it in general, i hate having to question every piece of media. Pluto on netflix looked fantastic... FIRST episode used AI for an ACTION scene. Textures blurring, proportions not just exagerated, but DEFORMED.
Dont even get me started on the content slop youtube channels are pumping out, targeting kids with generated scripts and narrators that they just soaaaak up.
I don't believe that the technology itself is inherently unethical, but I do believe that greedy CEOs and corporations insist on taking unethical and even illegal shortcuts in order to make more money. You could train an AI using only public domain art, or art that has been commissioned for that purpose. But they want to scrape anything and everything in order to make the models "large" enough to make flashy, highly rendered looking results. The reason (if my own research is accurate) the previous versions of these AIs made such bad looking images was that they didn't have a big enough data set.
If some big tech CEO wants to start paying artists to create work to train an actually ethical AI system, then sign me up, I could use the cash. Until that day, more lawsuits while the market goes from bad to worse.
The crux of the issue is basically just tech bros simping on behalf of corporate interests.
It feels like there’s always something new and terrible for them to try and gaslight us about “not being that bad”.
You *could* make a model only on public domain art or art licensed specifically for the purpose, but why? Who would it be for and what purpose would it serve? Probably the wealthy and the corpos, but even if it was available to everyone for free, even if there were no environmental concerns... why? There is already more human art (and more being made daily) than you could engage with in a lifetime... why pollute history and culture with artificial mimicry? I don't want to see generated "art" any more than I want to see a generated sports match.
More of a question than "should we," vs "can we."
Machine learning is an incredibly cool technology with exciting implications for many scientific fields. However, content generation is quite possibly the most worthless and damaging use of machine learning.
The first problem is expecting corporations to be ethical
Not just ceo's either bullies and propaganda spreaders are using it for evil people have already had terrible things hppen to them with this technology there has to be laws put in place like no unwilling human likeness and only copyrighted works that was put in the generator so the artists that joined in gets a share of profits like off the top of my head restrictions for this
with all the art youtubers ive seen defend ai, I'm so glad to see you set the record straight on why so many artists DONT like ai and explain it so eloquently
They largely remain a pile of emotional arguments rather than rational ones, at their core. This is not how you connect with with people who are supportive of complex _logic engines._
@@crowe6961 Who is your favorite ai artist? What is your favorite AI piece, what did it make you feel, how did it reflect your life or make you consider the lives of others, and how did it change how you view the world?
Im both an artist and programmer. This makes it that I see the effort that went into developing the software and also how easy it is to market it as the be all end all. My main issues with AI are the use of stolen works and how entising it seems to corporations to just use AI istead of having people that need salaries and benefits.
This is a great video. I really liked how you pointed out many opposing points and addressed them in a thoughtful way. You gave credit where it was due, explored some hypotheticals, and held your ground on issues you feel are solid.
There are some points I think the conversation should go further on, but man, it doesn't even feel like that conversation can happen. I mean, hell, most of the top comments don't even seem like they watched the video
Yeah...I feel disheartened seeing modern discourse around Gen AI and even the comment section of this video.
There's so much dogma and so many intellectually dishonest arguments going around that anyone trying to have a conversation immediately gets bogged down trying to respond to people bringing up the most inane, obviously terrible arguments.
This video is great and I really like the more nuanced reasons pikat offered for disliking gen AI!
Generative AI does not make art. It makes *content*. Something to be mindlessly consumed in the endless feed of social media.
The biggest problem about AI in my opinion is that it takes serious self moderation to use. A lot of people claim to use it as a tool, and it certainly can be used as a tool (I have personally used it in the past to generate reference pictures, but it may also be used to generate color pallets or mood boards). The issue is that the line between aiding creativity and replacing creativity is so thin, that most people end up just using AI to replace the entire creative process.
I would say that the current problem is more that it isn't based around viable use cases, and EVERYONE involved has been garbage at communication. There are a lot of tasks it could potential used for, but fancy tech demos are rooted around finished products, and it doesn't deliver those results with good enough quality. Worse yet, the way in which is makes mistakes makes it take lots of work to fix, to the point that you need about the same amount of time and skill.
