The issue with AI is that people already had problem paying artists what they deserved, now they don't have to hire us. They can just use AI it'll be cheaper for them.
And Adobe has the audacity to make a advertisement in which a bride uses Ai tools on Adobe to help her extract elements from her wedding invitation card, so that she could make a thank you card! What should have been an extra bit of income for the designer, who is likely paying for full subscription, Adobe now wants that for themselves. Geez... The only reason I'm still subbed is because I get the programs for relatively cheap because of education package... But it's getting worse.
@@maryamwaqar7648 Exactly! Back then, people paid artists to solve a problem directly, but now it’s kind of ironic-they’re paying for AI tools that don’t fully solve the problem, and then they have to learn designing themselves to fix it. Or, even funnier, they end up paying designers again to solve the same problem! It’s always about solving the problem, not just designing.
I pay for art by artists cuase i want to support it and i have never been good at drawing/painting. Instead i am focusing more on photography but i still like to buy digital art. My opinion is that ai is fine but ai using peoples art without consent now that's terrible i feel for the artists. And a question who is going to buy the ai art off someone else when they can just generate it. The thing with non ai art is the work the humanity the community. also ai is cool and great but not this type of ai.
You are absolutely right Will. AI should only be a tool. As an professional artist and professional photographer It is disheartening to see people using AI to create 100% of an image with no actual input of the artist. Then they go enter competitions and say that they created an original piece of art or photo. I’m not against AI when used as a tool. When I have created an image then use ai to do very small tweaks or enhancements to the artwork that I can actually do but AI can do faster. People! Please don’t misrepresent AI as your own actual creation.
Another problem I see with AI is the perception clients on the low end have. They are now willing to pay way less because they think they can ask anyone on their company to prompt it. Some of them are just waiting on the AI to get as good to start the project and we can see a big difference on the quantity of clients that want graphic design work. Sometimes they do prompt it and the result is awful but they dont care they have just saved money in their eyes. For example in this local restaurant chain the owner showed me some ai generated pictures and told me how easy and free they were to make. jokingly he asked why am I paying you if he can do this so fast (while generating more weird foodlike pictures). I told him "well those arent pictures of your actual food" and he mumbled away "mjm, pero ya mismo sí". So after that session they never called back and someone from our company who still worked with them told me that they are actually holding their photo and video budget for other things while waiting for AI to be able to do that.
I feel that generative AI in it's current form is best suited for concepting. It should spark creativity, not be the end of it. The only place I feel where it can be used as an end result is where stock photos would be used.
Adobe themselves could have handled this a load better in their products. Like, for time saving reasons, I would not be opposed to drawing things and adding them to my account library of samples so my account’s AI can generate images from them and just my own drawings. Like I don’t have time to draw a load of birds in my style so I get my own accounts AI to draw from my own pool of drawings to generate birds in my style. Same for grass, cityscapes, etc. It’s an opt-in, user only, time saver is what I’m talking about. Not something that’ll just do the work for me like I’m the client or something taking samples from literally everyone who’s ever used Adobe products.
I use it all the time to add to images where the photographer has cropped in too tight, and I need a little more white space for a headline, etc. Or just need more for bleed and breathing room. But that's it - just a way better version of the rubber stamp
As a book designer, Adobe AI has saved me a lot of time with images on the last 2 books I worked on. Understandably, designers like myself are concerned about our jobs, but I think Adobe have an even bigger problem. If AI can design books and I'm no longer needed, I no longer need or can afford Adobe Creative Suite. Let's hope Adobe has thought this through.
They are expecting to bypass the "middlemen" (us) and go straight to the end consumers. Anyone who needs a book design, download Adobe, sub for their contract period, generate, let the sub run out... They only have a greed problem, no client pool problem.
And I indeed was the part of that chain, doing illustrations for other designers (I am both a designer and an illustrator, professional experience in both areas), specially for book covers. While I still get gigs from some designers worried about the copyright issue/legal uncertainty (as a body of law gets developed, being always slower than tech) of the generated art, or about AI generated images not being protected, and so the risk of getting a cover or merchandise plagiarized, even legally so, becomes quite high, and work can also come from even others that see the ethical problem, but there's still a considerable bunch (surely a majority) who generate now the art while before would pay an artist to do the art pieces, or at least would buy stock art or stock photos (and that was fine, as that way an artist or a photographer were still getting paid, getting a portion of the stock image cost). Besides the immense issues for us, artists, there are other problems in the grand scheme of things, for example: if the pool of artists gets reduced (as I am seeing it already has and will shrink quite more), then also will the data to scrap from, and that would very much hurt the generative process. Besides for the most obvious reason: that generated 'art' starts to look a bit too much of the same, increasingly so, the system also suffers bad deviations when generated from (even if just partially) other AI "art", which is almost unavoidable, because AI generated is flooding every place on internet, now. The technical explanation is complex, but it's like an accumulated error. The other bad side is the drastic reduction of the number of current and future artists, specially the young ones who realize this - artists' life was very hard already- and start to quit, seeing art as a non viable option anymore. This typically reduces the overall quality of art, and could produce a slow (or fast) stagnation of an entire field (one that has been with us for centuries; painting has never been this threatened, the "camera" was not a real threat) of our culture, which is really not good for humanity. Overall, a complex problem, in my opinion.
