I highly doubt there are any artists out there who are mad at AI being used in healthcare, that's a bit of a fallacious statement. Not to mention that conflating the use of AI between two different fields is kind of ridiculous, they're just not the same because they have the same title. That type of AI can be used to save lives, the AI used for art is doing nothing of the sort and has been trained unethically with the intellectual property of thousands if not millions of artists and it's only going to grow if it's supported. There was no "opt in", it was always "fend for yourself" or just get taken advantage of. A machine owned by a corporation that just decided to rip thousands of hours of work from artists completely uncompensated. This is not the same as artists referencing the work of other artists, it's closer to some scammer who's stolen a bunch of people's artwork and reselling it as references or fully completed pieces to other people. It's incredibly unethical and spits in the face of all the people who've worked for years on their skill. 8:30 I genuinely don't really know what the point is here that you're trying to make. Is it that the fact that AI would be able to trace back to the influences used in the artwork like a human would never be able to? Because... that's not great. It can trace itself back sure because it's a machine with meta data and it made the image from those sources. The human influence isn't supposed to be a one-to-one, it's an influence of other people's artwork to make into your own. Blended into your own with passion, soul and intent behind it. You can always study from other artists instead, that's always been available and acceptable. AI also doesn't know WHY it does what it does, the only way you can properly learn artistic skills is through the input of a human being with a brain and actual thought process, not an algorithm. The idea that "oh well, it's here now and isn't going anywhere so we might as well use it" is also kind of wild. I agree that there needs to be laws and regulations around it but the only possible way I could see it becoming ethical is if they completely tanked all of their systems, started from scratch and then ONLY trained it on things that are LEGITIMATELY public domain or art that was willfully volunteered by any artist who wants to for some reason take part in it. Otherwise it's blatant theft and will always be disgusting and snaky. Like you mentioned how some people pointed out things in your artwork, the hair really does look like AI. There's random circles of hair that don't seem to be attached to anything (I know there's also it getting thinner and thicker inexplicably but personally I enjoy that) but some of it just didn't seem to really make any sense unless her hair was being chopped up In saying all that most of the hatred in my tone and I would assume many others is mostly directed towards artistic AI itself, frustration extending to the video you made. I do believe that people can change and grow and I'm glad that you feel excited to work on more traditional artwork as well. I genuinely wish you the best, I can see you're trying to come from a neutral place but to a lot of people it really doesn't feel that way so I still hope you truly do take into account just why people ARE so angry about the use of AI (in art specifically)
Exactly. Most of us artists are not luddites. It's like nuclear physics for example. I can love how it is being used to cure cancer but at the same time warn about its application for the military like bombs.
Thank you for your common sense response. Artists should understand ethics the most when making art from the heart. How this tech is used is entirely morally bankrupt and pushed by technologists who see art as another arena to milk people for labor. My dude @thebrianpenny speaks on this A. I subject it in great depth because he's at the forefront of the discussion with the Copyright Office and the legal cases being worked out as we speak. I occasionally watch this channel as a matter of solidarity with other fellow creatives (I am a working professional independent illustrator myself) however I can clearly recognize the gloss of the industry mindset, the finish brought only by corporate means, and sensibilities driven by metrics and mainstream trends, to which I don't have any interests in chasing. There are countless stories to tell with our artwork and our lives are entirely diverse to speak from our own individual experiences, this is where our talents must derive.
The AI problem is not an AI problem, but a capitalism problem. Rich techbros feeling entitled to the work and skillset of creatives. 1-Corporate driven 2-Non consensual use of small artist work 3-Derivative and profit aimed Things like magic wand and channel selections can be called “ai” and they still need knowledge and skill.
heres the problem those same techno bros gave you the very tools you use to create the art, capitalism is the driving force towards like 98% of innovation. art have always been and will forever be a luxury career and pastime for that matter only really becoming some what more accessible in the last like 30 years with the advent of the digital medium and it still costs like $100 to start of on a decent foot.
You say using AI in healthcare, and most ppl here don't mind that, but I already remember somebody got denied a procedure because AI algorithm decided so. Healthcare insurance companies about to start using it as a crutch, and just go "well our computer said so", not having to help pay people for their procedures (unless the bare minimum) and just extract as much money as possible out of people even in that field
Yeah there is a pretty clear distinction between ai and gen ai, no one is using gen ai for healthcare, its an important distinction to make so to not let bad actors fool us into accepting the existence of gen ai
Havent watched this yet but the idea of him claiming no one cares about AI in healthcare when it makes the already dangerous likelihood of someone being denied important medical procedures because the algorithm didnt think it was important worse is just ignorant.
@@LongcrierInProgress To be fair, that has been happening long before the big AI buzzword came around. As far back as the 80s even. Companies use computers as an excuse all the time. If anything, blame capitalism not the machine.
For real, in his last video all the people agreeing with him seem to be AI bros who weren't artists or his subscribers while everyone else disagreeing were mostly fellow artists and his subscribers who were disappointed. And like, it's obvious who should be the people he listens to as an artist and content creator because I doubt those AI bros are going to subscribe to his channel and watch and support his work.
@@wisemage0 sure but its silly to deny that you go to the expert in any field for the right answer, so when the topic is about art, you trust the artists.
Ai won’t take your job but PEOPLE who use AI will. Ai still needs a person to tell it what to do and have the eye to see if what it creates is good. Learn how to use it as a tool and you won’t get left behind.
AI can barely draw fingers and you want it to do your laundry? Where's your logic? Give more time for the technology to mature then only we should use it in the physical world. For now, let it cook in harmless stuff like artistry.
I'm glad you came out to clear the air, I love your content, and I say this with love, but your position on AI is a bit puzzling. Artists aren't fighting against AI as a nebulous concept that also happens to encapsulate its use in things like farming, medicine, manufacturing, etc, artists are fighting image generation, which, thus far, has had 0 practical use for most people. Every single time I've spoken to, or listened to the average person talk about these generators, its always filled with frustration that they are toys, and are impossible to direct with precision. The notion that these issues will eventually be solved and AI will reach the nuance necessary to emulate a human is a techbro pipe dream that has been getting called out by analysts all over the world (i.e. the Goldman Sachs report that came out recently), as the amount of resources necessary to make that a reality are simply not there. Chips, power infrastructure, training material, none of it is infinite. These companies WANT you to embrace this tech, they WANT you to start thinking there is some way to fit it into your pipeline, because if you don't, their billions of dollars they've poured into these developments will be for nothing, and the bubble will pop. We don't have any immediate need to "adapt". So, why encourage others to purchase subscriptions and use this tech, even if in a more "ethical" manner? We all know how tempting it must be for all beginners to have a second pair of hands to nudge their art to the next level, so you must understand that by putting out that video you are likely pushing artists that may have strayed away from the tech to all of a sudden rely on it for reference and ideas, which is not good. Beyond the fact that you are financially supporting these companies, it's just simply not at a level where I think it is appropriate to use as a tool, especially not for high level tasks like composition or accuracy in form, and even less so for beginner artists (which form a large part of your audience). These tools can easily introduce big issues in pieces and an overall reliance on getting these perfect snapshots of compositional ideas and direct references. Although I definitely like the spirit of keeping the video up to show your growth, I do think that the video shows a use that can be negative to artists. Although a lot of the elements of your piece for that video are really cool and work well, the hair and its place in the composition just feels like AI, it's disjointed and takes away from the piece, so, seeing how it can dampen the impact of a piece from an artist of your level, I can't help but fear how the usage of this tech could trick lesser skilled artists into overreaching and overall missing critical steps in their journey. Using AI to increase complexity to a level that you aren't comfortable reaching yourself is a surefire way to introduce A LOT of potential issues you are not prepared to deal with, and as such, it could result in bad habits, poor fundamentals and overall a dysmorphia between your own ability and the "ability" of the AI model. With the sheer amount of reference packs and resources out there to help young artists, I think early adoption of this tech just proves to be far more harmful than helpful I definitely get where you're coming from, and your heart is in the right place, but we shouldn't be premature in this adaptation for the sake of it, that has its own set of consequences.
I’m unclear as to what your argument is on using on a personal level. What is “not good.” We can’t just say not good and leave it at that. Big corporations using AI is bad. Sure. On an individual level as a reference machine? What different is that than finding references online? Not all AI tools even cost money, so you’re not supporting anyone but yourself. So what is the issue you’re presenting?
3:05-3:38 this was absolutely one of the most fundamentally flawed and frustrating false equivalencies from an artist I have ever heard on the use of AI generated imagery. I was really trying to temper my reactions and grant as much benefit of the doubt for the first 3 minutes of this video until you said this. I was dismayed at the subtle and shallow shifts of accountability you were dodging until this moment. This type of deflection is something we see from politically polarizing figures who know the ethical marsh their treading, is precarious at best. I find it almost impossible to take anything else you say going forward with credibility or authenticity. I went from dismayed to disillusioned, and your stance throughout this monologue made it even cloudier where I feel you truly stand. You cannot shirk the accountability the size of your platform gives you by saying, "I was dealing with my own worries about being replaced," and expect your audience to be empathetic.
I mean, as someone who wants to go into concept art, oh boy theres going to be 0 jobs going by the time i get out of college. Ai exists soley for profit. No matter the use, be it an 'assistant' or a 'tool,' it is soley for profit. If an artist wants a reference, just like we have since the beginning of art, they can go outside and get one. We never needed ai before to create art, and im tired of ai tech bros acting like we do.
I just hope you're not implying that stuff like posemaniacs or other tools as such are problematic. I'm saying this strictly from observation, not accusing.
@@Ape_Tero no not at all. Online resources are great. I use them too. However, in my opinion an artist finding their own references (or crafting them!)(including online resources, I should preface) Will always be more valuable than ai, because it actually exists - it's tangible. Even if it's not made by the artist themselves it's still made with love and heart by someone out there. Things crafted by humans have so much depth. They reflect experience, perspective, personality and life. When an artist uses something tangible like that as a reference, in a way they are translating those experiences into their own. But when an ai creates them its just created from a literal mathematical formula, a mimic of experience without any of the substance. A frankenstine, if you will. So even if an artists reference isn't crafted by them, it doesn't devalue their art because it's an echo of someone else's experience. Whereas with ai it's a whisper of something that doesn't even exist, if that makes sense.
AI exists to increase corporate profits by reducing the amount of humans they have to pay wages to, this fact isn’t negated just because a regular artist might figure out a way to use AI in their creative process. AI is still in its early stages, but the more it develops (which artists using AI are actively HELPING it to do) it will supersede artists and corporations will have zero need to hire human employees for art anymore. People are truly naive if they think AI will only ever exist to be a “tool” for real artists, the ONLY reason so many AI programs are free to use is because people-especially highly skilled artists-using it is helping train the AI to be capable of replacing for human artists! We’re presenting in late stage capitalism, so the only way innovation is still profitable is if it’s sellable to the top 1% as they’re the only ones with the money, hence why AI is being designed with those buyers in mind and not about improving the lives of the general population. All big corporations are obligated to fulfil the promises to their shareholders to increase profits, but because these companies have reached a point where there’s no new product or service they can offer consumers to create an increased profit off of, the new strategy is to cut company costs to increase profits, hence the strategy of replacing human workers with programs and robots as buying those is far cheaper in the long run than having to pay a liveable wage to a person. There’s no consideration for the economic consequences of the unemployment AI will cause, as at least for now, AI developers, big corporations as well as their shareholders all experience profit from doing this. Government regulations are really the only way to counteract this irresponsible greed but these corporations know that and use lobbying to get politicians to not do anything. AI is already greatly impacting the ability for artists to get work, including those who have been in the industry for decades, so AI causing job scarcity is a very valid concern for college students to have. It’s depressing for anyone who dreams of having an art career to have to consider, but it’s definitely wise to try and have additional skillset to be able to use to get work. Of course, it doesn’t necessarily have to be a non-art skill, because while preproduction and postproduction jobs are heavily impacted by AI, more difficult skills like 2D animation (both frame by frame and asset-based puppeteering) and just about all 3D art jobs haven’t overly been impacted/threatened by AI so are still safe skillsets for any artist to consider acquiring, just to have more security in finding consistent work.
I am in no position to judge anyone. I think the one area we need to be careful is normalizing the use of AI in anyway for creative work. The jobs are already being lost. RUclips is flooded with how to do X with AI. People are flooding Amazon with AI generated books. We aren’t going to win this but we can carve out a niche for hand made / non AI work. That said, the entry point for a young person into a professional art career has changed. I wouldn’t give up your art, but I might get a trade that can put food on that table while you build your brand.
I like the technology, but I agree there needs to be regulation against malicious and unsuited use of AI like that. It needs to be labelled, and the data should be credited.
I definitely don’t hate you in any way. We are all human trying our best in this life. I just don’t think there’s any ethical way of using AI in art at this present time.
@@JafetBottonIt is their opinion, but it’s bold for you to assume it stems from pure ignorance. There’s good reason to come to the conclusion that the use of many AI art generators at the moment are unethical to use due to how they’ve acquired the art they’ve trained their AI on, and the lack of laws and legislature.
I agree I still have my bell on I think he is amazing artist and I hope he will continue to teach and inspire us but as it is Ai is very unethical they are even trying to make speed paints now to try and pass it off smh definitely not made with artists in my mind unless to try and replace there definitely could be good uses tho just as it is now too unethical for artist (and others effective)
Ergojosh, you asked your community if they wanted a video on AI, they said "no we don't" and you did it anyway. You didn't deserve pure hatred, but negativity was bound to happen. The true problem: your usage of ai did not enhance your creative process in any way shape or form, it lengthened it to 100+ hours and I'd argue watered down your initial ideas. Let the ethics and morals aside: this is not a thing that benefits drawing and painting, it's a tool that works best when drawing and painting are EXCLUDED. This "adapt or die" stuff peddled around really has me questioning, adapting to what exactly since integrating it in the workflow severely downgrades the process and result? So you ignored your community's wishes, then showed us the weakness of integrating this thing in the workflow of a real artist.
Bringing up other machine learning (say, medical diagnostics) is a red herring. It's irrelevant to generative AI making images, text, or audio, so stop bringing it up.
Yeah. No. I absolutely think AI has its place in healthcare in the far future, but we've already learned all machines need some human intervention and not be fully computerized, ESPECIALLY HEALTH MACHINES
@@EmperorZelos base on your logic, he feel the threatened by being called out and his benefit lay in the use of AI. So he must justify it with the ethical use of AI in healthcare which none related to the topic and no one ask for.
Ethics aside, another problem with using A.I. as reference is that it is crappy reference. These systems don't understand what a face or a hand is. They just associate pixels. It is very likely you are getting outputs with the wrong proportions, lighting, anatomy, etc. I mean there is a reason we still do LIVE figure drawing and do studies from real life objects. Even photographs are problematic because because it messes with you depth perception (and these would be a way better solution than A.I. while in a pinch of not having live subjects available).
Right. AI is just a reguritation of any possible flaws with the original art. It's inherently a worser reference than the art itself if it had noticible flaws.
I generated an AI background for one of my comic panels (cartoon island and palm trees). It looks great and everyone I showed loved it, literally everyone. It's a simple backdrop, it worked.
@@kal7rider780People also "love" mcdonalds and coke. Does that speak to the quality of the product or the standards of the audience? If you want to make McComics then that's your choice, just don't pretend its 5 star fine dining.
@roycampbell586 what I don't get though, is why full-on anti AI art people can like your scene one second, give you a thumbs up, and then turn on you when they find out *gasp* you used an AI background to save hours on a 20 page comic you barely have time to do after getting home from work.