The problem with generative AI is that it aims to automate the artist, not the drawing. They're not trying to create a program that can draw, they're trying to make a program that will make the art itself.
I think you’ve perfectly illustrated my thoughts on AI and the counter arguments I’ve seen AI bros make. Art has always been about the process of translating your ideas into a chosen medium and improving at that process; the journey matters as much as, if not more than, the destination. Every single action you take in the process of making a piece has intention and thought behind it. The process is what gives art its humanity, it’s what makes it fun, it’s what makes it *art*. There’s nothing to appreciate about a generated image, the reasons for its details are self evident, and there is no thought or intent behind its creation. Using AI and calling yourself an artist is like calling yourself a weightlifter while lifting weights using a forklift. If AI were a tool, you would be able to make art of the same quality without it, but you can’t, because it’s a crutch. If AI were in any way like photography, it would be able to become its own form of art, but it can’t due to its parasitic nature. The problem that AI bros seem to have is that the destination is the only thing that matters to them; the aesthetic qualities of a piece matter more than the means of its creation and what it’s trying to convey. They see artists and craftsmanship as just a pesky middleman that should be cut out, and AI gives them the opportunity to do so. They don’t actually care about art or artists, and that’s why the ethics of generative AI and the quality of what it produces will always be secondary to me, because I simply do not want to live in a world where it’s normalized for art and creativity to be delegated to cold, mindless machines rather than humanity.
As someone said previosly, AI art isn't gonna get better if it comepletely takes over human art (it would be stuck in that era), elaborating on this, if AI uses their own self made art to feed themselves again it will actually hurt itself, and it is doing that, as the internet is filled with AI "artpieces"
What is AI as a tool but a simple crutch to cripple oneself with. The beauty of the process of hard work is that doing something hard feels good.
What is 3DS MAX but a simple crutch to cripple oneself. If you aren't physically forging a sculpture from sheer rock with a chisel, is it even really art?
You see why this is a dumb comparison? Hard work and implementing AI into a workflow aren't mutually exclusive. AI generators are as much or as little of a crutch as the person using it makes it, which applies to literally every tool out there.
something being hard does not immediately make it good
if that were the case then the only way to experience the most amount of fun from a task would be to do it for the first time as a complete newbie and never touch it again
@@_B_E With a 3D sculpting program you're still choosing how to sculpt, what to keep and what to remove. It still takes a ton of skill, patience and a creative vision to do it. Meanwhile, writing "beautiful woman, blonde hair, 4k, beautiful light" in a generator takes literally 0 skill, 0 effort, and next to no time. You can even google prompts to use so you don't even have to think of words yourself. And that is what 99% of the AI slop is. Next to no one is using it as a tiny little tool to help the process, they're just using it as a photo copier to print finished images en masse. It's not a tool if it replaces the entire process.
@leetri we are talking about AI generation as a helper, so when you tell it to generate a sketch its now your turn to modify it. it just simplifies work and gives you a blueprint to work with.
@@buycraft911miner2 yeah, but it would be cooler just do make the sketch from ground up, myself? Like I know what the idea is and I lay down the foundation, from the pose to the details.
Great video, and the dragons you drew in the background are awesome!
I love art more than anything in my life, i grew up understanding how much work goes into creating art, art is not only drawing but everything around us, its so inhumane and terrifying watching the world becoming a huge mesh of "if we don't have it we can steal it"...I don't want to live in a world where my favorite thing is nothing but only a profitable business. I hope and pray that one day AI will fall, because this is not fair for anyone.
Every thing has already been ruined by corporate greed games broken on release full of microtransactions ai is only gonna make games and movies worse.
Looks at Ai: “this is brilliant”
Looks at actual art: “but I like this”
It ain't brilliant
@@moritakaishida7963it is
@@moritakaishida7963 It is.