@@3polygonsyes, regarding bad deviations. You could compare that to the genetic principle: It’s never a good idea for cousins to marry. With no new material in the gene pool/ data set, output could become rather corrupted. And having stock photo platforms also contaminated AI generated images is really a huge time waster when searching for photos. Worst thing that happened was me finding a really genuine looking image of a bird; when I zoomed in, what I thought was a tick/ parasite of some kind was in fact a third eye!!! 🤦🏻♀️ So yeah, not blaming people for giving up on the arts when they don’t get compensated or even appreciated for their hard work. 😓
@@Roboto-chan_1402 Yup... Although I'm gonna be (hopefully) part of the artists' "surviving resistance" (to old to give up, lol). And yes, stock art/photos are seeing a definite decrease in quality and originality due to AI.
@flytetime7637 bro you still have a job designing book covers?? Clients stopped calling me for book covers the same day ai was announced on the local news. My speciality fantasy paint style. I miss using my wacom tablet.
didn't know about the colour palette thing, so thank you. I agree with much of your argument. With AI written copy I'm starting to see it spring up everywhere and it's just becoming part of the background noise, i tune out and ignore it and the company when i see it.
As an novice, I feel for the veteran designers and illustrators whose skills and expertise are being somewhat diluted. However, new tools and ways of doing things is human nature. I think that AI will enhance our abilities as designers whether that is speeding up workflow or producing better results but it is not there yet. I don't think using prompts to create an entire image is the way to go. I'd rather see it as an assistant that can perform a task based on a prompt to achieve a desired outcome such as removing or changing backgrounds as an example.
The problem (or one of many), and this is happening to programmers (yep, that too), musicians, artists and soon, designers, is that many non experts, people learning in these fields, take the shortcuts, instead of walking the whole way. The reality is that you do not learn well (or at all) by doing so. Just like you don't learn how to solve a math problem by pushing a button. I am both a veteran artist and designer (and occasional programmer) and I have seen this happen even when we had no AI. This problem will just get multiplied. Indeed, the veterans are the ones not having this risk. As the correct use of AI, IMO, is automating things that you do really know how to do. For many reasons, even having many things automated, to really solve problems and be effective, one better have the skills, even if having a 'magic' button available. This is not so in a few areas, but in art and design, it's definitely so.
As a designer myself I agree with many of the points said in this video, especially when it comes to tools to help pros in the design process. Instead of focusing on generative tools why not focus on progressive tools. Good video !
I mainly use Ai tools to streamline what I do frequently, write a couple of ideas i can use as a base of my articles, quickly adjust an image when I need that 5min push on a social post, as a marketing officer, Ai tools have aided me so much, and my team, from project management and setting up dashboards using AI, creating prompts that spark ideas for content, or simply to ask it to clean up a quickly drafted email to a client that I can then edit. i have given it some excel data and asked it to write summaries that I can then edit and include in reports. and so much more, it has just taken the effort out of small jobs that leave me time to focus on whats important.
I find this topic very complex and difficult. Of course, the tools should help us to make faster progress. But where does it start to make tedious work easier and where does it stop short of touching the creative sphere? It's different for everyone. If that's the case, we could talk about the translation tool I'm using to give you my opinion. Others, however, love to speak in different languages and inevitably suffer from the fact that people with fewer skills use these tools. And if we look back even further: how many shoemakers were there before the industrial revolution who were displaced by mass-produced goods? Their individual designs were also not able to stand up to mass-produced goods.
From the artist/designer perspective, I get feeling like what you do is being somewhat obsoleted by technology. Fair. From other people, the idea of being able to create a piece of visual art without the requite skillset is a net good. Mind you, we also appreciate the human touch when it comes to creating art, but isn't it still there? Only more accessible for more people? Instead of the kill with the pencil/pen/brush/charcoal/etc., now the skillset will be in how to compile the best prompt to get the best possible output. "It's not what you say, but how you say it" wort of thing. There is joy in askign for a thing and getting that exact thing. Times when you have an image in your head and just can't get it out because you can't draw, but now could potentially with the new tools. As for what source materials the AI assimilates to create it's output, I think we can agree that some kind of ethics need to be compiled and applied, so that human and AI art is properly attributed.
Hey Will, great video. I would love to hear your thoughts on AI used to generate mockups that look like a professional photographer staged it with studio lighting and props
If you're a real artist you value the pride and satisfaction you get from your personal creations. If you're not an artist and you want to sell tshirts or mugs with art on them, that's who I think AI is for. I see nothing wrong with that but understand that you're a retailer, not an artist. Artists will continue to do what they do.
I reckon AI will probably change client expectations once they know what it is capable of. It could maybe pressurise creatives to produce more in half the time for the same price.