I don't believe you deserved to be personally attacked for your stance on AI. That being said, your opinion on AI as a "tool" reflects the way you see art and its process - simply a means to a final product. Which makes sense, seeing as you're a social media artist that is reliant on your artwork being glossy and pretty enough to stand out among everything else online, while also producing pieces fast enough to keep with the audiences' ever-changing interests. In this sort of "industrialization" of art, it makes perfect sense that AI seems like a "helpful" tool to you and others in your position. In the end, AI is actually a destructive tool in the process of learning art as a SKILL. Being an artist is not just being a machine that produces pretty pictures - it's a trade, like baking, or sculpting. It's about strengthening your brain muscle as much as it is the more subtle muscle memory of your fingers and wrist. AI doesn't actually "help" any of that - it's a shortcut, plain and simple. It's a tool to help artists get out finished pieces faster in this industrialization era of art, while also needing to spend less time on learning, and compensating for gaps in your artistic knowledge. So honestly, more power to you if you can still proudly use AI while swallowing that pill. Maybe it's a privilege to be an artist that doesn't feel the need to stress or rely on AI. But I think we can all start by being more honest with ourselves - and why we either vouch for, or against, AI generation within art or the art process.
art has always been industrialized. Old masters used to have many assistants to do their jobs for them. They didn't care about the artistic process or purity of art. Why? Because they had to earn money to eat. They had a product to deliver. Art for many is a job. You have a life to live. And only ONE life. Why would I say no to a tool that's going to make my work faster by providing references so I can spend more time with my loved ones or doing other things I love? You guys can slave away wasting your precious time looking for ethical references. Some of us got better and bigger stuff to do.
@@av3ngers17 fkkk yeah!!! Also Josh and Adam owe absolutely no one an apology, these ai art bashers are the same bunch of jerks that drag Ross draws for 'tracing' and using models for reference, dude went on a two year hiatus came back and now suddenly he is a darling because the art mob has moved the goal post yet again, f outta here!! 😂
@@av3ngers17 And as I said, more power to you. But it's dishonest to imply that you're slaving away any less thanks to AI tools. In my opinion, AI is as much a tool to help artists' art "look better" as it is to make the artists themselves FEEL better about themselves and the process. There's a sense of instant gratification that comes with saving a bit of time here or there, or avoiding the heartache of "struggling" to put together a piece. There's a sense of relief in thinking, "I made my work a little bit easier for myself," in a market where comfort or understanding is rarely offered to us. Ultimately, in the modern field of art, we're all putting in the oft frustrating work of getting our art noticed and recognized. The only difference is that some enjoy the process of creating artwork - and others don't, as you've made painfully clear with your several comments insisting that utilizing AI has "saved" you from "slaving away" at another piece, and everyone else is worse off for not doing the same. But you fail to consider you're not a slave to the process. . . rather a slave to your own perceived shortcomings - skills that need time and effort that you can't seem to afford to give, to develop further. And with that, I sympathize. This is just my complicated way of saying that I think AI ends up being copium for many artists that feel as though the modern landscape is frustrating or unfair. Which it is frustrating, and those feelings are justified. Art is something that takes time in a world we're told that not a second is allowed to slip us by and our moments are limited. But I think you should realize why you're actually defending AI - like a comfort blanket, everyone's saying you really don't NEED it, but it really does have a way of making you feel like you do - after all, it's "harmless", right? - but maybe your AI usage doesn't sound as glamorous when you put it that way. In any case, my main point here is that we should all be more honest about why we feel the way we feel, because all you're attacking with your rhetorics about "slaving away" are strawmen. Regardless, it's only natural that the one with the blankie is the only one who doesn't see what everyone else seems to see.
You inspire me a lot. I’m just disappointed that even an artist as big and powerful as you uses an ai. It might not harm you much because you already have a platform. But so many smaller artists don’t, and with the rise of ai it feels impossible to even get a single to look at your work and commission you. You as an artist giving a positive attitude towards this horrid technology gives green light to all those tech dude bros who keep pushing it down our throats. Authenticity is ceasing to exist, and rather than just accepting it we should fight it and resist it. Like someone said, we didn’t need ai art all this time, why do we need it now to create? Especially someone at your level.
You mean fight like the seamstresses did against hte sewing machine? How did that go for them? We didn't need machines to do work, we didn't even ened agriculture, humans survived for over 200 thousand years fine without any you like...but of course you will cherry pick. That which benefit is needed and good. That which shows how mediocre you are is not, bad, and must go.
@@EmperorZelos Sewing machine still need a skilled seamstress to operate it. An AI generating software just need someone to input a word in which the software then stole from other artist work. You not being able to differentiate that tells me that you are actually re tard ed.
@@EmperorZelos and yet with the sewing machine they still made their craft shine, can you just pick up a pencil or do you have to spend your time trying to legitimize typing words into an ai image generator as art 🫤
Just learn to draw hair bro. Jokes aside what you’re completely missing is that you’re a role model, and as such there are young future artists who aspire to be who they THOUGHT you were. And when you had the choice to either TRAIN to overcome your weaknesses or to find some ethically questionable shortcut, you chose the latter and there’s absolutely nothing aspirational about that. Weak. And today the youth need experienced people with SPINE to stand on principle and pave a pathway that prioritizes the integrity of our craft. Take the hard road, and I say this respectfully. Not only that, but this wasn’t some League of Legends splash page. There is no reason a stylized nude figure should take 112 hrs, no pro is sustaining a living this way. That’s more than 2 full time work weeks! And the people following you aren’t dumb enough to believe this is okay for anyone planning to build a future in this competitive field, so you shouldn’t treat them like they’re that gullible. It’s not a flex to spend more hours on something just to prove it took effort, especially when it’s needless. People say WOW when you make it look effortless without some needless AI crutch. I would never disrespect the intelligence of the people who look to my example in the way that you did. As much as you deserve this blowback, I hope you turn this around without doubling down on BS, not as much for your sake as for the people looking up to you.
@@GeminEyeArt yeah it's no flex to boast longer hours but as one of those young aspiring artists u mentioned, i look up to the way he spends those extra hours. Everyone seemed chilled with the extra time until ai was mentioned which was weird to me. The guy is notorious for spending more time on his artworks when he doesn't need to but it's that part of the process(where he's trying out different effects, layouts, color schemes, poses and ideas) that's taught me something. That's experimentation which is ironic for people to then say he treats his art as a means to a pretty picture Reminds me of this comic artist that traces with tracing papers after making pen sketches just because he didn't like pencils. He took the long, inefficient and more expensive route and still made amazing panels. Also from from what Ive seen. Majority of digital art features are riddled with shortcuts and third party plugins more efficient that generating ai images as reference. As for ethics I saw no issue in treating an ai image as any other reference but then I understand not everyone feels the same
@@Theo67-y5d Not taking away any enjoyment you might get from it. I only mention what I said because Josh himself was seen in some comments comparing his process length to that of professionals who do splash art. It wasn't under the context of "I'm exploring for fun" but rather a false comparison to an industry standard. It's dangerous to suggest that an artist can spend 112 hours on a single basic nude figure and make a living. Not only that, but he said so in defense of an ineffective use of AI on a piece that didn't even warrant its use and in fact suffered from it. Calling it ridiculous would be generous to him because it's actually much worse than that. There is absolutely no use case for AI as of now that wouldn't be counterproductive to my process in terms of both speed and quality that isn't already remedied by some other means. It really is just a technology to circumvent skill issues while stealing from artists, and to promote it as a viable tool in its current state is bonkers when we're in the middle of a conflict. I say, just develop your skills.
Young artists can still learn to be great artists, and certain types of art will still be profitable in an AI world (though it will be more of a niche thing) Just expect the phrase "there's no money in it" to become commonplace. Again, the elephant in the room is called 'capitalism.'
@@BaronBacon artists will certainly thrive, but AI in its current state is just a hindrance. Right now people seem to be confused by the overlapping of commercial industry expectations like speed and mass production by any means, with the more independent qualities of artistic skill and expression. In other words, shortcuts have a place that is suitable in the commercial world, but are less likely to resonate when you’re trying to have a voice as an independent creative. So, independent artists who dedicate themselves to acquiring skill (and actually get good) will certainly thrive over those relying on something like AI.
@@GeminEyeArt Like I said in another post - AI is in its infancy, and there's gonna be a ton of diaper changing. But it's not going anywhere. Progress IS shortcuts - regardless of how ethical people think of them. I was there for the digital art hate (which is still around today.) Yes I know AI is different because it will keep evolving. But while things seem awful now, ten, twenty years down the road it will get far better, just not in the job world. As for artist jobs...sadly, we are on the road to full automation, and it just so happens art, music, and writing jobs are now on the chopping block. All I can say is, do art if you love doing art - but don't expect it to pay the bills in the future. In my opinion, no one should be in the arts 'just for the money' anyway.
The problem here Josh, is the "Invention of (Insert technology ex: Photograpy)" argument is not just blatantly ignorant, but it is a big fallacy on it's own. It's a Straw Man, as designers and illustrators, we need to also immerse ourselves with meticulous questions and design decisions. Designing is not just making things pretty, everything has a reason why they are there. An AI can be used in scientific frontiers, but there is no reason to have an AI as a replacement for artists as an ethical thing 3:12 . AI Generated art literally designs for you, even if you take a small piece of what it created, the idea is still not you. If you can't create curved and flowy lines, why not be creative and think about another way aside from generating a piece of stolen data? The creation of AI generated art has a political and socio-cultural reason, main reason is for corpos and capitalists to churn art-related products for their brand or company so they can save more time and save money on hiring a real artist. We're fighting to dissolve that and your videos don't really help and It's creating more harm. This is not a topic of "It's just me, It's just my method and this is my opinion of how I use AI" when small artists are being harmed by this. You don't get to say "It's just my opinion" on this matter Josh, AI generated and and It's uses are incredibly immoral as an objective fact. This is not a comment to give hate on you, It's a comment more about educating your perspective. You're seeing AI generated art as a "Tool", when in fact AI generated art imposes immoral practices that can be harmful to original ideas and create unrealistic standards of productivity for artists. If you support this, corpos will just demand more products to us artists with unrealistic timelines. I hope you understand the implications Josh and I hope it's clear that your AI video and this video response is not helping anyone.
@@PlusSe7en I addressed what he addressed in this video that has a skewed view of using AI as a tool which he confidently stand with. For example, AI as an inevitable evolution in healthcare, Yes AI can help with scientific frontiers because some solutions require heavy calculations. Calculating is a process not grown from stolen data, as it is a standard with respect to scientific method. AI Generating art however, creates a data from Stolen data which replaces handmade art. Doctors are needed to maneuver certain solutions. While artists are completely being replaced, not by AI for now but Anyone, ---Anyone who can utilize it. One of the use case of a comment section is to comment on what he says and his opinions on his video. That's what I'm doing. It is not to repeat what he says. The TLDR is that I am completely against with his views on the use case of AI and to give something that can help Josh's views in the future.
@@formariokart he trying to distract the attention from the main object. People are not again AI as a tool, they again how that "tool" had been used to stolen data from millions artist without their consent.
bro people already have been blatantly stealing from each other and using those pieces of art as reference for their own WAAAY before AI. if your gonna reject AI as a tool, then you should start Berating every single artist who hasnt asked for permission to use their art as a reference. because those individuals are no different from what AI is doing.
@@Margeeese2 There we go, the infamous false myth that "AI learn like human do". The same myth the AI bros cling on hoping it would save their ass from being call out. This fasle myth has been debunk year ago by the tech research aswell, just google "AI death spiral" to read about it.
@@EmperorZelos not agreeing with you (since you’ve multiple comments here talking to the abyss and saying GAI IS ethical when there’s already so much information and reasoning as to why it ISN’T so I won’t even bother after this ) BUT did you mean *unintelligent?
@@CrynalleHughes this isn’t “making art” You’re free to make art however you want as long as *you* made it. Is this what you want your legacy to be you Alcucks.
@@CrynalleHughes Its strange we live in a world where people think its ok to stole multiple others work using AI and say "but hey, that's how human mind works"
Bullshit, they have to disclose sponsorships like that. What he showcased is just a much more responsible, utilitarian use of AI. We were even taught how to use AI to assist with minor things like this in the art school I went to. We're just not supposed to be lazy and have it replace our results.
It is also very important to remember Josh that AI image generation exists as it does publicly available because the developers of various models recognized what they were doing was dubious at best and outright illegal in most contexts so they rushed to get it to market and in the wild so it couldn't be undone. They opened the windbag and blew Odysseus' ship off course and far from home knowing that we're never getting back without A LOT of bloodshed that they will profit from and fund thinktanks and lobby to keep it going for as long as humanly possible to extract any value they can. These tools were NEVER made to respect or benefit artists or else they would have from the VERY BEGINNING been an opt-in model and trained exclusively on public domain/royalty free material. It was built unethical by design and given to the public knowing that if it was out and accessible it would insulate them from retaliation. One day I'm sure there will be ethically sourced data sets which can be used to create generators but the well was far from poisoned, it was dirty bombed the day we realized it had water. I'm not mad at you, or Adam, or anyone else that may have spoken out in your defense. Everyone has their breaking point and limitations and it is easy to get lost in the sauce and have a bad take. You're online, it is inevitable you'll say something that gets a hate wave. But as a public figure please always try to take a nap before hitting publish on a video and reflecting on what you are saying to what audience and remembering that you're not just a nameless face any more. You, as a public figure, have weight and responsibility. If you need to, pull up your Spiderman paintings and ask yourself what Uncle Ben would say. You're handling the backlash respectfully and I'm glad to see this isn't breaking you. And I'm glad you rediscovered a love of traditional art and I'd be excited to see you try some new mediums and what you learn from them.
*AI image generation exists as it does publicly available because the developers of various models recognized what they were doing was dubious at best and outright illegal in most contexts* Source?
I just love how countless artists have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to how generative AI works. It's not stealing art anymore than a grifter creating fanart from someone else's intellectual property then turning around and profiting from it. These neural networks are quite literally operating the same way an artist would render a new piece using multiple references and education learned from generations upon generations of art created over the years. The grifters are just mad their grift became tougher. Art is meant to be shared, and it's a privilege to find others willing to compensate them for an original work, but the notion of making a living from grifting is its own level of self-entitlement. True artists will continue making art however they see fit regardless of changes in technology and societal pressure.
Bullshit. *Machine learning is legally protected as fair use,* and the current AI wave comes from *non-profit research.* This wasn't some scary illegal conspiracy. It's also like the perfect example of something that SHOULD be protected as fair use, because that massively speeds up the technology's prpgress, thus making it useful quicker.
@@roycampbell586 Let me reiterate as you seem to have skimmed over my whole point: True artists will continue making art however they see fit regardless of changes in technology and societal pressure. All this time spent complaining about how others are creating art could be better utilized practicing and creating art. People today are privileged to have access to centuries of art before them, and AI generated art is no different. Think of it as the culmination of human expression to this point. Those who continue to create art regardless of external forces will be the ones remembered, not the ones following trends. The thing is, if you want to make a lasting impact, you now have the tools at your disposal to expand beyond your expertise, and those tools will only advance with time. I can now bring my paintings to life set to music whereas before they were still images on canvas. THAT is what progress looks like. Don't get me wrong, I don't support those who put no effort into their prompting (yes, prompting in itself is an art in understanding language and computer learning), or simply generate a ton of basic art then go sell it off for a quick buck. That is the grift, and I've never been driven by that opportunist mindset. But just like any other medium, that doesn't mean there aren't creators out there imagining truly remarkable things that no one has been able to create before. For the first time in a long time, we're able to witness what's on every participant's minds, not just the privileged few, and that - I think - is what's truly beautiful about the technology today. TL;DR: Use whatever tools you wish. For traditional painting, I use acrylics and white/black canvas. For multimedia creations and brainstorming, I use AI. 👍
So, things didn't go as he expected, he came to make a typical youtuber apology video, the old video was renamed, and now he's attacking a strawman by ignoring any real criticism of the use of AI. Man, that's low.