Any activity gains meaning knowing there's a will behind it. Something as trivial as playing a game against the software or a person changes everything. You know the software doesn't care about the results. There's no frustration at losing, no joy at winning, no rivalry, no emotion, no purpose. Imagine taking those things away from art.
Generative AI may have similarities with photography, but photography still requires skill. Sure, just like anyone can draw, anyone can take a photo.
But also just like professional art, professional photography is not on the same level. It requires a level of knowledge, experience and passion that clearly makes a difference.
Anyone can make a little doodle and anyone can take a selfie, but for artists and photographers, even if they're not professional, it's much more than that.
Can you say the same thing for generative AI ? I don't think so. No matter how good at writing a prompt someone may be, there isn't much of a difference between them and any other person who generates AI images.
There is no passion in what they're doing. No effort either. Unlike with photography, AI is basically just pressing a button. There's nothing more to it than that. There is no "professional AI image generation"
Anybody can write a prompt, and that's all generative AI requires them to do, even if they couldn't care less about the passion, effort and skill behind an artist's work. Which they probably do since they use AI in the first place.
A photographer is not as close to AI . A photographer needs to plan a lot, such as determining when and where to take a shot, knowing how bright of the environment, knowing whether the object is moving or not, and finding the best composition. Sometimes, the cost of a photo is high due to the camera equipment and the object being photographed. Sometime, photographer risking their life to take a photo from a dangerous inviroment or photo of a wild animal.
@@leaderteammimikyu3024 That's exactly what I'm saying. Though I didn't know the specifics like you do ^^'
@@leaderteammimikyu3024 they can stay still for HOURS, waiting for an animal to pass by and take a picture, and that's part of the dedication to it
the difference is that photographers actually go outside and touch grass
@@users4007 Oh yeah that too, yeah.
One little issue I’ve had when trying to use even the better Ai image generators, I have VERY a specific vision for what I want my art to look like by the end. And Ai just can’t create my vision, because it has no vision for itself, and that’s something I don’t think it will ever be able to do.
I’ve even tried getting AI to make very specific art that I’d already made, just to test if it could come close to my true vision. And nah, it doesn’t come close, it’s always ultra generic or completely incorrect.
The same thing usually happens to me, but I'm sure I'm missing something. I probably need to use a better one or take a different approach for prompting, but I prefer to draw things on my own.
In less than 3-5 years, with brain computer interfaces (like neuralink), we'll be able to generate anything we can think of directly without having to use words
@@jimmygibs That sounds like an amazing idea, but I hope the neuralink can filter out my unwanted intrusive thoughts from the generator, haha.
This is a very good explanation, you explained it in ways i struggle to, this really helped me feel like im not alone in my opinion.
what i hate the most about generaative ai is all these ai bros who bully other actual artist, acting like artist prevented their lazy a$$ frow drawing
yeah they think they're better but they didn't do anything to get to where they are now.
Or they pull the victim card when people fight back.
You know, at least kudzu vines in the American south *didn't* sprout mouths and say to humans, "Hey guysth, I'm not an invasthive weed *I sthwear.* You can eat me like sthpinach; I belong in thisth ecosthysthtem." (I'm sorry if writing out that lisp made this harder to read, but I couldn't imagine that obnoxious tripe any other way.)
Oh, and for those that claim photography is easy, I’d like to see them fly out to South America, drive to the Okovango Delta, then lay on the shore of a river for twelve hours a day without moving for three straight weeks just to maybe get a photo of a Lion drinking water from the wrong angle and at the wrong time of day.
There is no good excuse for generative AI “art.” I had to learn to use this shit for my graphic design class and I felt so wrong doing it. I was letting the computer doing my job. Literally typing in a few prompts and selecting a “nice” image like what? How to do you feel accomplished from that? How do you get any fulfillment from it? People who genuinely use this shit lack depth and understanding of what art is and settle on it looking “close enough” to what they want it to look like… despicable
Wait... they literally made you use it? Wouldn't they just be putting themselves out of business, basically telling everyone "doing this is quicker and maybe even better"? Why would anyone end up paying for that course if that is basically what they teach you ):
I am sure they teach you a lot of useful stuff, but I feel like if the course made you use that it's just a slap in the face and really insulting
@@whitehowlingwolf basically it’s for people who feel like they “can’t do art” as the tutorial put it.