I use it as an education tool, in a sense. I’m an aspiring author. If I self publish l, I’ll need a cover. No, I’m not going to use AI to make the cover. But I throw my ideas into a prompt and see if they work together. Then I can adjust however I need. That way, when I get a designer for the cover, I’m not the nightmare client that expects the impossible.
Since the introduction of Gen AI, I have advocated that it should never be used as a final product. If it is used for inspiration, or to get color palettes/lighting choices, that would be similar to going to a museum or online, to get inspiration. I feel like you almost said it a few times, but most artists/designers create with intent. Each decision is made specifically for the project, and remains as a throughline during the entire project, or future projects of the same subject. AI does not create with intent, and cannot retain a throughline without heavy editing. Lastly, Gen AI just falls into the general quality of art that is already out there, but is steadily in the bottom, because those who do not know the rules, do not know how to break the rules. They end up with glaring errors that their eyes are not trained to see, and then wonder why people immediately know it's AI.
The main problem I have with gen AI and companies like Open-AI is that they use of copyrighted data not just without permission, but without anything. Without payment, permission, not even giving credit. I'm guilty of it too with ChatGPT, but all of this is made on stolen data. Journalists, writers, logo designers, artists, etc. And to add cherry on top these companies seek billions of dollars to train this model on the stolen data. They want to GET money to steal data..... what are we doing
I agree that AI has a place as a means to make tedious processes less so. My problem with AI is that for the uninitiated trying to save a buck, they don't appreciate the difference between human created works and what AI produces. I write ad copy for a small company. We've honed our skills over the years, but we've had several customers decide that they can just throw something together using AI and call it good. Some have seen their sales drop appreciably and returned. Others just focus on the initial savings and don't equate their lower sales to anything other than the economy.
AI is the businessman's dream and the artist's nightmare. there exists a machine that will now do whatever you tell it to do, no matter how bad said thing is, and when the people working in business get what they want, they think they have everything they need. but now what it misses is an artist to tell the businessmen what they need and how things could be done better. it's our job to discuss design efficiency with these businessmen and open their eyes to what truly works in the realm of art, but because they don't want to pay artists and designers to sell themselves, they hurt us and themselves as a result.
What are your thoughts on stock photos, graphics and assets? My concern is these libraries being full of upscaled AI created photos, videos, vectors, etc and unknowingly using AI generated content in your final product. I should be able to catch it, but what if one sneaks by?
Generative AI does not 'use' the data set when generating. It learned its wizardry (neural network definitions) by going trough the data. And then it applies its definitions to your prompt. So Ai does not use data as an archive...
But it is not able to "draw" or understand really anatomy, perspective, etc, like we do. They get the recipe somehow, but don't build the same way. As I understand it, it's matching chunks from gazillions of data, finding patterns, but not "learning to draw" or paint. A painter works and learns very differently, and in a more nuanced and complex way, imo.
Thanks for posting this video. These companies are looking to bring in more newbies and taking the professionals for granted. Maybe they think the professionals will use the tools anyway. I do agree that AI should be a tool. We will loose creativity and uniqueness if AI is used fully to “new” artwork.
Here's what designers need to generate: 1) design the letters "AXG", AI generate full 26 fonts based on the letters. 2) deisgn a vertical poster, AI generate a horizontal banner, black and white pamphlet, square image for instagram, etc. 3) AI that is sensitive to what we are working on, thus after a few undos, AI can suggest what to do about it. The current state of design is a sad one. Adobe, who should be the shining white knight to help artists fight against generative AI, plunged into generative AI themselves, and expect to bypass designers to get to consumers. Shrugs... Adobe sucks, really.
Well AI's do what they do because those who trained them don't actually know what professionals need. And because these projects want to get attention with a final-looking product, rather than with some process detail almost nobody understands. Meaning we need to wait a little longer until professionals get to train AI's.
good video as always thank u for that and I have a question I am a graphic designer beginner and I have problem that I can't make any skitch before I start designing like I need to start randomly designing till I end up with a good idea so do u think I can be a designer like this or I have to to change it ?
It's not a problem to enjoy creating or using AI as a shortcut. The real question is: What truly defines an AI product? If an AI-generated product holds the same value as one created by a professional designer (or any other creative), then why would companies still invest in hiring human creatives?
Hey Will I am a UI designer in the UK and on my channel I explore designing software that uses AI. I did a video about how I would design an AI RUclips thumbnail maker. Would be cool to connect I'm new to the YT game
I feel like the real impact of generative AI in design is still to come. AI tools now might be for the average user and beginners but these users will eventually become professionals themselves. They are used to rely on generative AI. Why shouldn't they still be using it as professionals? The average person doesn't notice design flaws, if AI generated Images are the new normal to upcoming designers they might not notice the flaws. I fear this will turn design that not heavily relies on AI into a niche. That it will become somewhat of a counter movement. Generative AI feels to me like a backwards work flow. You generate an Image and than you need to check for flaws like it's a hidden picture puzzle. After that you have to give meaning to the aspects of the design, because you want it to be intentional. You base your intentions on the result of the generated image... I don't get it.