You never know if Midjouney hire some artist to justify the use of AI images or not. Those company ll buy anyone just to legitimate their AI robbery tool.
@@EmperorZelos What are you talking about?! Just scroll through the comments section, and you will find a lot of sincere and informed criticism. Saying that people don't understand the technology behind LLM, to avoid ethical discussions about generative AI, doesn't work anymore.
Bro I reject using Ai technology in my work to support living artists and photographers. Use of real word photos for reference is still king. AI technology in Healthcare Research there's no such negative impact I've heard of because It does not replace healthcare workers. I wish you well, I hope this is an eye opener for you on how much of an impact you are in the art community.
@@BaronBaconlive photography is an art of its own that requires skill, it's different from illustration and is important for capturing historical moments in time. I'm not understanding your point.
Thank you for showing how ai can make your art worse. I've been wanting to see pro's take up using ai expecting results to be amazing but your last video and the reaction showed me how ai has nothing on real art
Keep in mind that ErgoJosh used AI as reference, yet barely even stayed true to the AI art itself. All of the flaws in it were human-made. It seems more like the inevitable failures of making an "out of the box" art piece through unfamiliar methods. If AI had nothing on real art, it would've died out by now, but it clearly hasn't.
You seem to understand what went wrong with that video, and I'm glad to see that. I guess where we disagree is you think "it's not going away, so I might as well use it *as* morally as ***I*** possibly can even though at this rate it is not a wholly moral technology", and ***I*** think eyeballing, photobashing, and tracing doesn't make up for the fact that the "brain" of the technology was built off of photos and illustrations scraped without all the creators' consents. I feel like it's a betrayal to my peers. If images were licensed instead of scraped, and the environmental impact of AI render-farms (when the rendering isn't done locally) wasn't atrocious, maybe I'd use it to make references, too (though I find more value in photo reference, and referencing art by humans that have made intentional choices). But, we're not there yet. So, no. Good luck!
I don't get it. AI uses multiple references to make an image. Wouldn't using that as a reference be considered more unique or less damaging to any single artist than if I just used a single one of their drawings as reference ? This is talking strictly about using Ai as reference btw. I don't agree with making ai generated images and using them directly for monetary gain or to publicise something. Also I don't think any invention is wholly moral. You could argue that air conditioners are immoral cause they harm the environment. So I have to disagree with the idea that the technology itself is immoral.
@@alfredhoonter5955 Just see how humanity invent atomic bomb, did we adapt and use it for fun everywhere or should we make law to avoid the wrongly use of it ? The same can be say about AI, just becaus it's there doesn't mean we have to adapt to it. And as you can see through humanity 's history, we dont adapt to thief ether, we make law and put them into jail instead.
@@alfredhoonter5955 the thing is that an artwork is an intellectual propierty of the artist, and artists don't mind having his artwors being used as reference for other artists, but do care about it being used comercially by companies and having his own work being replaced with your own artwork. People using my art as reference isn't harmful, but an AI using it is harmful, and me being the owner of my artwork I don't want to allow companies to use it without my permission.
@@mandjoka_ I guess if AI strictly only used real life images and little to no artwork to construct images it would be a win. We could get references and at the same time no artwork is stolen. But at this point I don't think that's gonna happen.
Well, I’m going to continue to support him. I learned digital art around 2016, and I use AI sometimes. Personally, I don’t care what others think; I’ll continue to use it.
@@xenn2996 it’s a free country, do you. Generative AI is trained off of artist’s actual work. Someone may have worked hard to master that skill trying to support themselves. I took the long way. It sucks that someone as influential, got there off someone else’s efforts.
@@marcgilles4520 I understand how generative AI is made, and I believe there should be laws to make sure that companies can't use other people's work to train AI without their permission. I use AI as a reference, but the results can be inconsistent. Even though AI is becoming mainstream, I strongly believe that companies should still hire real artists who know about things like color theory, anatomy etc. I don’t consider myself an 'AI bro'- but I mainly use AI for creating unrealistic characters and animations. I’ve even animated 2D AI images in Blender on my other channels. For me, AI helps me save time but creativity doesn’t have to end just because AI-generated art exists.
@@xenn2996 it’s not about stunting creativity, or references, it’s about recognition. I don’t post artwork on social media anymore. Not given credit for work, is very personal to me. I can’t change what’s already done, but I’m not blindly going along with this. I have nothing personal against Ergo, just don’t agree with it. Unsubscribed
I remember how excited and Inspired I was when I discovered your channel late last year because there was a black artist and content creator who I could look up to as a young black artist myself. Unfortunately my support for you has come to an end today. Doubling down on supporting the use of generative AI as an artistic “tool” in an environment where models are being trained on stolen artwork, and accepting the widespread use of these illegitimate generative AI models as a valid strategy or method for improving artwork demonstrates to me that we don’t share the same fundamental values on what it means to be an artist. I respect your right to think differently, but I believe that the stance your taking will only harm artists in the long term, and stands mostly to benefit the large corporations who profit off the use of stolen data and labor.
@@nico3144 To me, art is about the communication of human expression, experience and emotion, and anyone who does this using any medium or tool of their choice (including ethical AI btw) is an artist. I don’t believe unethical generative AI can be used as a tool for artists because the vast majority of the artistic process is given away to a machine which has no experiences or emotions to share. It just copies the stolen experiences, efforts and emotions of millions of artists to produce an image which looks like it was made by a person. But it wasn’t. As the person entering the prompt for the AI, you are leaving so much creative decision making on the table.
@@j4kfr05t5 I didn’t look up to him solely because of his skin color, I looked up to him because he was one of the only people who looked like me in the online art space making content I genuinely enjoyed. It made me feel like if I put in the work, I could do it too. I agree that morals and values are more important than this though, which is why I made my comment in the first place.
I’m disappointed. You were a big inspiration to me growing up and developing my drawing skills. I always felt like we were learning together. I wanted to be just like you so I practiced and practiced. I got pretty good and I’m going to college for art now. It’s going to be my 3rd year this coming semester. It hurts seeing some of my heroes turn out to be something other than they were. I hope you find joy in creating art that you instilled in so many young artists instead of using unethical means to pump it out for monetization.
@@KalicoKalso now we forget all the skills and outlooks he has shared just because he generated an image to be used as a reference. Also u don't need to be a RUclips legend to know that mentioning ai will damage ur channel. I really don't see how he's financially gaining from any of this
@@Theo67-y5dno one said they’re forgetting his advice when it comes to art, but are we really going to ignore that his process looks stressful and dumb? Ai steals from artist who just want to share their work. It’s not only replacing us but other fields of work. So yes it’s unethical because he could’ve just used Pinterest instead of ai.
I don't see how keeping that video up is admirable. If anything, the video could be used by lawyers trying to justify the implementation of ai. "look this sizable artist with a massive fanbase says that ai is a useful tool!" The fact that you said that you still have the opinions that you had in that video makes me think that you're convinced that the title change "fixed" the video. But the video's message was as tone deaf as the title that was intended to give context.
@@pagheit lmao yeah cuz that's exactly what my comment means! this is not the time, for a video advocating for an "ethical" use case for ai in art. that's it. you don't have to "shut up", just read the room.
Probably for transparency and accountability. Imagine if this got swept under the rug by that video's deletion. Addressing it directly is far more admirable than caving into pressure. The title change only "fixed" the first impression it might give, as originally it seemed to some people he was saying a real artist uses AI, rather than a potential method and case study of using AI as ethically as possible.
Do you really think a lawyer could use this in a court of law? I don’t know much about the law, so I’m genuinely asking. I’m also going to assume we’re discussing American laws, unless you specify otherwise
@@GalateaHidalgo They're probably exaggerating, or misinformed. It "could" be used, but not likely, as there are plenty of other examples worth using that get the point across much more. I think the bare minimum of it being transformative has been met by a long shot, and I think that is what'll be used generally in court.
As an artist and a nurse I can clearly say: I don't want AI being involved in art, but I fear and dread AI being involved in health care in a way I can hardly express to people, who don't have much insight into the medical field. That's a can of worms we really don't want to open.
The first time I watched a video of yours I was in highschool, finally committing to doing digital work. I found your channel and was instantly inspired by your art and how you did things (hell you were one of the people in my research that convinced me to get an ipad pro that I still use today as my dedicated art tablet so I could use procreate among other things. Used to pop on a couple of your videos and draw along with you). Your journey and advice was immensely insightful even if it didn't always personally apply. Not long after I followed your channel you posted your concerns that all the algorithm or your audience seemed to care about was the latest expensive art tech you could show off rather than the art itself. I left a comment essentially explaining my opinion that it was you, your art that you put your effort into, that made your content enjoyable. That you didn't need fancy tools and gadgets; that just by making art you would attract and keep the kind of audience you were looking for; that personally I would gladly continue to support you even if you never talked about another apple product or drawing program again. I was there for your hard earned skill and how you chose to present it. That all being said, after being subbed for many years it is incredibly disheartening to see that this is the stance you've taken with AI of all things. Let's get some things straight: I do not think all AI is some blight on the world that needs to be destroyed. AI is a long term interest of mine, and I think it's a fantastic and wonderful innovation, but not all AI is the same. Conflating the usefulness of AI in non-creative spaces as proof that people are actually wrong about generative AI is a strawman that does nothing to benefit anyone. Even if I did ignore everything wrong with GenAI, it's achievements and potential won't mean anything if we choose to allow its creation to be fundamentally predatory. That's what you seem to not quite get even after you thought about it more. I am absolutely of the belief that it could be a great reference tool for artists in the future, but it isn't a resource tool. GenAI is a tool used to produce final products without artists. It is once again a demonstration in how we can streamline art to not need human effort. Hell we have helpful forms of AI tools that aren't inherently predatory: the magic eraser tool exists even if it can be misused. The magic eraser AI isn't made and used to cut out human creativity, it's a tool made to make a menial task easier. Also please don't imply the "There is no ethical consumption under capitalism" because nobody NEEDS to generate an art piece. That is not a necessity that people just so happen to end up doing in their daily lives as a result of just being a human who's trying to survive. It's very much so a frivolous luxury that you have to go out of your way to participate in, and that negatively impacts everyone in the long term. So that whole bit about compensating artists means nothing. People wouldn't have to beg for reparations if instead of trying to make excuses for GenAi and find a way to integrate it (trying to make it into something it's not), you pushed for an actual genuine tool to be made. Just because something exists doesn't mean it needs to be incorporated. Especially when we all know it's built directly on the predation of others. Ex: You wouldn't use a loaded weapon to put holes in notebook paper; you'd use a hole punch which is specifically for and better suited to the task of putting holes in paper. I'm probably not gonna stick around just because I don't want to encourage GenAI in my personal sphere at all. I do my best to remove it from my online experience by hiding/blocking accounts that post generated images, any search on the internet is done with -AI tacked onto the end, using adblockers, etc. I do however wish you the absolute best. Thank you for teaching me so much and being such an influential part of my digital art. You've been an incredible source of calm and your videos were a great comfort to me. I do find it hilarious that in a video where you tried to prove how helpful AI could be helpful to your process you just proved what I told you years ago on that post: You don't need fancy tools and gadgets that just get in the way of what we all came here for; to watch you do art. Even if you never read this I hope you never stop making amazing art. Good luck!
The disappointing part of the video is that you lose faith in yourself, "if you don't believe in yourself, believe in me that I believe in you". An artist should learn again to love their flawed styles...thats what makes us unique not the A.I. plastic surgery.
I don't hate you, but you come off someone who have poor judgement to me. If you can't see (well in this case understand) the rotten root of IA art and why it's deeply unethical I don't want you or your content near me. The "yeah it's gonna stay so since I decided we can' beat them lets join them" is very sad to me. Knowing you have that mindset makes getting any motivation from you really hard...
This man is just trying to survive in a changing market by exploring his options and doing what he can to keep an edge in his industry. There's a disturbing lack of empathy being shown by the people who claim to be "supporting artists"
@@CrynalleHughes yeah, I agree with you. This is so disappointing, and not because of him, but because of the artist community. I have taken a break from creating for a few years here (mental health, exhaustion, burnout, same old same old), but I'm honestly considering just never making visual art again. People will like you until you step out of line... as if art hasn't always been about breaking the rules and challenging common ideas, just not THIS one, apparently (I'll probably still make little funny comics or stuff for the aesthetic of it in all honesty, but I'm really starting to loathe the very community I came from, "we support artists who agree with us on everything" is what they really mean)
You’re all just afraid of change. You’re right being afraid when deep down you know you don’t have the strength to be the master of your own destiny. I feel bad for ergo, but that’s the consequence of lead and guide sheeps.
It should be deleted. The vid could be used by lawyers trying to justify the implementation of ai. "look sizable artist with a massive fanbase says that it's ok!"
@@JaxonPham I really don’t understand this position. Deleting would change little, people can still get ahold of the video or have copies. Adam Duff’s video is still floating around online even though he deleted it. I don’t think trying to sweep ai use by the art community under the rug through forced deletion to give the impression of perfect agreed harmony for a better court position is practical or morally right. All it is doing is creating infighting when someone isn’t conforming to the script. And if Josh did delete it, it would have fueled the fire that it is acceptable to keep pressuring until a creator is 100% toeing the line. That’s toxic. Full stop.
@@Peculiarpixel-s9l It's not just about being able to get a hold of the video though. Deleting the video is to say that you no longer agree with the position that you had when it was uploaded. While changing the title is definitely better than nothing, leaving it up combined with saying, that he still believes in what was said, really diminishes whatever apology I feel people took away from this video imo. I guess we just disagree with the ethics of ai in art, as I don't believe any artist advocating for it's implementation are truly weighing the damage that their position could cause in terms of where this all goes. While I agree being cornered into doing things can be toxic, I'd argue that it really is irrelevant to the larger issue here. Artists are fighting for their rights and for a better environment that will become the new norm for artists.
AI is nothing but theft. Art is a luxury earned through hard work and effort of the creator and unless you cant compensate for the creator for their art (unless the creator themselves ask not to), you absolutely dont deserve it.
To be specific;" AI generative is nothing but theft". Because AI bros 'll use "AI in health care is useful" as their shield if you say: " AI is nothing but theft". They 're so desperate to depend their lock pick tool at this point.
@@garydickson Most of those who depend this guy is AI bros. You can spot them easily if they have this: - use AI image as avatar - "adapt or die" - "AI learn like human do" - "AI copy is the same as human take inspiration" - "AI is just a tool"
For me, once u generate an image, paste it to your canvas, trace over it(albeit only some parts) you’ve lost me. Doesn’t matter how much u liquify or warp the image etc. those specific steps are a no go.
If that's what you think, take all the Inio Asano mangas (or every other comic you've in house), every art you have, put them into a bin and set them on fire. I tell you a deep secret: sometimes artists trace. We do that to speed up a process, to better understand a shape (like in this case) and so on. In this case was barely a floating movement idea (which, btw, is difficult af to draw). He decided to do that with AI because it was the point of that video. Sorry lad. I broke your dreams about artists like knighs in shiny armor.
@@enzotriolo_ yeah, but u don't post your art that was traced. That's a study and not an art piece for the world to see. Tracing and posting is horrible, tracing and keeping it to yourself as a study that you did to learn and improve yourself is okay. I don't think thats even a secret. I think thats just bs because only low skill level artists will try to speed up their process by tracing. Your average artist that has been drawing for years will draw and produce entire fully rendered artwork in less time than with tracing. Sure tracing can speed things up. but I don't see a reason to do that. How are you gonna create entire comics with some parts being traced? Imagine the effort needed to even find everything wanna tracer over. You might as well draw it on your own because by the time you gather everything you need, you would have been done with it if u just drew it yourself. Plus it's way better to draw from a reference and try to draw it without tracing. That's gonna make you improve 10x faster. Tracing is only good at making your hand understand the movement that it makes when drawing some subject
@@cosmosj7907 You're mislead there, a lot of traditional portrait artists trace (pet and animal artists as well) , time is money and the more portraits you complete in the shortest time frame, the better.