@@SoutaCherry Crazy. Wouldn't the whole point of Digital art design classes be that they teach you to do it? Wow!
*Eugh,* I feel so bad for you. It's unfortunately quite similar to a time that *I think* one of my instructors on a college course mentioned using ChatGPT to help write thank you letters for scholarship offers. I don't care if, "it's a tool"; I refuse to use that thing on the principle of the matter.
Im quite the lazy person but art is one of the few things that give me the motivation to put effort into something. If Gen AI was made 10 years ago, before I got passionate about art, then I might have went down that road and never felt the satisfaction of hard work, I dread this scenario and the thought that exactly this is happening to people right now.
Ai isn't creative though it can only rip off other artists it can't draw the stuff I draw for that reason as it's quite unquie. It simply never replaces drawing yourself because it cannot read your mind if you get good and draw something it will look exactly how you picture it with an ai it's never gonna look like that.
Human creativity is always nr.1
10:14 That statement kinda reminds me of the difference people feel about a baked good from a skilled baker and one made in a factory.
As much as I agree with these points, none of these are going to convince any non artist that AI is bad. As someone who makes a living working with AI, the point I bring up to convince non artists is how gen AI works. Generative AI when placing the next element of their output, guesses the average next thing to place based on the last thing they placed. This means the output of an AI will always be a series of average looking things, which is okay for most situations, but the oversaturation of AI art specifically would be very bad. The flood of average answers to the question of what is beautiful will satisfy nobody, and because AI needs more and more data, it will eventually be trained on AI art. Putting average answers into a machine that used to use amazing ones will decrease the quality even further. If all artists get replaced with gen AI, the world will become filled with worse and worse art. Plus, if AI only puts out average art, then average level and worse artists could lose their jobs. Then, no one will be able to have the time or resources to become great artists. If gen AI becomes standard, this will be the last generation where good art is made.
The word Ouroboros comes to mind. The snake eating itself.
it makes you think, what are our brains doing that ai isnt? our brain seems to have a similar structure, and AI and our brains having many similarities (good at pattern matching, impovising sentences word by word, acting confident even when wrong) seems to point towards this being right to some extent. However, there are glaring differences that are painfully obvious, like training data amount, not being able to switch between tasks like humans do, and short memory, if any. Its an interesting field of research for sure
Excellent video! I'll definately be directing people who have questions about generative AI towards this.
Two other points i feel are worth bringing up: AI inbreeding and the Environmental Impact
1: The sheer volume of generated images flooding the internet and art centric platforms, the next generations of image generation are coming across the problem that their newer datasets are going to have these AI generated images, from previous, worse generations of AI, which will teach them bad data. The potential solutions are to either curate these absolutely massive datasets manually, find a way to detect any and all forms of ai generated imagery to filter them, or completely start from scratch or mothball AI. Only the second option seems likely to happen, and even then, AI detection isnt foolproof. This might lead to a sort of "snake eating its own tail" problem, where even if the technology to learn gets better, the AI might be getting worse material to learn off of.
2: Currently, the processing power to power generative models of AI take an absolutely huge amount of processing power, and insane amounts of water to cool it off, to make work properly. Most generative AI doesn't just happen on a single phone or computer, most of the commercially available ones request that a massive data center fufill the request in the short timeframes needed to be appealing to consumers. As various forms of LLM based technology becomes more widely used these data centers are going to become bigger, hungrier, and more expensive. Unless quantum computing and fusion technology suddenly become as commonplace tommrow i dont see this issue being solved by just making it more advanced.
thinking about ai "art" as a scripted youtube challenge is actually quite spot on, I never thought of it this way
Its funny how every time I watch a video about how terrible AI is, all the ads are companies advertising their new AI features 🙄
the only way i could see it being used as a tool if it was made morally is if it was used for reference, to get your brain going on some ideas during an art block, it's like browsing internet looking at pictures pretty much. you're not directly using the ai generated pictures on your canvas, just getting inspiration.