As an in-house designer for a company with several physical stores and a webshop, I'm constantly juggling the creation of new designs for sale campaigns, banners, in-store signage, commercials, and more. Being the only designer on the team, it’s a challenge to find time for creative work that I genuinely enjoy. Generative AI tools have been a game-changer in this regard. They allow me to quickly add elements that would have otherwise required extensive searching for stock images or photographing myself. While I don’t believe AI should replace complete designs (which often end up looking odd and take the fun out of it), for smaller parts and ideation, it helps me work more efficiently and explore new ideas faster.
I see it as a tool not a replacement ✨ AI cant work or “replace” anyone without a human so Im not gonna get left behind by being anal about AI just try it and if you dont like it then dont use it
But like you and I learn new skills and techniques, AI is going to be doing the same. Where it might take us a month, AI will have it done in a day. Now multiply that with each passing day. Because AI is tech and tech is constantly getting better, faster, more efficient. So for the business owner looking for quick and cost effective results, they’re gonna turn to AI. Because over the years AI will eat away what we can do and what it can’t. Sure, there will be those who are purists and want something designed and created by a person. But for the average person wanting a reasonably ok design that can be turned around in seconds for little to no cost, that’s what they’re gonna go with. But this here is what ai won’t be able to do. RUclips. Any sort of content creation. Because content is essentially an opinion. Your struggles, passion, heart etc. You and ai can both create a logo. But you can create content with feeling and it will show. Ask ai to do that and it won’t have the same effect. Because it doesn’t have the ability to convey those feelings. Just my 2 cents.
Its not just images though. The "AI" has to know what a sun is to look at through its database for suns. I don't think it grabs the first file and that's a sun. It uses the concept to generate a sun.
For the moment people still have to be able to effectively prompt in order to get a worthy result. Plus many companies have already committed to AI so it’s within their interest to now push it as much as possible. I’m not against AI but I think as you say if we can use it to effectively help us speed up workflow then that is a good thing but there I think that where there is convenience there is cost. We could essentially be trading the natural creative process we each have to a dataset whose result will eventually become stagnant especially when it starts to be fed on its own information.
I hate how it's been forced on us and how much energy it takes up in every way. Adobe's AI has my laptop going so much slower. And I don't want it! If a tech is really that good, you don't have to force it on people
I have to almost reluctantly admit, so far as the AI music generation goes it's really got the templates down. Awful results 99% plus of the time but then again "real" music has had it, I find. But then it can, very occasionally, find a fractional little gap in well trodden paths. Perhaps this translates across to visual stuff. I often get the feeling.."Shit , I should have thought of that" when it does good.
I think dark times are coming for creative people and prices for services will go down. Design will no longer be unique; each person will be able to create products no worse than professionals in their field.
I think, Looking at the development of AI feels like witnessing a historical leap, similar to how artists once transitioned from using brushes and papers to make poster- to embracing computers and digital tools like Adobe. If those in the past could see this shift, they might recognize it as a natural progression. I think, today we're more advanced than ever before, but the core remains the same-people grow, adapt, and evolve. AI is an invaluable tool, yet we know that it won’t replace artists. As AI expands its capabilities, so do we, using our imagination to push boundaries alongside it. I like the unfiltered opinion with this, Will! Let's see how we'll shift this creative market with the rise of the AI.
Totalmente. Por reducir coste laboral de artistas, robándoles a los mismos en el proceso. La buena noticia es que se ha pegado un batacazo la IA en los grandes mercados (bolsa, etc), porque cada vez es más caro producirla, y los beneficios que los venture capitalists (VCs) esperaban de la IA, no cuadran con lo poco que están obteniendo. Cuesta muchísima energía (mucha más que los NFTs, con la que se formó con eso) la generación por IA. Energía y agua (por refrigeración y otros procesos). Y muchísimo dinero. O sea, que además, daña el medio ambiente a lo bestia, pero hay intereses creados para no reconocer esto abiertamente. Por otra parte, hay quien dice que la curva de crecimiento de la IA ya no es tan acelerada, sino que puede haber dado con cierto estancamiento. Estos problemas y las leyes que se están haciendo ahora son la esperanza ante todo este mega marrón, así que toca esperar a ver que pasa, y hacer lo que se pueda mientras.
The issue with AI is that people already had problem paying artists what they deserved, now they don't have to hire us. They can just use AI it'll be cheaper for them.
And Adobe has the audacity to make a advertisement in which a bride uses Ai tools on Adobe to help her extract elements from her wedding invitation card, so that she could make a thank you card! What should have been an extra bit of income for the designer, who is likely paying for full subscription, Adobe now wants that for themselves. Geez... The only reason I'm still subbed is because I get the programs for relatively cheap because of education package... But it's getting worse.
Youre right sir!
@@maryamwaqar7648 Exactly! Back then, people paid artists to solve a problem directly, but now it’s kind of ironic-they’re paying for AI tools that don’t fully solve the problem, and then they have to learn designing themselves to fix it. Or, even funnier, they end up paying designers again to solve the same problem! It’s always about solving the problem, not just designing.