Removing the title on your previous video doesn’t change at all your stance on ai generators. And trying to justify yourself by doing these videos shows clearly your stance. You got called out and harshly, because this a very delicate problem with how these machines have been feed WITHOUT consent from thousands of artists, but you just don’t care simply because your own narrative “if I use it in the bare minimum , I can get away with it” . Good luck.
The service you used scraped people's data without their consent, without giving them the option to opt in, and without compensation. How is it anything but a plagiarism machine?
That's what humans do when they look at someone elses images and then make something similar. Noone has ever stopped them from doing so because they didn't have an angle to attack from. The only reason they attack ai and not people is because there's a single thing they can point their finger at. I think people should ban god. We didn't give consent to exist on this planet either. And you know people would have kiled god already if it existed in physical form. Perhaps that's why we are destroying the world. NEXT.
You're a failure at understanding that AI was TRAINED by scraping BILLIONS of art pieces by MILLIONS of artists. Pretty much any usage of AI steps on the backs of other artists that did not consented for their HAND-MADE work to be used to create their AI models and AI Empires. They used PRODUCT to create a PRODUCT that other people like you use to create more PRODUCT. And I'm not blaming you, I'm just explaining it to you. But AI art is immoral by definition, it's stealing, it's burglary, robbery, it's literally criminal but it has not been regulated yet because it's evolving faster than law makers can even understand what AI truly is, which is an amalgamation of souls stripped away from artists, photographers, models, painters... it's something that doesn't belong to them.
This is what humans do as well , we make art based on what we see and experience , we develop styles based on others , that is like saying if your art has a similar style of X artist because you saw their art that you are stealing their art.
@@skylesai The same logic which AI bros has been use for year and it has been debunk along time ago. Just let me ask you one single question: "Can AI train on another AI image without getting degenerated and collapse over time?" Of couse No While human artist can learn from another artwork of other human artist just fine. See, just a simple question and your fail theory already exposed.
@@skylesai Humans don't need art to create art, they create because they're driven by dreams, their life experiences, inspiration, imagination... Things which derive from the soul. Something an AI lacks. AI steals to compensate for what they lack.
@@huymaivan8671 Yes actually, synthetic data is a useful method for AI and is a recent development which allows squeezing more improvements, although, the LLM field is the one employing it the most now, visual models are not getting worse as was predicted by the increase of AI content, because obviously you can train discrimination methods -- the degeneration idea is the one that is not substantiated, it happens for specific approaches, you can't generalize it, I don't get why art bros like to talk about technology they don't follow.
@@BlackTakGolD AI company basically selling illusion pie to attrach their investor, If synthetic data is useable they would did it from a long time ago. The very nature of generative AI is thief not creative, therefore synthetic data generated by them is unclear data and unusable from the very beginning.
We don't say that AI is useless. We also don't say that genAI is useless. We just say, that genAI was unwanted yet we still got it, because TechBros decided it will be a good idea to automate the only thing that we SPECIFICALLY never wanted to be automated and convinced corporations that thanks to this they can save up some money thanks to layoffs. I hate genAI, I hate people behind it and I will never respect anyone saying that it is okay to use it.
Nobody is using it in a harmful way by accident !!! 1:33 My god i hate when people make excuses for others . The people that use AI to steal and copy brag about it publicly ! This is no accident .... in the end... AI steps on people and i won't stand for it.
*AI steps on people* I don't follow, if you are describing issues with people using AI to do all sorts of badstuffs? If so, how is that "AI doing" X/Y/Z, not "person using AI to do X/Y/Z" like your first sentence seemed to state?
So true :"] I have no idea how he ended up like this. Also lol the ai bros response, they always find that one wrongly worded sentence so they try and defend themselves 💀
The same could have been said about photography. Where do you draw the line? If a poem can be written in a haiku and that is art, how is writing a prompt not art? And do you know about all the additional work ai artists have to put in to get exactly what they want? This inquisition against ai artists feels like religious fundamentalism.
@@setzstone Please drop this photography argument. Photography demands knowledge of its fundamentals, how to use a camera, composition, how to use light, which lenses work best in a shot etc. Generative AI is a slot machine where you drop a bunch of text inputs and then let the model randomly assemble whatever it wants from its data. You can "fine-tune" as much as you want with a hundred of prompts and in-paints, it'll never change the fact you're just rolling a dice. Stop trying to pretend that typing "trending on Artstation" is an acquired skill.
@@Movel0 you don't know how it works to have such virulent opinions. You've not heard of controlnet, img to img, LoRAs, embeddings- you know nothing of the tools so your opinion is worthless.
@@setzstone AI should never be claimed as ART, it is a GENERATED IMAGE. if your going to use AI, just use it like ergo josh. atleast then you actually put in work
I am not going to attempt to construct an argument that any use of AI is copyright infringement. However, I do believe that any use of AI, ESPECIALLY promoting it, teaching others about it, or otherwise encouraging others to use it is supporting the AI industry, which is in itself unethical. It doesn't matter if you are using it relatively ethically. If you aren't protesting or otherwise fighting for change, you are on the wrong side, and you are working against everyone in the community who is fighting so hard to make real change in the world. Far too many people have the attitude that it's here to stay, and we have to accept it. If that was our attitude every time we were faced with injustice, we would never change a single thing. We are in a position where there is a real possibility to make real improvements, and spreading this way of thinking sets us back significantly. It's exactly the way AI companies want us to think, and we can't fall into their trap.
AI isn't going away, you're right about that. there are practical applications for ai/automation to speed up tedious, technical parts of a creative workflow. but specifically generative ai is unethical. there is no reason we should normalize the commodification of art, as it is what makes us uniquely human. applications like Midjourney ONLY exist as tools for capitalism
Yeah, the same happen to atomic bomb. It dont go away, but when human kind realize their brink of intinction, they make "treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons" to prevent the use of it. Saying some thing like"adapt or die" is just what AI bros would say to allow the justification of thief,
@@huymaivan8671The difference is an atomic bomb kills people. Ai at most makes you lose your job. Let’s not compare the death of millions if not the whole world to AI lol
I get where you're coming from, but your point seems null and void because most AI image genorators are currently struggling with the issue of accidentally scaping AI content. Due to the saturation of AI genorated images and the oversight that these techbros are starting to accidentally scrape AI content, we're ending up in this feedback loop where AI are just amplifying their own mistakes. So not only is content plagerised, it's also becoming increasingly shit in it's output, and most companies are having to spend thousands in man power to use delearning techniques, which is still a highly experimental branch of AI. Not only are you supporting an unethical tool, but you're supporting a bad one at that. Edit: I really like Ergo Josh and will keep watching him even if we disagree. He has some good points and his perspective is refreshing and not the same mindless response to AI, but it still feels wrong somehow. I should be the exact person into AI, but the artist in me knows image generation doesn't sit right with me, beyond all the ethical debates and plagiarism. It's just not the same as real art, and beyond that, it's so boring and dull. It copies the majority of popular trends and produces something even more mediocre and soulless. I feel the same as I do when I view corporate art, but even that has more merit then AI in my opinion.
I like the fact that you came and admitted to the faults in that video that were impossible to miss. Namely, that angry tone which drove you to hurt your audience. I mean, you even called the piece "What the meek see". Let's not pretend that wasn't also meant to be inflammatory. So, even though I understood what you meant about making use of whatever tools we have available to us, it's hard to excuse the use of something that has it's very foundation built in a harmful way to a whole community of people. So, yes, I was disappointed too and thought of never listening to you again. However, I've always liked to listen to what you have to say. That video you made on your Yor Forger piece motivated me a lot back then, when I was struggling with my artistic insecurities. That and many other videos were a great incentive and helped me look at things in a better perspective. That is why I think it's a great attitude to come and be open about this like you just did. Turns out that you are just human like all of us, who would've thought :] It is important to let us know you're mindful of all that you talked about in this video. It's important also to show the ability for growth, as you've said. I entirely agree that emotions shouldn't be hidden and stashed away, because they're a huge part of creating art too and just being human in general. I still don't agree with the premise of the last video, because I don't think there's any way of supporting generative AI (just the one that generates images and videos, the models that are helping humanity in a meaningful way are fine), exactly because of how it came to be. There was also Adobe trying to use anything people made in photoshop to feed their generative AI initiative. We have to guard ourselves against that and don't give them any spec of an argument for them to try to use against us. If not for the benefit of the community, for us to not leave entire parts of our skillset relegated to a machine, if nothing else. Lest this becomes a crutch. In summation, I'm glad you took this to heart and thought on it. There's a lot there for all of us to learn
Or you could just not engage with a technology that is still in its infancy and is being highly controversial in the field. There's absolutely nobody forcing you to use it. There's also nobody arguing that AI's use in other fields hasn't been helpful. Of course people are complaining about AI in the context of picture making. Assuming otherwise just makes it condescending to whoever you're talking to. If you're really concerned from an educator's point of view where you want to teach people a "better" way of using the tool, start by teaching what the tool actually does and why its use is frowned upon. Educate them on why there's a debate. Now, if you're just chasing clicks (which is very obvious from the last video's clickbaity title and writing AI in lower-case to avoid filters) and wanting to be early to the party for teaching people how to use AI "like a REAL artist would", you're doing it like a champ. This video really just shows how you don't really care about the subject itself and it's more of a matter of toning it down because people are angry at you. In other words, maybe you should add a couple more lines to the title of the AI video to sound even more petty, maybe that'll help.
All publicly available image generators are trained by scraping art from various sources, the network sometimes reproduces close copies of specific pieces or even mangled versions of signatures. The works are used without consent. Unless you invest a ton of money to create a new data set and only include images with people’s consent, it’s inherently unethical to use. AI is a fascinating field and has many uses, but the art stuff is basically a lost cause at this point.
@@milkteamachine I disagree with this take. What you described is basis of learning. Even a human, after they have studied an art piece, they have the ability to create something similar to an existing piece. Obviously AI can also do the same but guess who's prompting the AI to do it? It's us. So AI isn't "unethical", humans are. Just prompt it to make something original and we're good.
"The works are used without consent." By posting it to a public forum you have given informed consent. I can download your PFP, photoshop it and use it how I wish. Nothing unethical about that.
@@RegBinaryYou have to understand that these programmers, the people making these generators, are taking tons of copyrighted artworks without the consent of artists to fuel their tech. They did not pay or ask for the permission of copyright holders to use these pieces to create their product, which they’re now using for commercial purposes. This means that the labor of artists is being used to fuel a product (many commercial) which would not be possible or nearly this advanced without their hard work, yet they receive no compensation and were never asked for their permission to be apart of these projects. So it’s still unethical and still along the lines of theft.
I’ve subscribed to you for a long time and have been following your stance in this whole AI thing and always give you the benefit of the doubt. But I guess now I know where you stand. It’s kinda disheartening when you clearly missed the point why artists are angry at these generative AIs. Well, it’s a goodbye, then. Good luck on your future endeavors 🥲
I appreciate your transparency and your attempt to explain your thoughts and feelings in a more mature way than you did in both your previous community posts and ai related video because it created the impression for me and likely other viewers of your channel that you were trying to willingly deceive and try to pull a fast 180 with ai going from promoting an anti ai stance to trying to shift towards the other. I’m glad that you’ve cleared that up more. I think of course in hindsight that if you had explained things in more detail like you’re doing now and including that nuance that it wouldn’t have blown up quite as big as it ended up doing, though of course there will always be a few folks that can’t see the nuance. I do hope that you continue to do studies like you used to, promoting healthy habits for intermediate artists to help them improve their fundamentals and enhance their craft even if it’s less fun than simply coming to rely on a comforting crutch or shortcuts to make up for skills that they don’t have yet but can if they can develop if they put the time and effort into it. I think that that aspect of your content is drastically needed and creates a positive impact on the art community. Watching your channel for the past few years I felt like I was growing alongside you on a journey of improvement in art giving hope and confidence to many young aspiring artists that with enough practice and discipline we can reach our personal art goals and become the professionals that we hope to be. It’s also why hearing about the previous ai workflow tutorial video was a bit disappointing at first because the way you had worded your community post gave off the impression that you were thinking of using ai as a quick fix to make up for your current lack of knowledge with drawing straight hair which was really antithetical to what your channel had always represented. I’d love to watch a video of you studying hair and improving your understanding on an aspect of humans that you aren’t as knowledgeable in yet. A professional artist does sometimes use shortcuts, however they do so while still knowing and being able to do the thing to a competent degree manually, thus making it an active choice instead of a crutch. I hope that you have a good day and keep on creating.
The problem I have with AI generated stuff (beyond the obvious theft) is that I consider that Art in any form is all about sharing a very personnal message with audience/consumers/anyonewhosees/listen (call it whatever) thus creating kind of a bond. For me that very bond is called Art and is goddam precious. How would you feel if every kind words that were ever adressed to you by people you love, were never genuine, all copypasted or at best reformulated from the book "kind words for dummies" ? That’s how I feel when I see a nice image and discover it’s made by AI. All the admiration I may have had instantly vanishes. Sadly it is indeed kind of a naive point of view that has nothing to do with how the actual lambda consumer consumes art. ( like fast food rather than an actual vector of human emotion). It is also kind of a flawed argument because every mind on earth sees Art differently. Some may give it a capital letter, some may not and that’s fine. That being said, Josh you still have my genuine admiration & subscription, with love. Can’t wait to see what you’ve been cooking traditionnally 😀
@ergojosh I perceive that your values include curiosity, mastery, support, authenticity and compassion. You do a lot of self reflection which is refreshing. The internet, especially social media is a place where a lot of people expose and vent their judgments, criticism, anger, and cancel people for being brave enough to share their perspectives. As a multimedia artist who was alive 20 years before the internet , I value curiosity and experimentation and this means I have played with countless mediums, technologies, techniques, instruments, processes, moving between analogue and digital and back again. I feel somewhat apprehensive about putting my work out into the world because it triggers a fear of rejection. Witnessing the type of anger that people on your channel express does give me anxiety as some of my work involves AI in the process. However I also understand that I need to focus on the resonant energy and intention behind my work not on how it will be received. I thank you for continuing to be brave and curious, and I wanted to extend my gratitude and encouragement to continue following your creative intuition rather than allowing others to influence and dissuade you because of their negative judgments. Your creative output cannot and will not please everyone
Your consistent support of 'AI is Inevitable' is a self fulfilling prophecy. AI has its place, but it's replacing human jobs and should not be encouraged in the arts no matter how small. Your stance is puzzling and disappointing.
Just asking himself if "Atomic bomb is Inevitable" then would he adapt to 100 million degrees Celsius when the Atomic bomb explode. Or why should "treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons" exist in the first place. Apply the same logic for AI and you can see how stupid and delusional those AI bros are.
The art community really loves a good pile on. I mean, I don't particularly like the story of generative AI imagery so far either. What the companies have done was wrong, the business model is unethical etc, but...but...but...this man painted a picture people. He didn't kill your dog, or blow up a kid in Gaza, or punch a baby. He painted a picture. If ya'll are really that upset about a youtuber painting a picture and using AI as REFERENCE, turn the computer off, turn your phone off, go outside, look at the stars, contemplate how small this whole planet is in this vast and practically endless universe. Think about all the souls on this tiny organic spaceship flying through space, what they're all going through, from those fretting about the future of digital art, to those fretting about life and death. Where does this fall on that spectrum in terms of importance. Keep some healthy perspective.