Why though? If it's like browsing the internet for pretty pictures, why not just do that? Why not use physically accurate photos of real life, or intentionally abstracted artist interpretations from human artists that you can analyze learn from? If, "it doesn't exist," 1.) it probably does 2.) if it really doesn't, photobashing is a thing.
I'd rather get references from real life and from real people. Generative AI for generating either risks getting things wrong or just makes things derivative. Being able to find inspiration that suits your specific tastes and goals is an important skill. I'd rather study and be inspired from real artists because they are a primary source. AI is a secondary source because its content is only derivative from things that already exist. It is trained to predict what an image MIGHT look like given a specific prompt. Humans are a primary source because they experience the world and then add their own personal biases, experiences, and ideas to it, creating something new. AI takes practically minimal input from the person making it, thus it's just a secondary source that aggregates training data associations from what the prompt MIGHT look like. After learning how AI actually works, it's even more worthless than it seems.
Nice video, and good perspective on including non-drawing people so they can notice what artists are talking about. Also, got me humming the Touhou Project BGM, nice choice.
"... and things have learnt to walk which ought to crawl"
Lovecraft?
@@kyzer42 :3 Sessbian Lex
As a fanfic writer who wants to make this a full career, I am 100% against generative AI and I guarantee that every fic I write was typed out by my own two hands.
I agree even the "ethical" one sucks.
This earned a sub. Your piece about taking the journey out of art and the need to make everything a captcha resonated with me
Sure, I can create an alleged "work of art". But I cannot create MY art. Which is why I'll never use gen AI
You have amazing points, I'll be sure to use them when telling people my stance on AI! The end of the video made me feel really sad though :(
this video scares me, more like the idea. i just started drawing, as its something that i like to do and mybe one day i will be good enough to make money from it. but this idea (ai) makes me doubt myself .people often online say its alright, ai would never be good enough as a human... but looking at how much this technology improved in the last 2years and knowing this is just not going to stop, idk :(
The distinction you have to do here is the same as what happened with the arrival of photography. Yes, a photography may replicate better a portrait, an environment, a place, a thing, but that led artists to think about what are the capabilities of the medium that differ from those of photography and use them as vanguards of what painting, sculpture and so on could be (this is not to say that photography is not a form of art indeed it is, but that's another topic).
Yes, AI-generated art may look good and maybe in the future it will look better, but the trick here Is that in-it-of-itself AI-generated art has nothing to say, but you do. You have something to say about any theme you like, any unique aproximation, any thought process. Art is an intersubjective matter like an open conversation, so of you can came with something interesting it doesn't really matter if we as artists are techinically as good as AI, we are not at anathomy as Da Vinci nor Michelangelo but that didn't killed art either :D
While watching this video, I was knitting socks. Some time ago, someone asked me, why I would even bother to do that. I could just go ahead and buy some, but it wouldn't be the same. I think, you could say the same about AI art. It's just artificially manufactured without real work put into it. No one spend time making that art and even if AI is constantly evolving, it can't put "effort" or "passion" into it's final results. I could buy the manufactured socks but they wouldn't feel as valuable as the ones I knitted myself, with all the time and effort I put into them and the fun I had doing so.
I agree, if I’m bad at art I’d rather make something shitty that I’m proud of than something amazing that was stolen and not made by me.
As someone who has developed AI applications. (skin cancer recognition on edge devices) No, 'AI art' will never be art. People in the research side of artificial intelligence like seeing what can be done with technology. They like pushing boundaries and seeing what new things they can do and what challenges they can overcome. Generating an image is something that is physically impossible with standard programming the fact that it works is incredible! What isn't incredible is tech bros and finance majors trying to capitalize not only off of the work of thousands of artists but also underpaid and overworked researchers at top schools. Anyone who claims an image generated by a deep learning model needs to reevaluate themselves. It is just an image (with a giant carbon footprint).