AI should stick to engineering
I pay for art by artists cuase i want to support it and i have never been good at drawing/painting. Instead i am focusing more on photography but i still like to buy digital art. My opinion is that ai is fine but ai using peoples art without consent now that's terrible i feel for the artists. And a question who is going to buy the ai art off someone else when they can just generate it. The thing with non ai art is the work the humanity the community. also ai is cool and great but not this type of ai.
You are absolutely right Will.
AI should only be a tool. As an professional artist and professional photographer
It is disheartening to see people using AI to create 100% of an image with no actual input of the artist. Then they go enter competitions and say that they created an original piece of art or photo.
I’m not against AI when used as a tool. When I have created an image then use ai to do very small tweaks or enhancements to the artwork that I can actually do but AI can do faster.
People! Please don’t misrepresent AI as your own actual creation.
Just my opinions! I hope this stirs good conversations :)
Another problem I see with AI is the perception clients on the low end have. They are now willing to pay way less because they think they can ask anyone on their company to prompt it. Some of them are just waiting on the AI to get as good to start the project and we can see a big difference on the quantity of clients that want graphic design work. Sometimes they do prompt it and the result is awful but they dont care they have just saved money in their eyes.
For example in this local restaurant chain the owner showed me some ai generated pictures and told me how easy and free they were to make. jokingly he asked why am I paying you if he can do this so fast (while generating more weird foodlike pictures). I told him "well those arent pictures of your actual food" and he mumbled away "mjm, pero ya mismo sí". So after that session they never called back and someone from our company who still worked with them told me that they are actually holding their photo and video budget for other things while waiting for AI to be able to do that.
“More A than I”
That quote has stayed with me and it encapsulates something. AI is more a collection than the I (myself) of individuality.
I feel that generative AI in it's current form is best suited for concepting. It should spark creativity, not be the end of it.
The only place I feel where it can be used as an end result is where stock photos would be used.
The environmental impact and the enormous use of energy should always be mentioned - people need to be aware of this aspect to have the full picture.
Adobe themselves could have handled this a load better in their products.
Like, for time saving reasons, I would not be opposed to drawing things and adding them to my account library of samples so my account’s AI can generate images from them and just my own drawings.
Like I don’t have time to draw a load of birds in my style so I get my own accounts AI to draw from my own pool of drawings to generate birds in my style. Same for grass, cityscapes, etc.
It’s an opt-in, user only, time saver is what I’m talking about. Not something that’ll just do the work for me like I’m the client or something taking samples from literally everyone who’s ever used Adobe products.
I love the mockup generator in illustrator! It’s a quick and easy way to see what my designs can look like in real scenarios
I use it all the time to add to images where the photographer has cropped in too tight, and I need a little more white space for a headline, etc. Or just need more for bleed and breathing room. But that's it - just a way better version of the rubber stamp
Putting aside utilitarianism and morality, I dispise generative AI just because of how it looks. It has this intense soulessness to it.
As a book designer, Adobe AI has saved me a lot of time with images on the last 2 books I worked on. Understandably, designers like myself are concerned about our jobs, but I think Adobe have an even bigger problem. If AI can design books and I'm no longer needed, I no longer need or can afford Adobe Creative Suite. Let's hope Adobe has thought this through.
They are expecting to bypass the "middlemen" (us) and go straight to the end consumers. Anyone who needs a book design, download Adobe, sub for their contract period, generate, let the sub run out... They only have a greed problem, no client pool problem.
And I indeed was the part of that chain, doing illustrations for other designers (I am both a designer and an illustrator, professional experience in both areas), specially for book covers. While I still get gigs from some designers worried about the copyright issue/legal uncertainty (as a body of law gets developed, being always slower than tech) of the generated art, or about AI generated images not being protected, and so the risk of getting a cover or merchandise plagiarized, even legally so, becomes quite high, and work can also come from even others that see the ethical problem, but there's still a considerable bunch (surely a majority) who generate now the art while before would pay an artist to do the art pieces, or at least would buy stock art or stock photos (and that was fine, as that way an artist or a photographer were still getting paid, getting a portion of the stock image cost).
Besides the immense issues for us, artists, there are other problems in the grand scheme of things, for example: if the pool of artists gets reduced (as I am seeing it already has and will shrink quite more), then also will the data to scrap from, and that would very much hurt the generative process. Besides for the most obvious reason: that generated 'art' starts to look a bit too much of the same, increasingly so, the system also suffers bad deviations when generated from (even if just partially) other AI "art", which is almost unavoidable, because AI generated is flooding every place on internet, now. The technical explanation is complex, but it's like an accumulated error. The other bad side is the drastic reduction of the number of current and future artists, specially the young ones who realize this - artists' life was very hard already- and start to quit, seeing art as a non viable option anymore. This typically reduces the overall quality of art, and could produce a slow (or fast) stagnation of an entire field (one that has been with us for centuries; painting has never been this threatened, the "camera" was not a real threat) of our culture, which is really not good for humanity. Overall, a complex problem, in my opinion.
@@3polygonsyes, regarding bad deviations. You could compare that to the genetic principle: It’s never a good idea for cousins to marry. With no new material in the gene pool/ data set, output could become rather corrupted.