Yeah, i won't say ai is trained ethically or not. But something just seemed wrong. It's like if people protested how a sausage was made. IF vegans didn't go after the meat factories or people. But instead started trying to send death threats and mobbings to people. of course the real life police would get involved and arrested. There's a story of anti hunters vegans who tried to cut down the hunting posts to cause leg injuries. The hunting community, not the type to look over things after their father broke a leg, found them. It's unclear if they went missing but if you play with fire, don't be surprised if you end up burnt. But with art. It feels like "im worried about being replaced, lets make you feel afraid to be around me" "less people are coming" "im left behind" "THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT" and idk. If there was a easy solution, it'd have been done already by now. But i stopped trying to care and just walked away, even with 100-1000$s spent on art. Not because i didn't enjoy it at the time. But it literally felt like it had turned from past recreation/pay and chat with someone. to feeling hated, resented, demonized, mob, treated like a beaten wallet to pay atm rent, while dissapointing them anyways, while a thousand people had money troubles, while also watching people refuse to pick up 20-45$ a hr jobs. For hells sake, it's not great but even a job at Bucee's gas station can apparently pay 25$ a hr to 150k a year or in and out or a trucker job paying 40-70k a year. Would it be art, no, but it could keep people alive. I know people want to be famous artists and im not trying to burn the dream becuz evil ai satan. just i don't want, enjoy, or want art anymore. i want hte whole chapter burned and gone, i want to move on. I want healthy people in my life, not unhealthy fictional fic addictions. People seemed to want $$$ addicts, not people.
you should try to do your own model with only copyright free content + your materials and see how good it is. It won't be any good, by the way, and you're wrong. You don't know what you're talking about technology wise, and it's apparent when you equate the machine learning used for generative AI to the machine learning used for medical purposes. It's fine to be pro AI, if you want to be, but educate yourself on what you are promoting, and how it relates to the arguments you're using to defend it.
I do like and respect this guy but unless he says I will never do this again i feel a little uncomfy watching his videos. this dude is a fantastic artist without using any form of ai and that's why I follow him in the first place. I like watching him talk and draw. with that said if I was in his shoes I would say "yes I messed up and I will never use ai again." i feel like if your using it to generate ideas with words that's one thing, hell I do that every now and then although when I do it I just end up scrapping the ai's concept all together and just start brainstorming on my own because even word generation is quite generic. currently I don't where I stand in all this but I will never support ai for art making unless somehow someway the tech bros stop stealing other peoples art and I know Karla Ortiz is working her ass off to do so but it just won't be that easy and I wouldn't be surprised if it just gets worse.
No hate at all, we are all trying to find ourselves as artists. I totally understand being excited about finding something "new" in a process. People reacted way too emotionally to your previous video, and I could see the hypocrisy in people calling out your art literal "shit" just because it had an AI stamp on it. I believe they would not even notice if you had not say it. I just think that using ai in a process and rationalizing it is a cope. Im not saying its impossible to do it though, you are just too ahead of time. But at least try man. I would want to be remembered as someone who fought not as someone who gave in.
I wish ai tech was used and created like the 3-d models artists used to pose, but knowing all the data and images used in ai was ripped straight from the internet is the problem. If they just asked or an ai coder decided to make a clean program where artists can volunteer or be payed to input their images THEN that would be okay. If a program can do lineart over a sketch, or can fill in a change the colour palletes would be fine. But knowing a program has frankensteined other artists works
I like how you have to believe that there's some corruption so you can feel like you're in the right. You people are dog pilling and harassing a talented artist who committed the ungodly crime of *gasp* TRYING TO USE AI IN HIS WORKFLOW. And somehow you all think that you're the good guys.
I saw the video and because I've followed you for so long, I know it came from a place of love regardless of how the message was conveyed. Thank you for clearing it all up. I'm sorry for how people treated you. Know that I support you. I will never support hate. 💜
I'm not against AI, I think it is just a tool for still creating in a more efficiente way, the video that you made didn't make me think in any bad way of you, at the contrary, I thought "Oh wow, maybe I can use this tool better" and it did, thank you for still investigating and for developing your own art, everyone has an opinion and they should respect the one that you have as we should respect the people who are against it.
It's still disappointing to see an artist use AI. You don't realize it, but you just gave the AI bros the thumbs up. So, congratulations I guess? For welcoming a "tool" that is actively harming other artists.
@@rinyyp7742 Are you kidding me? What is there to not understand? It doesn't matter how much he used it. It's the fact that he's a popular artist that literally shows how he uses the AI and a popular artist that DEFENDS and promotes that. If you don't see anything wrong with it then you're blind.
@@rinyyp7742Even if you want to make the case that the output of Ai art is original (which is utterly ridiculous), at the end of the day THE Ai WAS TRAINED ON STOLEN ARTWORK. That’s the part we have a problem with. No matter how you slice it, IT’S THEFT, IT’S UNETHICAL. Got it? Got it.
@@orus_inantis Why would I be crying over my unsubscription from a channel that I have zero interest in? If anything not having swill in my feed is a benefit to my user experience on the platform lol
Funny thing how everyone who using Ai trying to manipulate with health, robots and other shit lol You’re “artist”, you don’t need Ai, this is not the same as health care or robots cleaning in dangerous places. I hate this type of artist, pretending they are one of us, protecting Ai.
@@CrynalleHughes He doesn't understand because he doesn't want to understand. it's why he didnt refute any points. People who thrash their emotions around like this don't deserve to have their opinions taken seriously. moving on.
*"AI is theft"* Is IMO useless, and an incredibly dangerously broad statement, since "AI" is a wide range of technologies with a wide range of being made, and with an equally, if not greater, range of potential uses.
I really appreciate you sharing your views and thoughts on AI as an artist. It's disheartening that right now, most people are so polarized by social media that the mere mention of AI makes them hate you. You are a brave and good person; most would choose to simply stay silent and leave us other artists in the dark, but you are doing your best for all of us, even knowing that you'd face all this backlash. Be strong, and know that many of us deeply value and support you and your work (but most are just scared of saying it aloud).
@@overpope3510 Thank you for sharing your perspective. My comment was intended to support the importance of open and honest dialogue about the use of AI in art. We all benefit from transparency and open discussions about ethical implications. It's no surprise that AI in art leads to some heated discussions, but it's crucial to remember that behind every channel and work is a person trying to explore new forms of expression. Before assuming bad intentions, it's beneficial to listen and try to understand the perspectives of others. I understand that there are concerns about how some artists use this technology, and it's a valid topic that deserves attention. However, Josh made a video specifically to explain how he might use AI in his creative process, trying to be as ethical as possible within his understanding, and (as he himself says in this video) he has listened to criticisms to try to improve (for instance, by stopping using MidJourney). Regarding the community, the vast majority of followers continue to support the artist, which suggests that many value this type of innovative content and his honesty in presentation. Losing some followers is a natural part of any artistic evolution, especially on such divisive topics. The diversity of opinions is vital in any artistic community, and we should strive to keep our discussions as respectful and constructive as possible. We are all part of the same global artistic community, each exploring and expressing in our own way.
man...disappointing take on ai for sure. You created a safe space for us artists to talk about our issues, us artists are saying ai is an issue to us...and you say lets use ai? Come on man just draw your own art we dont NEED ai. We dont NEED electric lighting you can choose to avoid these tools
First, I would like to say that you are an important person, both as an artist who shares his knowledge and as a dignified, hard-working and serious person. And, second but not least, I believe that some of the criticisms you mentioned are really very empty. I do not feel comfortable with the way AI tools aimed at illustration and audiovisual production "work" (in the most "piratically savagely root capitalist way" possible), mainly because this is happening without efficient regulation and without a mature and non-polarized debate. And that is why I reject using it. But, keeping quiet about this topic (or keeping others quiet), and not knowing what it is about, will not help at all (at least for us, as a category). I hope you are well, do not get discouraged and continue sharing your knowledge and serving as a professional inspiration, as always, in the healthiest way you can. A big and fraternal hug!
it was what i felt after watching the video, the part where you didn't talk about AI were nice, chill and educative, but when AI was in the mix you were a bit more harsh and direct even aggresive i would say or in defensive state rather than a pedagic mindset, That the only issue I have with your video.
As someone who mainly does photobashing and traditional line art, it would be dishonest of me to deny that AI has advantages over using photos to create art, since I only started photobashing about two years ago. That's when I realized where I was struggling. I learned a ton by watching one of my favorite artists do it. I picked up a lot about grayscale, composition, and stuff like that from their tutorials. Watching your videos helped me a ton with understanding values and how to use them in my art. I've definitely improved over the past two years because of it. I know what I'm capable of as an artist, and AI is definitely a tool I can use. It’s made my process way faster. Most people are stuck on whether AI art is real art or not, but I do note that it can be a tool if you use it like one. AI can't really capture the intention behind a piece like a human can. That's what sets artists apart from AI. One thing I’ve noticed in this AI vs Artist discussion, is that people who aren't artists usually just care about the finished product while Artists love the process. We're always tweaking stuff. So, while AI can be helpful, I still have to make the decisions on the whole creative process. I love photobashing compared to traditional drawing, and I recently realized how AI could be a huge help. I wouldn't use it all the time but It's more like a tool in my kit. Like, if I need to generate a piece of wood for a building I'm designing, I can generate it and then use it in my photobash. It's definitely speeds up the process, not replacing my skills.
@@Caesarpinaceaehopeful laws can help with stuff like like and the ethics of Ai if it did I think a lot people would use Ai and like the tech of course not stop drawing
Disappointment in the current perspective you hold on the ethics and presentation of ai cause of your influence on me and others. Not disappointed in you as a human on the other side of the screen. Anyone supporting midjourney that steals (art, labor and prospect) is an action many feel to contribute to ire. We are all capable of learning and growing and holding multiple opinions. We are not luddites who bawk at all ai as an insidious enemy. Its obviously useful with certain ethics in mind. It's unfortunately a tool that has been aimed at extracting skilled labor and personal sentiment for nefarious profit and devaluation. So seeing it from a person who you learn motivational skills from and resilience, and has a Cara account is weird.. optics and very jarring. Dont think you're bad. Just think theres a certain level of awareness you at one time possessed and now you possess an acute awareness. I still don't fully agree with some of your more surreptitious opinions on ai and implications on those who are not fully behind all forms, many people can not guarantee their place in an industry dominated by ai. Many have lost jobs and opportunities. Hope to see more mind over matter, grit and determination videos about manual art that I've grown to enjoy on your channel. Take care either way
This is embarrassing, the staggering environmental impact of AI and the art theft should have been enough for you to apologize and leave this all entirely but instead you rather make excuses. Unfollowing.
I don't know if you'll see this, but I just wanted to let you know that what you did was very brave. The conversation around AI Art has always been extremely hateful and toxic, and a lot of artists have been wrongfully harassed because of it. So many of my favorite artists who haven't even touched AI have been harassed by these same people, simply because some trolls wrongfully accused them of using AI in the work. So I wouldn't blame anyone for staying away from AI altogether or claiming they are anti-AI simply to keep these people away. You tried to experiment with a new technology and whether or not you think that technology is right for you is completely your choice. You are an artist and regardless of what these people want you to believe, they do not own you or your process. You owe nothing to them. These people who turned on you are misguided children, throwing a tantrum and lecturing you on what art is without even having stepped foot inside the professional art world. They are a loud minority and not worth your consideration. Take care of yourself, and know that you do have fans who truly appreciate art and understand the work it takes to make it regardless of what tools or mediums you use.
I think AI is never going to go away so if you like it or hate it, you're going to have to deal with it. It's never going to stop. You're going to have to either adapt and use it or fall behind unless there's like lawsuits that ban it and compensate artist which probably won't happen. Since everything is going to be AI in the future, you might as well incorporate it. Use it as reference to improve your work. Don't like copy it but instead of like generating images and tracing over them for example you can use it as photo reference. In the future it's probably going to be like the Disney movie. Wally where nobody works and AI does everything for us and then they'll introduce universal income ubi and then you can do whatever you want with your free time because if a lot of jobs become automated people aren't going to want to work. If you have to go to school unless the government makes it mandatory and pays for your education so you can contribute to society. Because if all the minimum wage jobs are done by Ai people really work anymore. I never went to school for anything because I never found it interesting. The only thing I ever like to do was art . There's a good RUclips channel that talks about this a lot. David Shapiro.
Honestly, with things as fractured or hatemobby as they can be. I'm kinda half worried about like a Jonestown or just like if it's crying wolf, Some people raised prices 100$ to like 1000-2499$ next to "Don't like it? Don't buy it, i have plenty of ORDER" posts of like chibi cat arts. Arts is a little like a NFL, 1% get 90% of the attention, Honestly with Dragoneer's death /passing. I think even a Wall-E "Dystopia" would be optimistic. Not saying they live great lifes, they're in a gilded obese cupcake cage but like. It sounds like a teenager's idea of a apocalypse, everyone on their phone, vs what happened to Dragoneer, dying in a hospital with a 27000$ hospital fee. Guy was super anti ai and super artist supportive, he owned a major site and while Furaffinity stayed out of the anti ai talks, it was definitely one of the sites that banned it. Guy even paid out of pocket, alledgely bought artists computers and drew for people and was super supportive of the arts. Then he died in a hospital, alone with nobody irl, with unclear bank account balance, potential 0$ in savings after spending every dime he had on others or going into debt to buy a site that despite popularity, may or may not have lost money, like -0k-60k a year out of pocket(Source: made it up)(?). But like, he did everything anti ai dreamed about, he banned ai, he fed all his money out of pocket, gave every dollar he had. Then he died at age 40 of a lung infection he couldn't afford to -27,000$ treat or decide to die. Like artists were talking about seeing evictions weekly or running out of money, customers were saying money was out/depleted/exhausted, people were infighting/screaming about money. while also talking about old memories but also fighting. A walle world seems less depressing where everyone's on a phone but not dead than a world people just die but their hand drawn pornographies or arts remain as a legacy, or the same people are dead but hand drawn + ai generated pornography. it all feels like valuing unhealthy pornography addictions over healthy relationships. Not in like a "i can't stop" but a "we can stop, we just choose not to" "we will hurt people to continue drawing furries with 18 feet sticks and scat diapers" stuff. Say what you want about online art. But it's usually something you brag about in a fourm to praise, not your parents at a dinner table.
So if robot do all the work , who gonna pay for your monthly bill? Your rent money. House dont pop out of thin air and the land dont expand either, only the earth's population is raising.