Artists aren't the only people fed up with this AI hype, us developers are fed up too. There are so many genuinely useful products that can be made with AI (for example optimizing existing data centers to draw less electricity and identifying cancer early) instead developers are being forced to cram pointless features that will be used than
We may go back to traditional paintings, drawings, sculptures, etc. to verify authenticity as a result of this paradigm shift.
Honestly, the theft isn't even the worse part, it's the fact that it is being stolen to feed a monster that seeks to replace the artists who made it's food in the first place.
For the same reason I cook and play music: I like to create. I like to do things myself.
Even if they invent the ultimate machine that can make all of this flawlessly and in mere seconds, I would still choose to do them myself.
Art tracing literally involves more work than AI generation ( I refuse to call it AI art )
This video was made for OwOnekko if I’m being honest 💀
I hope people stop using AI, I litteraly hate it so much 😭
It's just a trend that will die out eventually. It's not going to replace human art.
@@VistaIroha6000 I hope so
Your social media algorithm is curated using AI.
@@dshoopy571 yeah, I know
man this is a weird timeline we’re living in
i only use AI for copyright free references at best
some times or brain storming if i get stuck on ideas ...
that's it
i am a artist myself and i know the feel when you get the anxiety that you waist 30 or 50 years on you life mastering a skill
only to get replaced by a bot
I’ve always thought that defending AI using photography is extremely hilarious given that there are literally _models and checkpoints specifically designed to produce falsified photography_
Did you put this noise in as a filter to mess up AI scraping? 😊 12:03
I don't think she did, it's just a normal perlin noise filter used in Clip Studio Paint and it doesn't replicate the effects of glaze. I'll say a lot of us use it to texturize or stylize our illustrations and replicate photorealism as if it's scanned or actually taken by a camera.
I wholy agree with you! But another point on why I as an artist won't use AI, is the fact that it is extremaly limiting. I can't just put a swirl where ever I want, the AI will decide where and how it will look, and I hate having so little input in what I acually want to make.
AI generated images reduces art to the final money worth product which goes agaisnt what the fundamental reason why most humans do art to begin with which is for the more emotinal purpose of making the art and sharing it with others.
Ofc, love and money have always been things that tend to clash a lot and money always ends up on top, but I at least know that given the day I may have to just look for another job I began doing art cuz I liked it and I'm still gonna be making art after.
Creativity is 1% inspiration, and 99% perspiration. What they're selling is a way to skip 99% of the process, and thusly, miss out on the point.
I've studied and practiced a lot just to revise and check what a machine does. I work in games and we are encouraged to use ai for our projects, but I would never put that stuff in my portfolio, there is no reward in that, I feel proud only in what I do, but the people up, only care about production times and monney.
I love the quote ”I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes.”
Dishwasher
I'm pretty sure most of those layoffs you just mentioned have very little to do with AI and more with the fact that the tech bubble is bursting in recent years.
I really appreciate the Monster Hunter drawings while talking about the looming monster that is AI Art.
Also, thanks for the skillshare trial!
doing the work manually is where the real magic happens. If I didn't do the things I do on my own with my own hand dexterity, time, pondering and fixes, I wouldn't have what I have now in the way I like it. No matter how good gAI is, it can never give you 1:1 precisely what you want - only an approximate, even if technically supposedly flawless.
P.S.
I would still find an ethical AI model a bad thing since it would literaly lead to the same thing as it does now BUT artists would have no legal ground to oppose it. The only ones who would benefit are the ones who, at the time, get their art licensed/purchased for the model to train on. The artists that come afterwards will have nothing to gain from it as we go back to square one - people generating audiovisual media instead of looking for organic artists. Fraudsters would still say they did it and there would be tons upon tons of beautiful copied rainbows and thousands of dead peacocks - legions of uninspired copy + paste media generations.
I love your art and I love your music choices! Koishi my beloved