And having stock photo platforms also contaminated AI generated images is really a huge time waster when searching for photos. Worst thing that happened was me finding a really genuine looking image of a bird; when I zoomed in, what I thought was a tick/ parasite of some kind was in fact a third eye!!! 🤦🏻♀️
So yeah, not blaming people for giving up on the arts when they don’t get compensated or even appreciated for their hard work. 😓
@@Roboto-chan_1402 Yup... Although I'm gonna be (hopefully) part of the artists' "surviving resistance" (to old to give up, lol). And yes, stock art/photos are seeing a definite decrease in quality and originality due to AI.
@flytetime7637 bro you still have a job designing book covers?? Clients stopped calling me for book covers the same day ai was announced on the local news.
My speciality fantasy paint style. I miss using my wacom tablet.
didn't know about the colour palette thing, so thank you.
I agree with much of your argument. With AI written copy I'm starting to see it spring up everywhere and it's just becoming part of the background noise, i tune out and ignore it and the company when i see it.
Thank you Will for airing out your opinions with regards to AI, l can see it from a different perspective now
No worries!
As an novice, I feel for the veteran designers and illustrators whose skills and expertise are being somewhat diluted. However, new tools and ways of doing things is human nature. I think that AI will enhance our abilities as designers whether that is speeding up workflow or producing better results but it is not there yet. I don't think using prompts to create an entire image is the way to go. I'd rather see it as an assistant that can perform a task based on a prompt to achieve a desired outcome such as removing or changing backgrounds as an example.
The problem (or one of many), and this is happening to programmers (yep, that too), musicians, artists and soon, designers, is that many non experts, people learning in these fields, take the shortcuts, instead of walking the whole way. The reality is that you do not learn well (or at all) by doing so. Just like you don't learn how to solve a math problem by pushing a button. I am both a veteran artist and designer (and occasional programmer) and I have seen this happen even when we had no AI. This problem will just get multiplied. Indeed, the veterans are the ones not having this risk. As the correct use of AI, IMO, is automating things that you do really know how to do. For many reasons, even having many things automated, to really solve problems and be effective, one better have the skills, even if having a 'magic' button available. This is not so in a few areas, but in art and design, it's definitely so.
As a designer myself I agree with many of the points said in this video, especially when it comes to tools to help pros in the design process. Instead of focusing on generative tools why not focus on progressive tools. Good video !
I mainly use Ai tools to streamline what I do frequently, write a couple of ideas i can use as a base of my articles, quickly adjust an image when I need that 5min push on a social post, as a marketing officer, Ai tools have aided me so much, and my team, from project management and setting up dashboards using AI, creating prompts that spark ideas for content, or simply to ask it to clean up a quickly drafted email to a client that I can then edit.
i have given it some excel data and asked it to write summaries that I can then edit and include in reports. and so much more, it has just taken the effort out of small jobs that leave me time to focus on whats important.
I find this topic very complex and difficult. Of course, the tools should help us to make faster progress. But where does it start to make tedious work easier and where does it stop short of touching the creative sphere? It's different for everyone. If that's the case, we could talk about the translation tool I'm using to give you my opinion. Others, however, love to speak in different languages and inevitably suffer from the fact that people with fewer skills use these tools. And if we look back even further: how many shoemakers were there before the industrial revolution who were displaced by mass-produced goods? Their individual designs were also not able to stand up to mass-produced goods.
Appreciate you sharing your honest experience. Amen
From the artist/designer perspective, I get feeling like what you do is being somewhat obsoleted by technology. Fair.
From other people, the idea of being able to create a piece of visual art without the requite skillset is a net good. Mind you, we also appreciate the human touch when it comes to creating art, but isn't it still there? Only more accessible for more people? Instead of the kill with the pencil/pen/brush/charcoal/etc., now the skillset will be in how to compile the best prompt to get the best possible output. "It's not what you say, but how you say it" wort of thing. There is joy in askign for a thing and getting that exact thing. Times when you have an image in your head and just can't get it out because you can't draw, but now could potentially with the new tools.
As for what source materials the AI assimilates to create it's output, I think we can agree that some kind of ethics need to be compiled and applied, so that human and AI art is properly attributed.
Hey Will, great video. I would love to hear your thoughts on AI used to generate mockups that look like a professional photographer staged it with studio lighting and props
If you're a real artist you value the pride and satisfaction you get from your personal creations. If you're not an artist and you want to sell tshirts or mugs with art on them, that's who I think AI is for. I see nothing wrong with that but understand that you're a retailer, not an artist. Artists will continue to do what they do.
I reckon AI will probably change client expectations once they know what it is capable of. It could maybe pressurise creatives to produce more in half the time for the same price.
I use it as an education tool, in a sense. I’m an aspiring author. If I self publish l, I’ll need a cover. No, I’m not going to use AI to make the cover. But I throw my ideas into a prompt and see if they work together. Then I can adjust however I need. That way, when I get a designer for the cover, I’m not the nightmare client that expects the impossible.