"Many of you are sold on the idea that any ai is completely useless" - that's a false statement that you just put into other people's mouths. I read many comments for that unfortunate video of yours, I didn't notice that people are sold on this idea, we understand that such a technology that can, for example, analyze the state of the crops in the greenhouse and spot the mold on a berry, - is a very useful technology. But when it is used for scrapping millions of photos, artworks, videos and voices and creating huge spaces for theft and copyright infringement - that's where people have the problem with it. You do not address the real problem people see with image generators, that is my impression. Though I admit I saw some comments that were just a direct attack on you and they were harsh, I would feel offended too
That's false thou, there were comments like that. Also, Ai is not the one doing the scrapping, is us (humans). Like he said in this video, people can do really bad thing with any tool at their disposal, but that doesn't mean the tool is completly bad. Not trying to defend the way is used at the moment of course, until regulated it is going to be a feared and hated technology (rightfully so)
@@yu-sama I doubt that scrapping is done manually, ai may be used to extract data from websites. In my comment I also used an example that showed how ai can be useful, I don't know if you noticed it or just ignored. People are not afraid of the technology, they are outraged. Because using some LLMs and pretending that it is some badass new "ai" technology is outrageous. And in the comments people were calling out image generators not "ai" technology as a whole, there' was just too much gaslighting in the marketing of LLMs, so now it is easy to point fingures at people who are rejecting "usefullness" of image generators and tell them - "oh, you must be neoluddits, you are against technologies" When it is so far away from truth
There are comments LOTS of coments including here, undermining Ai usefullness for inspiration and reference . Saying that referencing real life pictures is better therefore ai should never be used. Go gaslight somewhere else
@@jjnhjnh3378 I never said that image generators are useful for inspiration and reference, they are totally useless. But I admit that Ai technology can be very helpful in many other fileds, in agriculture, for example. Go read the definition of gaslighting
@@alexandrapetruk5614 What he said is true. Artists are against any type of use of Ai. They are completely extremist and see no nuance. Read my comment again, you missed what I said, lol you artists skipped reading comprehension class 😂😂😂
Before i get into the solution, a few pointers: - You should keep in mind that not everyone has a community of people and a personal brand like you that can generate income for them anytime they want. - We can outlaw AI Stolen art by going to every website (Governments set a president for Redbubble, Artstation, Etsy etc.) so then it doesnt matter who uses it to steal art in Russia or China, they still wont be able to post it on the major sites. - Nightshade and Glaze will get better, so every artist will use them - Art was stolen, literally, and when it comes to music, the ai songs get banned? - we need to stand up and set a president as craftsmen not just artist. Solution: Study to be an "artist" for 10+ years. Create original pieces with your style. (weather throughout the years or after the 8-10 year mark) Feed your personal AI the data (your art, your style) Sell your style to companies (make illustrations faster and cheaper as a freelancer -- you are basically selling your style at that point) Make comics with your style (create stories faster with merit to it and the right to call it "yours") Generate references for your (ongoing) artistic evolution and journey Re-feed your AI with more of your images. The older you get, the faster you'll be able to generate your art since you have built up your own library. This could be "AI as a tool" and not "AI as an APP for Tech Bros to profit and oversaturate the internet with trash"
It's interesting to see the controversy around in using AI references. A lot of people are upset, arguing that AI is 'stealing' other people's art because it learns and generates images based on existing works. But if we think about it, isn't that exactly what artists have been doing for centuries? We study the works of others, absorb different styles, techniques, and ideas, and then use that inspiration to create something new. when we admire a painting, photograph, or illustration, we often incorporate elements of what we love into our own art, consciously or unconsciously. This process of influence and inspiration is a fundamental part of how art evolves. To say that AI is stealing because it mimics this process is like saying that humans 'steal' when we learn from other artists. The real value in art isn't just in the references or inspirations, but in how we transform them into something uniquely our own. Creativity is about taking the raw materials-whether they come from nature, other artists, or even AI-and shaping them into a new vision. Instead of seeing AI as a threat, maybe we should consider itt as another tool , one that can open up new possibilities for creative expression.
Your statement: "AI leanr like human do". The same logic which AI bros has been use for year and it has been debunk along time ago. Just let me ask you one single question: "Can AI train on another AI image without getting degenerated and collapse over time?" Of couse No While human artist can learn from another artwork of other human artist just fine. See, just a simple question and your fail theory already exposed. And I knew you're also another AI tech bros aswell.
Your statement has nothing to do with what i said. i didn't say it learns like humans. I said its the same logic , we get all our ideas and styles based on what already exists.
@@skylesai you said it's the same logic , it's just another way to say "AI learn like human do" But infact it's not the same logic, my simple question above already proved that and you cant proved otherwise either.
Thanks for making this video. I think it's healthy to reflect about ourselves and the others. AI is not absolutely one thing or absolutely the other, it has a gray area that we artist need to understand and keep discussing. People on social media (not that much on RUclips) are getting used to respond really drastically to everything. I admire how stoic you became at the end. People need to realise there's a human behind the screen.
I respect the time you took to make a follow up video and to address the heated topic, so this isn't exactly aimed at you but in general towards AI. When people are against AI, we aren't wearing tinfoil hats and screaming at computers. AI of course has helped in a lot of industries, from pointing out spelling mistakes, creating datasets, recording audio ect. It's the idea of tacking 'AI' on to everything, and the unethical way it's being used for art, writing, and now even videos. It's release with no regulation or regard, has already changed the internet. You can't even open social media without being bombarded by generated articles with questionable sources or millions of 'fanart in the style of' generations. Stock and photo sites are now loaded with generations, I can't even type dog on pinterest without getting weird images that sort of resemble a dog. So no, it's not that AI can't be useful, it's the implementation with wild abandonment, and misinterpretation of what the software is that makes people upset. The term AI, is being thrown on to everything with the idea we already have some real life Jarvis, when we don't. Most of the creative feats the programs are producing, are off the backs of real people, they didn't come from nowhere. This is why there was an entire writer's strike, and honestly artists should have done the same. The programs were blatantly pulling entire parts of people's scripts, essays, and books into 'new' content. No one can stop people from using it, but take a second to understand why creatives might be upset with the use of these programs. The video brought up healthcare, it should be addressed that they too are replacing human steps with AI as well. It sounds good in theory, it must know better than us, but now when it messes up it your insurance gets denied , and no real person will handle it. Have you ever been annoyed by a bot on a phone call? Imagine if that same bot now controls whether you get important medication or not, the less we leave to real people to save money, the more dangerous this become. I'm sure other companies will follow, out of FOMO, or not realizing they're using an undercooked egg to do the heavy lifting. Such as what happened with a recent mass train outage in New York, leaving people stranded. What this breaks is trust, which is rather important for a brand, and for content creators. It's not "ai art bad", it's more so why even try to teach it that way. It's concerning because before this tech, tracing and color picking were still destructive towards an artist's growth, now they can paint right over a generation. I think unless you're some top tier professional with limited time, that people should focus on studying and practicing. It's why concept art is often different then people's personal artwork, they fill different roles. No one 'needs' AI to learn hair or anatomy, it skews your own progress.
I’m not going any where. I’ve enjoyed and learned a lot from you and I’m gonna rock with you through the ups and downs my friend. This may be a down but we all grow from mistakes that we may or may not have made in our artistic journey. Keep pushing brother!
Thank you for having a level headed response and I appreciate that you are not letting the mob mentality buckle your view. Even if we may not agree with everything I can at least say that I do not condone the video, but I am also not condemning you for trying something. I wish everyone could have that mindset of knowing the difference. I stay because you’re always evolving. Thanks for keep going.
Most AI art discourse really feels like a few people made a opinion based on critical analysis of the situation. And the the majority just copied and pasted a bunch of talking points without fully understanding what they mean.
@@Johnpelocayeah, that’s pretty much correct. Because an artist has no need for AI, and would never support it - unless it can be rebuilt from the ground up in a way that’s actually ethical. But not in the current state it’s in.
how to recognize AI tech bros: - "adapt or die" - "AI learn like human do" If they mention any of those thing as their statement, that's indeed a Tech bros. No misunderstanding here.
Using traditional is exactly what I was hoping to hear. An art supply is an option to take an art lesson...while AI, and more broadly, the entire digital art world, can be seen as a new kind of art supply, it's like how many historical art methods were dangerous, involved strong solvents or toxic pigments, etc. Here it's primarily a social danger, where we don't know how much is human and how much is machine, so the tendency is to assign credit entirely to one or the other. This kind of danger is dangerous precisely because we don't grasp the shape of it and how to handle that safely - and even though tons of people are using digital, it doesn't have a tradition to it like sketching with charcoal or making sculptures in clay. Since Josh has come from a position of being a consumer of digital tech, doing reviews, etc., part of the deal is that he has to suffer a few slings and arrows to continue pursuing the new stuff. There is no "dehumanization risk" certification on an iPad. Moving over to traditional helps in that it provides some grounding for the digital technique. Digital is extremely design-heavy, while traditional adds elements of live performance to it; the discipline that stems from that is on a different level and can help anyone get a sense of their artistic preferences and style. And nobody will be calling you out on your upcoming Crayola Twistables drawings, I promise 😂
I highly doubt there are any artists out there who are mad at AI being used in healthcare, that's a bit of a fallacious statement. Not to mention that conflating the use of AI between two different fields is kind of ridiculous, they're just not the same because they have the same title. That type of AI can be used to save lives, the AI used for art is doing nothing of the sort and has been trained unethically with the intellectual property of thousands if not millions of artists and it's only going to grow if it's supported.
There was no "opt in", it was always "fend for yourself" or just get taken advantage of. A machine owned by a corporation that just decided to rip thousands of hours of work from artists completely uncompensated. This is not the same as artists referencing the work of other artists, it's closer to some scammer who's stolen a bunch of people's artwork and reselling it as references or fully completed pieces to other people. It's incredibly unethical and spits in the face of all the people who've worked for years on their skill.
8:30 I genuinely don't really know what the point is here that you're trying to make. Is it that the fact that AI would be able to trace back to the influences used in the artwork like a human would never be able to? Because... that's not great. It can trace itself back sure because it's a machine with meta data and it made the image from those sources. The human influence isn't supposed to be a one-to-one, it's an influence of other people's artwork to make into your own. Blended into your own with passion, soul and intent behind it. You can always study from other artists instead, that's always been available and acceptable.
AI also doesn't know WHY it does what it does, the only way you can properly learn artistic skills is through the input of a human being with a brain and actual thought process, not an algorithm. The idea that "oh well, it's here now and isn't going anywhere so we might as well use it" is also kind of wild. I agree that there needs to be laws and regulations around it but the only possible way I could see it becoming ethical is if they completely tanked all of their systems, started from scratch and then ONLY trained it on things that are LEGITIMATELY public domain or art that was willfully volunteered by any artist who wants to for some reason take part in it. Otherwise it's blatant theft and will always be disgusting and snaky.
Like you mentioned how some people pointed out things in your artwork, the hair really does look like AI. There's random circles of hair that don't seem to be attached to anything (I know there's also it getting thinner and thicker inexplicably but personally I enjoy that) but some of it just didn't seem to really make any sense unless her hair was being chopped up
In saying all that most of the hatred in my tone and I would assume many others is mostly directed towards artistic AI itself, frustration extending to the video you made. I do believe that people can change and grow and I'm glad that you feel excited to work on more traditional artwork as well. I genuinely wish you the best, I can see you're trying to come from a neutral place but to a lot of people it really doesn't feel that way so I still hope you truly do take into account just why people ARE so angry about the use of AI (in art specifically)
@Popper_Drop Thank you for speaking with some sense. This comment section is flooded with greasy techbro-wannabees 😬
THANK YOU !!!!!!
Very well said!
Exactly. Most of us artists are not luddites. It's like nuclear physics for example. I can love how it is being used to cure cancer but at the same time warn about its application for the military like bombs.
Thank you for your common sense response. Artists should understand ethics the most when making art from the heart. How this tech is used is entirely morally bankrupt and pushed by technologists who see art as another arena to milk people for labor. My dude @thebrianpenny speaks on this A. I subject it in great depth because he's at the forefront of the discussion with the Copyright Office and the legal cases being worked out as we speak. I occasionally watch this channel as a matter of solidarity with other fellow creatives (I am a working professional independent illustrator myself) however I can clearly recognize the gloss of the industry mindset, the finish brought only by corporate means, and sensibilities driven by metrics and mainstream trends, to which I don't have any interests in chasing. There are countless stories to tell with our artwork and our lives are entirely diverse to speak from our own individual experiences, this is where our talents must derive.
The AI problem is not an AI problem, but a capitalism problem. Rich techbros feeling entitled to the work and skillset of creatives.
1-Corporate driven
2-Non consensual use of small artist work
3-Derivative and profit aimed
Things like magic wand and channel selections can be called “ai” and they still need knowledge and skill.
Underrated comment.
Y E S
YUP
To expand on it even further, humanity's need to create 'big and shiny' gimmicks instead of solving functional world problems
heres the problem those same techno bros gave you the very tools you use to create the art, capitalism is the driving force towards like 98% of innovation. art have always been and will forever be a luxury career and pastime for that matter only really becoming some what more accessible in the last like 30 years with the advent of the digital medium and it still costs like $100 to start of on a decent foot.
You say using AI in healthcare, and most ppl here don't mind that, but I already remember somebody got denied a procedure because AI algorithm decided so. Healthcare insurance companies about to start using it as a crutch, and just go "well our computer said so", not having to help pay people for their procedures (unless the bare minimum) and just extract as much money as possible out of people even in that field
Yeah there is a pretty clear distinction between ai and gen ai, no one is using gen ai for healthcare, its an important distinction to make so to not let bad actors fool us into accepting the existence of gen ai
I’m using AI in EHR record systems in healthcare, to move appointments , help build provider schedules. Predicting patient scheduling behavior.
Havent watched this yet but the idea of him claiming no one cares about AI in healthcare when it makes the already dangerous likelihood of someone being denied important medical procedures because the algorithm didnt think it was important worse is just ignorant.
@@LongcrierInProgress To be fair, that has been happening long before the big AI buzzword came around. As far back as the 80s even. Companies use computers as an excuse all the time. If anything, blame capitalism not the machine.
It's his distraction to driven people's attention away from his current situation with AI generator. Very predictable.
if techbros are defending you over your ai stance and fellow artists are bashing you, maybe reflect on what you are encouraging.
People who work in technology can be correct.
People who work in the arts can be incorrect.
@@wisemage0 nah with techbros i mean lazy people who endorse ai. which is exactly the crowd that support josh right now
For real, in his last video all the people agreeing with him seem to be AI bros who weren't artists or his subscribers while everyone else disagreeing were mostly fellow artists and his subscribers who were disappointed. And like, it's obvious who should be the people he listens to as an artist and content creator because I doubt those AI bros are going to subscribe to his channel and watch and support his work.
@@wisemage0 sure but its silly to deny that you go to the expert in any field for the right answer, so when the topic is about art, you trust the artists.
When Techbros defending you, you should know something very wrong with your decision as an artist.
why can’t AI do my laundry instead of take over my career
bc ppl get paid 40-300k to do your career, and ppl do laundry for free.
I want ai to help me with laundry and house work also improve my digital art career and my work with my clients, yes both are possible.
Ai won’t take your job but PEOPLE who use AI will. Ai still needs a person to tell it what to do and have the eye to see if what it creates is good. Learn how to use it as a tool and you won’t get left behind.
I would also accept doing my taxes.
AI can barely draw fingers and you want it to do your laundry? Where's your logic? Give more time for the technology to mature then only we should use it in the physical world. For now, let it cook in harmless stuff like artistry.
I'm glad you came out to clear the air, I love your content, and I say this with love, but your position on AI is a bit puzzling.
Artists aren't fighting against AI as a nebulous concept that also happens to encapsulate its use in things like farming, medicine, manufacturing, etc, artists are fighting image generation, which, thus far, has had 0 practical use for most people. Every single time I've spoken to, or listened to the average person talk about these generators, its always filled with frustration that they are toys, and are impossible to direct with precision. The notion that these issues will eventually be solved and AI will reach the nuance necessary to emulate a human is a techbro pipe dream that has been getting called out by analysts all over the world (i.e. the Goldman Sachs report that came out recently), as the amount of resources necessary to make that a reality are simply not there. Chips, power infrastructure, training material, none of it is infinite. These companies WANT you to embrace this tech, they WANT you to start thinking there is some way to fit it into your pipeline, because if you don't, their billions of dollars they've poured into these developments will be for nothing, and the bubble will pop. We don't have any immediate need to "adapt".
So, why encourage others to purchase subscriptions and use this tech, even if in a more "ethical" manner? We all know how tempting it must be for all beginners to have a second pair of hands to nudge their art to the next level, so you must understand that by putting out that video you are likely pushing artists that may have strayed away from the tech to all of a sudden rely on it for reference and ideas, which is not good. Beyond the fact that you are financially supporting these companies, it's just simply not at a level where I think it is appropriate to use as a tool, especially not for high level tasks like composition or accuracy in form, and even less so for beginner artists (which form a large part of your audience). These tools can easily introduce big issues in pieces and an overall reliance on getting these perfect snapshots of compositional ideas and direct references.
Although I definitely like the spirit of keeping the video up to show your growth, I do think that the video shows a use that can be negative to artists. Although a lot of the elements of your piece for that video are really cool and work well, the hair and its place in the composition just feels like AI, it's disjointed and takes away from the piece, so, seeing how it can dampen the impact of a piece from an artist of your level, I can't help but fear how the usage of this tech could trick lesser skilled artists into overreaching and overall missing critical steps in their journey. Using AI to increase complexity to a level that you aren't comfortable reaching yourself is a surefire way to introduce A LOT of potential issues you are not prepared to deal with, and as such, it could result in bad habits, poor fundamentals and overall a dysmorphia between your own ability and the "ability" of the AI model. With the sheer amount of reference packs and resources out there to help young artists, I think early adoption of this tech just proves to be far more harmful than helpful
I definitely get where you're coming from, and your heart is in the right place, but we shouldn't be premature in this adaptation for the sake of it, that has its own set of consequences.
This was well said.
goddamn i wish i could like this comment more than once
Very well said
Easy answer: AI is in its infancy.... and there's going to be a lot of dirty diapers to change.
But AI is here to stay whether you like it or not.
I’m unclear as to what your argument is on using on a personal level. What is “not good.” We can’t just say not good and leave it at that. Big corporations using AI is bad. Sure. On an individual level as a reference machine? What different is that than finding references online? Not all AI tools even cost money, so you’re not supporting anyone but yourself.
So what is the issue you’re presenting?
3:05-3:38 this was absolutely one of the most fundamentally flawed and frustrating false equivalencies from an artist I have ever heard on the use of AI generated imagery. I was really trying to temper my reactions and grant as much benefit of the doubt for the first 3 minutes of this video until you said this. I was dismayed at the subtle and shallow shifts of accountability you were dodging until this moment. This type of deflection is something we see from politically polarizing figures who know the ethical marsh their treading, is precarious at best.
I find it almost impossible to take anything else you say going forward with credibility or authenticity. I went from dismayed to disillusioned, and your stance throughout this monologue made it even cloudier where I feel you truly stand. You cannot shirk the accountability the size of your platform gives you by saying, "I was dealing with my own worries about being replaced," and expect your audience to be empathetic.
Very well put
@@HumbleDuckM9 thank you, I was worried the word salad part of my brain was taking over!
Thank you! I thought I was the only one who flipped the table when he mentioned the lightbulb bullcrap xD
@@marjs8103 I thought the same thing for sure! And I was trying to be diplomatic, but it just screamed entitlement.
The same technology used in Gen AI is being used to develop medical imaging technology. You people are so short-sighted, it's embarrassing.
I mean, as someone who wants to go into concept art, oh boy theres going to be 0 jobs going by the time i get out of college. Ai exists soley for profit. No matter the use, be it an 'assistant' or a 'tool,' it is soley for profit.
If an artist wants a reference, just like we have since the beginning of art, they can go outside and get one. We never needed ai before to create art, and im tired of ai tech bros acting like we do.
I just hope you're not implying that stuff like posemaniacs or other tools as such are problematic. I'm saying this strictly from observation, not accusing.
Nothing about what they said implies that.
Disagree.
@@Ape_Tero no not at all. Online resources are great. I use them too. However, in my opinion an artist finding their own references (or crafting them!)(including online resources, I should preface) Will always be more valuable than ai, because it actually exists - it's tangible. Even if it's not made by the artist themselves it's still made with love and heart by someone out there.
Things crafted by humans have so much depth. They reflect experience, perspective, personality and life. When an artist uses something tangible like that as a reference, in a way they are translating those experiences into their own. But when an ai creates them its just created from a literal mathematical formula, a mimic of experience without any of the substance. A frankenstine, if you will. So even if an artists reference isn't crafted by them, it doesn't devalue their art because it's an echo of someone else's experience. Whereas with ai it's a whisper of something that doesn't even exist, if that makes sense.
AI exists to increase corporate profits by reducing the amount of humans they have to pay wages to, this fact isn’t negated just because a regular artist might figure out a way to use AI in their creative process. AI is still in its early stages, but the more it develops (which artists using AI are actively HELPING it to do) it will supersede artists and corporations will have zero need to hire human employees for art anymore.
People are truly naive if they think AI will only ever exist to be a “tool” for real artists, the ONLY reason so many AI programs are free to use is because people-especially highly skilled artists-using it is helping train the AI to be capable of replacing for human artists!
We’re presenting in late stage capitalism, so the only way innovation is still profitable is if it’s sellable to the top 1% as they’re the only ones with the money, hence why AI is being designed with those buyers in mind and not about improving the lives of the general population.
All big corporations are obligated to fulfil the promises to their shareholders to increase profits, but because these companies have reached a point where there’s no new product or service they can offer consumers to create an increased profit off of, the new strategy is to cut company costs to increase profits, hence the strategy of replacing human workers with programs and robots as buying those is far cheaper in the long run than having to pay a liveable wage to a person.
There’s no consideration for the economic consequences of the unemployment AI will cause, as at least for now, AI developers, big corporations as well as their shareholders all experience profit from doing this. Government regulations are really the only way to counteract this irresponsible greed but these corporations know that and use lobbying to get politicians to not do anything.
AI is already greatly impacting the ability for artists to get work, including those who have been in the industry for decades, so AI causing job scarcity is a very valid concern for college students to have. It’s depressing for anyone who dreams of having an art career to have to consider, but it’s definitely wise to try and have additional skillset to be able to use to get work. Of course, it doesn’t necessarily have to be a non-art skill, because while preproduction and postproduction jobs are heavily impacted by AI, more difficult skills like 2D animation (both frame by frame and asset-based puppeteering) and just about all 3D art jobs haven’t overly been impacted/threatened by AI so are still safe skillsets for any artist to consider acquiring, just to have more security in finding consistent work.
I am in no position to judge anyone. I think the one area we need to be careful is normalizing the use of AI in anyway for creative work. The jobs are already being lost. RUclips is flooded with how to do X with AI. People are flooding Amazon with AI generated books. We aren’t going to win this but we can carve out a niche for hand made / non AI work. That said, the entry point for a young person into a professional art career has changed. I wouldn’t give up your art, but I might get a trade that can put food on that table while you build your brand.
I like the technology, but I agree there needs to be regulation against malicious and unsuited use of AI like that. It needs to be labelled, and the data should be credited.
I definitely don’t hate you in any way. We are all human trying our best in this life. I just don’t think there’s any ethical way of using AI in art at this present time.
I agree, the fact that itll get worse, worries me for all the artists who want to make a living.
Es solo tu opinión y completamente basado en tu ignorancia con respecto a la IA
You could train a model with your own art and generate stuff with that.
@@JafetBottonIt is their opinion, but it’s bold for you to assume it stems from pure ignorance.
There’s good reason to come to the conclusion that the use of many AI art generators at the moment are unethical to use due to how they’ve acquired the art they’ve trained their AI on, and the lack of laws and legislature.
I agree I still have my bell on I think he is amazing artist and I hope he will continue to teach and inspire us but as it is Ai is very unethical they are even trying to make speed paints now to try and pass it off smh definitely not made with artists in my mind unless to try and replace there definitely could be good uses tho just as it is now too unethical for artist (and others effective)
Ergojosh, you asked your community if they wanted a video on AI, they said "no we don't" and you did it anyway.
You didn't deserve pure hatred, but negativity was bound to happen.
The true problem: your usage of ai did not enhance your creative process in any way shape or form, it lengthened it to 100+ hours and I'd argue watered down your initial ideas. Let the ethics and morals aside: this is not a thing that benefits drawing and painting, it's a tool that works best when drawing and painting are EXCLUDED.
This "adapt or die" stuff peddled around really has me questioning, adapting to what exactly since integrating it in the workflow severely downgrades the process and result?
So you ignored your community's wishes, then showed us the weakness of integrating this thing in the workflow of a real artist.
He still has a right to do it. 😂😂😂
@@dailydoodle42Then I hope you don’t do digital art. I did a whole video about this, people felt the same way about digital art when it started.
@@Sansiia he doesn't owe you shit. Your expectations is your problem
@@NightPhoenixPress I also have the right to call this argument useless
@@mishan3168 I would say that yes, one does owe something to the community that supports them in many ways, including monetarily.
Bringing up other machine learning (say, medical diagnostics) is a red herring. It's irrelevant to generative AI making images, text, or audio, so stop bringing it up.
it was beyond a stupid decision, i dont know how to feel about this guy anymore
Yeah. No. I absolutely think AI has its place in healthcare in the far future, but we've already learned all machines need some human intervention and not be fully computerized, ESPECIALLY HEALTH MACHINES
It's his distraction to driven people's attention away from his current situation with AI generator. Very predictable.
No, it is called cherry picking. You cherry pick based on what benefits you and what you feel threatened by.
@@EmperorZelos base on your logic, he feel the threatened by being called out and his benefit lay in the use of AI.
So he must justify it with the ethical use of AI in healthcare which none related to the topic and no one ask for.
Ethics aside, another problem with using A.I. as reference is that it is crappy reference. These systems don't understand what a face or a hand is. They just associate pixels. It is very likely you are getting outputs with the wrong proportions, lighting, anatomy, etc. I mean there is a reason we still do LIVE figure drawing and do studies from real life objects. Even photographs are problematic because because it messes with you depth perception (and these would be a way better solution than A.I. while in a pinch of not having live subjects available).
Right. AI is just a reguritation of any possible flaws with the original art. It's inherently a worser reference than the art itself if it had noticible flaws.
I generated an AI background for one of my comic panels (cartoon island and palm trees). It looks great and everyone I showed loved it, literally everyone. It's a simple backdrop, it worked.
@@kal7rider780 for backgrounds is a different story, but with humans it is a whole different situation all together.
@@kal7rider780People also "love" mcdonalds and coke. Does that speak to the quality of the product or the standards of the audience? If you want to make McComics then that's your choice, just don't pretend its 5 star fine dining.
@roycampbell586 what I don't get though, is why full-on anti AI art people can like your scene one second, give you a thumbs up, and then turn on you when they find out *gasp* you used an AI background to save hours on a 20 page comic you barely have time to do after getting home from work.
I don't believe you deserved to be personally attacked for your stance on AI. That being said, your opinion on AI as a "tool" reflects the way you see art and its process - simply a means to a final product.
Which makes sense, seeing as you're a social media artist that is reliant on your artwork being glossy and pretty enough to stand out among everything else online, while also producing pieces fast enough to keep with the audiences' ever-changing interests. In this sort of "industrialization" of art, it makes perfect sense that AI seems like a "helpful" tool to you and others in your position.
In the end, AI is actually a destructive tool in the process of learning art as a SKILL. Being an artist is not just being a machine that produces pretty pictures - it's a trade, like baking, or sculpting. It's about strengthening your brain muscle as much as it is the more subtle muscle memory of your fingers and wrist. AI doesn't actually "help" any of that - it's a shortcut, plain and simple.
It's a tool to help artists get out finished pieces faster in this industrialization era of art, while also needing to spend less time on learning, and compensating for gaps in your artistic knowledge. So honestly, more power to you if you can still proudly use AI while swallowing that pill. Maybe it's a privilege to be an artist that doesn't feel the need to stress or rely on AI. But I think we can all start by being more honest with ourselves - and why we either vouch for, or against, AI generation within art or the art process.
You hit the nail on the head...
art has always been industrialized. Old masters used to have many assistants to do their jobs for them. They didn't care about the artistic process or purity of art. Why? Because they had to earn money to eat. They had a product to deliver. Art for many is a job. You have a life to live. And only ONE life. Why would I say no to a tool that's going to make my work faster by providing references so I can spend more time with my loved ones or doing other things I love? You guys can slave away wasting your precious time looking for ethical references. Some of us got better and bigger stuff to do.
@@av3ngers17 Thank God there are still sensible people out there, there is still hope, couldnt have said it better
@@av3ngers17 fkkk yeah!!! Also Josh and Adam owe absolutely no one an apology, these ai art bashers are the same bunch of jerks that drag Ross draws for 'tracing' and using models for reference, dude went on a two year hiatus came back and now suddenly he is a darling because the art mob has moved the goal post yet again, f outta here!! 😂
@@av3ngers17 And as I said, more power to you. But it's dishonest to imply that you're slaving away any less thanks to AI tools. In my opinion, AI is as much a tool to help artists' art "look better" as it is to make the artists themselves FEEL better about themselves and the process. There's a sense of instant gratification that comes with saving a bit of time here or there, or avoiding the heartache of "struggling" to put together a piece. There's a sense of relief in thinking, "I made my work a little bit easier for myself," in a market where comfort or understanding is rarely offered to us.
Ultimately, in the modern field of art, we're all putting in the oft frustrating work of getting our art noticed and recognized. The only difference is that some enjoy the process of creating artwork - and others don't, as you've made painfully clear with your several comments insisting that utilizing AI has "saved" you from "slaving away" at another piece, and everyone else is worse off for not doing the same. But you fail to consider you're not a slave to the process. . . rather a slave to your own perceived shortcomings - skills that need time and effort that you can't seem to afford to give, to develop further.
And with that, I sympathize. This is just my complicated way of saying that I think AI ends up being copium for many artists that feel as though the modern landscape is frustrating or unfair. Which it is frustrating, and those feelings are justified. Art is something that takes time in a world we're told that not a second is allowed to slip us by and our moments are limited. But I think you should realize why you're actually defending AI - like a comfort blanket, everyone's saying you really don't NEED it, but it really does have a way of making you feel like you do - after all, it's "harmless", right? - but maybe your AI usage doesn't sound as glamorous when you put it that way. In any case, my main point here is that we should all be more honest about why we feel the way we feel, because all you're attacking with your rhetorics about "slaving away" are strawmen. Regardless, it's only natural that the one with the blankie is the only one who doesn't see what everyone else seems to see.
You inspire me a lot. I’m just disappointed that even an artist as big and powerful as you uses an ai. It might not harm you much because you already have a platform. But so many smaller artists don’t, and with the rise of ai it feels impossible to even get a single to look at your work and commission you. You as an artist giving a positive attitude towards this horrid technology gives green light to all those tech dude bros who keep pushing it down our throats. Authenticity is ceasing to exist, and rather than just accepting it we should fight it and resist it. Like someone said, we didn’t need ai art all this time, why do we need it now to create? Especially someone at your level.
Dont give up, work on your craft and make it unique, one that Ai cant replicate. There will always have an audience for good art
@@jjnhjnh3378let’s be so real ai can replicate anything lol. I’d just say to either fight for an opt out feature or embrace the ai tech
You mean fight like the seamstresses did against hte sewing machine?
How did that go for them?
We didn't need machines to do work, we didn't even ened agriculture, humans survived for over 200 thousand years fine without any you like...but of course you will cherry pick. That which benefit is needed and good. That which shows how mediocre you are is not, bad, and must go.
@@EmperorZelos
Sewing machine still need a skilled seamstress to operate it.
An AI generating software just need someone to input a word in which the software then stole from other artist work.
You not being able to differentiate that tells me that you are actually re tard ed.
@@EmperorZelos and yet with the sewing machine they still made their craft shine, can you just pick up a pencil or do you have to spend your time trying to legitimize typing words into an ai image generator as art 🫤
Just learn to draw hair bro. Jokes aside what you’re completely missing is that you’re a role model, and as such there are young future artists who aspire to be who they THOUGHT you were. And when you had the choice to either TRAIN to overcome your weaknesses or to find some ethically questionable shortcut, you chose the latter and there’s absolutely nothing aspirational about that. Weak. And today the youth need experienced people with SPINE to stand on principle and pave a pathway that prioritizes the integrity of our craft. Take the hard road, and I say this respectfully.