Since the introduction of Gen AI, I have advocated that it should never be used as a final product. If it is used for inspiration, or to get color palettes/lighting choices, that would be similar to going to a museum or online, to get inspiration. I feel like you almost said it a few times, but most artists/designers create with intent. Each decision is made specifically for the project, and remains as a throughline during the entire project, or future projects of the same subject. AI does not create with intent, and cannot retain a throughline without heavy editing. Lastly, Gen AI just falls into the general quality of art that is already out there, but is steadily in the bottom, because those who do not know the rules, do not know how to break the rules. They end up with glaring errors that their eyes are not trained to see, and then wonder why people immediately know it's AI.
The main problem I have with gen AI and companies like Open-AI is that they use of copyrighted data not just without permission, but without anything. Without payment, permission, not even giving credit. I'm guilty of it too with ChatGPT, but all of this is made on stolen data. Journalists, writers, logo designers, artists, etc.
And to add cherry on top these companies seek billions of dollars to train this model on the stolen data. They want to GET money to steal data..... what are we doing
I agree that AI has a place as a means to make tedious processes less so. My problem with AI is that for the uninitiated trying to save a buck, they don't appreciate the difference between human created works and what AI produces. I write ad copy for a small company. We've honed our skills over the years, but we've had several customers decide that they can just throw something together using AI and call it good. Some have seen their sales drop appreciably and returned. Others just focus on the initial savings and don't equate their lower sales to anything other than the economy.
AI is the businessman's dream and the artist's nightmare. there exists a machine that will now do whatever you tell it to do, no matter how bad said thing is, and when the people working in business get what they want, they think they have everything they need. but now what it misses is an artist to tell the businessmen what they need and how things could be done better. it's our job to discuss design efficiency with these businessmen and open their eyes to what truly works in the realm of art, but because they don't want to pay artists and designers to sell themselves, they hurt us and themselves as a result.
What are your thoughts on stock photos, graphics and assets? My concern is these libraries being full of upscaled AI created photos, videos, vectors, etc and unknowingly using AI generated content in your final product.
I should be able to catch it, but what if one sneaks by?
Generative AI does not 'use' the data set when generating.
It learned its wizardry (neural network definitions) by going trough the data. And then it applies its definitions to your prompt.
So Ai does not use data as an archive...
It trains on the data. It trains on the stolen data. Stop defending this nonsense
But it is not able to "draw" or understand really anatomy, perspective, etc, like we do. They get the recipe somehow, but don't build the same way. As I understand it, it's matching chunks from gazillions of data, finding patterns, but not "learning to draw" or paint. A painter works and learns very differently, and in a more nuanced and complex way, imo.
Thanks for posting this video. These companies are looking to bring in more newbies and taking the professionals for granted. Maybe they think the professionals will use the tools anyway. I do agree that AI should be a tool. We will loose creativity and uniqueness if AI is used fully to “new” artwork.
Here's what designers need to generate:
1) design the letters "AXG", AI generate full 26 fonts based on the letters.
2) deisgn a vertical poster, AI generate a horizontal banner, black and white pamphlet, square image for instagram, etc.
3) AI that is sensitive to what we are working on, thus after a few undos, AI can suggest what to do about it.
The current state of design is a sad one. Adobe, who should be the shining white knight to help artists fight against generative AI, plunged into generative AI themselves, and expect to bypass designers to get to consumers. Shrugs... Adobe sucks, really.
Well AI's do what they do because those who trained them don't actually know what professionals need. And because these projects want to get attention with a final-looking product, rather than with some process detail almost nobody understands. Meaning we need to wait a little longer until professionals get to train AI's.
Lemme grab my popcorn 😜🍿
I think it's going make people dumb and less creative. People are going to stop thinking for themselves.
good video as always thank u for that and I have a question I am a graphic designer beginner and I have problem that I can't make any skitch before I start designing like I need to start randomly designing till I end up with a good idea so do u think I can be a designer like this or I have to to change it ?
It's not a problem to enjoy creating or using AI as a shortcut. The real question is: What truly defines an AI product? If an AI-generated product holds the same value as one created by a professional designer (or any other creative), then why would companies still invest in hiring human creatives?
Hi Will
Thanks mate! You legend 🔥🔥
I miss it when "AI" was just for "Adobe Illustrator"
AI = Helpful. Another tool in the belt.
Hey Will I am a UI designer in the UK and on my channel I explore designing software that uses AI.
I did a video about how I would design an AI RUclips thumbnail maker.
Would be cool to connect I'm new to the YT game
I feel like the real impact of generative AI in design is still to come. AI tools now might be for the average user and beginners but these users will eventually become professionals themselves. They are used to rely on generative AI. Why shouldn't they still be using it as professionals?
The average person doesn't notice design flaws, if AI generated Images are the new normal to upcoming designers they might not notice the flaws.
I fear this will turn design that not heavily relies on AI into a niche. That it will become somewhat of a counter movement.
Generative AI feels to me like a backwards work flow. You generate an Image and than you need to check for flaws like it's a hidden picture puzzle. After that you have to give meaning to the aspects of the design, because you want it to be intentional. You base your intentions on the result of the generated image... I don't get it.
As an in-house designer for a company with several physical stores and a webshop, I'm constantly juggling the creation of new designs for sale campaigns, banners, in-store signage, commercials, and more. Being the only designer on the team, it’s a challenge to find time for creative work that I genuinely enjoy. Generative AI tools have been a game-changer in this regard. They allow me to quickly add elements that would have otherwise required extensive searching for stock images or photographing myself. While I don’t believe AI should replace complete designs (which often end up looking odd and take the fun out of it), for smaller parts and ideation, it helps me work more efficiently and explore new ideas faster.
@@dutch_bullet bingoooo
I see it as a tool not a replacement ✨ AI cant work or “replace” anyone without a human so Im not gonna get left behind by being anal about AI just try it and if you dont like it then dont use it
But like you and I learn new skills and techniques, AI is going to be doing the same. Where it might take us a month, AI will have it done in a day. Now multiply that with each passing day. Because AI is tech and tech is constantly getting better, faster, more efficient.
So for the business owner looking for quick and cost effective results, they’re gonna turn to AI. Because over the years AI will eat away what we can do and what it can’t.
Sure, there will be those who are purists and want something designed and created by a person. But for the average person wanting a reasonably ok design that can be turned around in seconds for little to no cost, that’s what they’re gonna go with.
But this here is what ai won’t be able to do. RUclips. Any sort of content creation. Because content is essentially an opinion. Your struggles, passion, heart etc.
You and ai can both create a logo. But you can create content with feeling and it will show. Ask ai to do that and it won’t have the same effect. Because it doesn’t have the ability to convey those feelings.
Just my 2 cents.
Its not just images though. The "AI" has to know what a sun is to look at through its database for suns. I don't think it grabs the first file and that's a sun. It uses the concept to generate a sun.
Thats not at all how AI works. It doesn't have a database of images that is goes and searches when you ask it to generate something.
For the moment people still have to be able to effectively prompt in order to get a worthy result. Plus many companies have already committed to AI so it’s within their interest to now push it as much as possible.
I’m not against AI but I think as you say if we can use it to effectively help us speed up workflow then that is a good thing but there I think that where there is convenience there is cost. We could essentially be trading the natural creative process we each have to a dataset whose result will eventually become stagnant especially when it starts to be fed on its own information.
11:01 what do you mean "Why"? The whole reason everyone is against Ai is because they dont make the tools for the professionals.
I hate how it's been forced on us and how much energy it takes up in every way. Adobe's AI has my laptop going so much slower. And I don't want it! If a tech is really that good, you don't have to force it on people
why u aint ssee those tools is because they want to replace u with ai
So you basically want a AI that get us all fired, included you 🤔
A tool set, Zeron
I have to almost reluctantly admit, so far as the AI music generation goes it's really got the templates down. Awful results 99% plus of the time but then again "real" music has had it, I find. But then it can, very occasionally, find a fractional little gap in well trodden paths. Perhaps this translates across to visual stuff. I often get the feeling.."Shit , I should have thought of that" when it does good.
I'm waiting for a couple of weeks from now when you reveal that this entire video was generated by AI…
I don't like It, but it's now gonna change everything.
Might as well just have a bunch of AI speak to each other. Humans won't be interesting or smart enough.
Best comment. :D
I think dark times are coming for creative people and prices for services will go down. Design will no longer be unique; each person will be able to create products no worse than professionals in their field.
First Viewer ever in your channel......! Pin me 📍
:)
I think, Looking at the development of AI feels like witnessing a historical leap, similar to how artists once transitioned from using brushes and papers to make poster- to embracing computers and digital tools like Adobe. If those in the past could see this shift, they might recognize it as a natural progression.
I think, today we're more advanced than ever before, but the core remains the same-people grow, adapt, and evolve.
AI is an invaluable tool, yet we know that it won’t replace artists. As AI expands its capabilities, so do we, using our imagination to push boundaries alongside it.
I like the unfiltered opinion with this, Will!
Let's see how we'll shift this creative market with the rise of the AI.
IA= ROBO.
Totalmente. Por reducir coste laboral de artistas, robándoles a los mismos en el proceso. La buena noticia es que se ha pegado un batacazo la IA en los grandes mercados (bolsa, etc), porque cada vez es más caro producirla, y los beneficios que los venture capitalists (VCs) esperaban de la IA, no cuadran con lo poco que están obteniendo. Cuesta muchísima energía (mucha más que los NFTs, con la que se formó con eso) la generación por IA. Energía y agua (por refrigeración y otros procesos). Y muchísimo dinero. O sea, que además, daña el medio ambiente a lo bestia, pero hay intereses creados para no reconocer esto abiertamente. Por otra parte, hay quien dice que la curva de crecimiento de la IA ya no es tan acelerada, sino que puede haber dado con cierto estancamiento. Estos problemas y las leyes que se están haciendo ahora son la esperanza ante todo este mega marrón, así que toca esperar a ver que pasa, y hacer lo que se pueda mientras.