Not only that, but this wasn’t some League of Legends splash page. There is no reason a stylized nude figure should take 112 hrs, no pro is sustaining a living this way. That’s more than 2 full time work weeks! And the people following you aren’t dumb enough to believe this is okay for anyone planning to build a future in this competitive field, so you shouldn’t treat them like they’re that gullible. It’s not a flex to spend more hours on something just to prove it took effort, especially when it’s needless. People say WOW when you make it look effortless without some needless AI crutch.
I would never disrespect the intelligence of the people who look to my example in the way that you did. As much as you deserve this blowback, I hope you turn this around without doubling down on BS, not as much for your sake as for the people looking up to you.
@@GeminEyeArt
yeah it's no flex to boast longer hours but as one of those young aspiring artists u mentioned, i look up to the way he spends those extra hours. Everyone seemed chilled with the extra time until ai was mentioned which was weird to me. The guy is notorious for spending more time on his artworks when he doesn't need to but it's that part of the process(where he's trying out different effects, layouts, color schemes, poses and ideas) that's taught me something. That's experimentation which is ironic for people to then say he treats his art as a means to a pretty picture Reminds me of this comic artist that traces with tracing papers after making pen sketches just because he didn't like pencils. He took the long, inefficient and more expensive route and still made amazing panels.
Also from from what Ive seen.
Majority of digital art features are riddled with shortcuts and third party plugins more efficient that generating ai images as reference.
As for ethics I saw no issue in treating an ai image as any other reference but then I understand not everyone feels the same
@@Theo67-y5d Not taking away any enjoyment you might get from it. I only mention what I said because Josh himself was seen in some comments comparing his process length to that of professionals who do splash art. It wasn't under the context of "I'm exploring for fun" but rather a false comparison to an industry standard. It's dangerous to suggest that an artist can spend 112 hours on a single basic nude figure and make a living. Not only that, but he said so in defense of an ineffective use of AI on a piece that didn't even warrant its use and in fact suffered from it. Calling it ridiculous would be generous to him because it's actually much worse than that. There is absolutely no use case for AI as of now that wouldn't be counterproductive to my process in terms of both speed and quality that isn't already remedied by some other means. It really is just a technology to circumvent skill issues while stealing from artists, and to promote it as a viable tool in its current state is bonkers when we're in the middle of a conflict. I say, just develop your skills.
Young artists can still learn to be great artists, and certain types of art will still be profitable in an AI world (though it will be more of a niche thing)
Just expect the phrase "there's no money in it" to become commonplace. Again, the elephant in the room is called 'capitalism.'
@@BaronBacon artists will certainly thrive, but AI in its current state is just a hindrance. Right now people seem to be confused by the overlapping of commercial industry expectations like speed and mass production by any means, with the more independent qualities of artistic skill and expression. In other words, shortcuts have a place that is suitable in the commercial world, but are less likely to resonate when you’re trying to have a voice as an independent creative. So, independent artists who dedicate themselves to acquiring skill (and actually get good) will certainly thrive over those relying on something like AI.
@@GeminEyeArt Like I said in another post - AI is in its infancy, and there's gonna be a ton of diaper changing. But it's not going anywhere.
Progress IS shortcuts - regardless of how ethical people think of them. I was there for the digital art hate (which is still around today.)
Yes I know AI is different because it will keep evolving. But while things seem awful now, ten, twenty years down the road it will get far better, just not in the job world.
As for artist jobs...sadly, we are on the road to full automation, and it just so happens art, music, and writing jobs are now on the chopping block. All I can say is, do art if you love doing art - but don't expect it to pay the bills in the future. In my opinion, no one should be in the arts 'just for the money' anyway.
The problem here Josh, is the "Invention of (Insert technology ex: Photograpy)" argument is not just blatantly ignorant, but it is a big fallacy on it's own. It's a Straw Man, as designers and illustrators, we need to also immerse ourselves with meticulous questions and design decisions. Designing is not just making things pretty, everything has a reason why they are there. An AI can be used in scientific frontiers, but there is no reason to have an AI as a replacement for artists as an ethical thing 3:12 . AI Generated art literally designs for you, even if you take a small piece of what it created, the idea is still not you. If you can't create curved and flowy lines, why not be creative and think about another way aside from generating a piece of stolen data?
The creation of AI generated art has a political and socio-cultural reason, main reason is for corpos and capitalists to churn art-related products for their brand or company so they can save more time and save money on hiring a real artist. We're fighting to dissolve that and your videos don't really help and It's creating more harm. This is not a topic of "It's just me, It's just my method and this is my opinion of how I use AI" when small artists are being harmed by this. You don't get to say "It's just my opinion" on this matter Josh, AI generated and and It's uses are incredibly immoral as an objective fact.
This is not a comment to give hate on you, It's a comment more about educating your perspective. You're seeing AI generated art as a "Tool", when in fact AI generated art imposes immoral practices that can be harmful to original ideas and create unrealistic standards of productivity for artists. If you support this, corpos will just demand more products to us artists with unrealistic timelines.
I hope you understand the implications Josh and I hope it's clear that your AI video and this video response is not helping anyone.
For such a long comment you didn’t say anything he didn’t already address so idk why you have an issue
@@PlusSe7en I addressed what he addressed in this video that has a skewed view of using AI as a tool which he confidently stand with. For example, AI as an inevitable evolution in healthcare, Yes AI can help with scientific frontiers because some solutions require heavy calculations. Calculating is a process not grown from stolen data, as it is a standard with respect to scientific method. AI Generating art however, creates a data from Stolen data which replaces handmade art. Doctors are needed to maneuver certain solutions. While artists are completely being replaced, not by AI for now but Anyone, ---Anyone who can utilize it.
One of the use case of a comment section is to comment on what he says and his opinions on his video. That's what I'm doing. It is not to repeat what he says. The TLDR is that I am completely against with his views on the use case of AI and to give something that can help Josh's views in the future.
@@formariokart he trying to distract the attention from the main object.
People are not again AI as a tool,
they again how that "tool" had been used to stolen data from millions artist without their consent.
bro people already have been blatantly stealing from each other and using those pieces of art as reference for their own WAAAY before AI. if your gonna reject AI as a tool, then you should start Berating every single artist who hasnt asked for permission to use their art as a reference. because those individuals are no different from what AI is doing.
@@Margeeese2 There we go, the infamous false myth that "AI learn like human do".
The same myth the AI bros cling on hoping it would save their ass from being call out.
This fasle myth has been debunk year ago by the tech research aswell, just google "AI death spiral" to read about it.
It’s strange that we live in a world where “it’s soulless” isn’t enough of an explanation for people
People in the comments here are intelligentless.
@@EmperorZelos not agreeing with you (since you’ve multiple comments here talking to the abyss and saying GAI IS ethical when there’s already so much information and reasoning as to why it ISN’T so I won’t even bother after this )
BUT did you mean *unintelligent?
It's strange that we live in a world where people try to control how other people make art
@@CrynalleHughes this isn’t “making art”
You’re free to make art however you want as long as *you* made it. Is this what you want your legacy to be you Alcucks.
@@CrynalleHughes Its strange we live in a world where people think its ok to stole multiple others work using AI and say "but hey, that's how human mind works"
I fear big tech is starting to sponsor influencers to slowly influence the public to eventually get their way.
they can try, the ai bubble is still gonna pop at some point (maybe wishful thinking - but pls. make it pop )
Bullshit, they have to disclose sponsorships like that.
What he showcased is just a much more responsible, utilitarian use of AI. We were even taught how to use AI to assist with minor things like this in the art school I went to. We're just not supposed to be lazy and have it replace our results.
@@SnepiWell the bubble has started popping already, tech stocks are going down like crazy
It is also very important to remember Josh that AI image generation exists as it does publicly available because the developers of various models recognized what they were doing was dubious at best and outright illegal in most contexts so they rushed to get it to market and in the wild so it couldn't be undone. They opened the windbag and blew Odysseus' ship off course and far from home knowing that we're never getting back without A LOT of bloodshed that they will profit from and fund thinktanks and lobby to keep it going for as long as humanly possible to extract any value they can.
These tools were NEVER made to respect or benefit artists or else they would have from the VERY BEGINNING been an opt-in model and trained exclusively on public domain/royalty free material. It was built unethical by design and given to the public knowing that if it was out and accessible it would insulate them from retaliation. One day I'm sure there will be ethically sourced data sets which can be used to create generators but the well was far from poisoned, it was dirty bombed the day we realized it had water.
I'm not mad at you, or Adam, or anyone else that may have spoken out in your defense. Everyone has their breaking point and limitations and it is easy to get lost in the sauce and have a bad take. You're online, it is inevitable you'll say something that gets a hate wave. But as a public figure please always try to take a nap before hitting publish on a video and reflecting on what you are saying to what audience and remembering that you're not just a nameless face any more. You, as a public figure, have weight and responsibility. If you need to, pull up your Spiderman paintings and ask yourself what Uncle Ben would say. You're handling the backlash respectfully and I'm glad to see this isn't breaking you. And I'm glad you rediscovered a love of traditional art and I'd be excited to see you try some new mediums and what you learn from them.
*AI image generation exists as it does publicly available because the developers of various models recognized what they were doing was dubious at best and outright illegal in most contexts*
Source?
I just love how countless artists have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to how generative AI works. It's not stealing art anymore than a grifter creating fanart from someone else's intellectual property then turning around and profiting from it. These neural networks are quite literally operating the same way an artist would render a new piece using multiple references and education learned from generations upon generations of art created over the years.
The grifters are just mad their grift became tougher. Art is meant to be shared, and it's a privilege to find others willing to compensate them for an original work, but the notion of making a living from grifting is its own level of self-entitlement.
True artists will continue making art however they see fit regardless of changes in technology and societal pressure.
Bullshit. *Machine learning is legally protected as fair use,* and the current AI wave comes from *non-profit research.* This wasn't some scary illegal conspiracy.
It's also like the perfect example of something that SHOULD be protected as fair use, because that massively speeds up the technology's prpgress, thus making it useful quicker.
@@leetheus3576Pretending that the only people upset at AI are fanartists, or that fanart is a "grift" is insanely bad faith and inaccurate.
@@roycampbell586 Let me reiterate as you seem to have skimmed over my whole point:
True artists will continue making art however they see fit regardless of changes in technology and societal pressure.
All this time spent complaining about how others are creating art could be better utilized practicing and creating art. People today are privileged to have access to centuries of art before them, and AI generated art is no different. Think of it as the culmination of human expression to this point.
Those who continue to create art regardless of external forces will be the ones remembered, not the ones following trends. The thing is, if you want to make a lasting impact, you now have the tools at your disposal to expand beyond your expertise, and those tools will only advance with time. I can now bring my paintings to life set to music whereas before they were still images on canvas. THAT is what progress looks like.
Don't get me wrong, I don't support those who put no effort into their prompting (yes, prompting in itself is an art in understanding language and computer learning), or simply generate a ton of basic art then go sell it off for a quick buck. That is the grift, and I've never been driven by that opportunist mindset. But just like any other medium, that doesn't mean there aren't creators out there imagining truly remarkable things that no one has been able to create before.
For the first time in a long time, we're able to witness what's on every participant's minds, not just the privileged few, and that - I think - is what's truly beautiful about the technology today.
TL;DR: Use whatever tools you wish. For traditional painting, I use acrylics and white/black canvas. For multimedia creations and brainstorming, I use AI. 👍
So, things didn't go as he expected, he came to make a typical youtuber apology video, the old video was renamed, and now he's attacking a strawman by ignoring any real criticism of the use of AI. Man, that's low.
You never know if Midjouney hire some artist to justify the use of AI images or not. Those company ll buy anyone just to legitimate their AI robbery tool.
There isn't any real criticism, there is a bunch of nutjobs that don't understand how the technology works.
@@EmperorZelos Dont put your self so higher up above people, Mr. professor. No one gonna hear you with that kind of agenda.
@@EmperorZelos What are you talking about?! Just scroll through the comments section, and you will find a lot of sincere and informed criticism. Saying that people don't understand the technology behind LLM, to avoid ethical discussions about generative AI, doesn't work anymore.
@@EmperorZelosFor every comment you make, you thoroughly demonstrate how little you understand of art
Bro I reject using Ai technology in my work to support living artists and photographers. Use of real word photos for reference is still king.
AI technology in Healthcare Research there's no such negative impact I've heard of because It does not replace healthcare workers.
I wish you well, I hope this is an eye opener for you on how much of an impact you are in the art community.
Yeah, we don't want to talk about how anyone can just take a picture of anything, claim it as their own, and sell it for profit.
@@BaronBaconlive photography is an art of its own that requires skill, it's different from illustration and is important for capturing historical moments in time. I'm not understanding your point.
@@user-jh2lr3zb4t Depends on the subject(s).
@@JoshaKlau ???
What about AI tools like "smart object selection"?
Thank you for showing how ai can make your art worse. I've been wanting to see pro's take up using ai expecting results to be amazing but your last video and the reaction showed me how ai has nothing on real art
Keep in mind that ErgoJosh used AI as reference, yet barely even stayed true to the AI art itself. All of the flaws in it were human-made. It seems more like the inevitable failures of making an "out of the box" art piece through unfamiliar methods. If AI had nothing on real art, it would've died out by now, but it clearly hasn't.
You seem to understand what went wrong with that video, and I'm glad to see that. I guess where we disagree is you think "it's not going away, so I might as well use it *as* morally as ***I*** possibly can even though at this rate it is not a wholly moral technology", and ***I*** think eyeballing, photobashing, and tracing doesn't make up for the fact that the "brain" of the technology was built off of photos and illustrations scraped without all the creators' consents. I feel like it's a betrayal to my peers.
If images were licensed instead of scraped, and the environmental impact of AI render-farms (when the rendering isn't done locally) wasn't atrocious, maybe I'd use it to make references, too (though I find more value in photo reference, and referencing art by humans that have made intentional choices). But, we're not there yet. So, no.
Good luck!
I don't get it. AI uses multiple references to make an image. Wouldn't using that as a reference be considered more unique or less damaging to any single artist than if I just used a single one of their drawings as reference ?
This is talking strictly about using Ai as reference btw. I don't agree with making ai generated images and using them directly for monetary gain or to publicise something.
Also I don't think any invention is wholly moral. You could argue that air conditioners are immoral cause they harm the environment. So I have to disagree with the idea that the technology itself is immoral.
@@alfredhoonter5955 Just see how humanity invent atomic bomb, did we adapt and use it for fun everywhere or should we make law to avoid the wrongly use of it ? The same can be say about AI, just becaus it's there doesn't mean we have to adapt to it.
And as you can see through humanity 's history, we dont adapt to thief ether, we make law and put them into jail instead.
@@alfredhoonter5955 the thing is that an artwork is an intellectual propierty of the artist, and artists don't mind having his artwors being used as reference for other artists, but do care about it being used comercially by companies and having his own work being replaced with your own artwork. People using my art as reference isn't harmful, but an AI using it is harmful, and me being the owner of my artwork I don't want to allow companies to use it without my permission.
@@mandjoka_ I guess if AI strictly only used real life images and little to no artwork to construct images it would be a win. We could get references and at the same time no artwork is stolen. But at this point I don't think that's gonna happen.
@@mandjoka_ Can you tell me what part of training an AI using an image is harmful?
💔good luck bro! Thank you for all the videos, but I can’t support it.
Well, I’m going to continue to support him. I learned digital art around 2016, and I use AI sometimes. Personally, I don’t care what others think; I’ll continue to use it.
@@xenn2996 it’s a free country, do you. Generative AI is trained off of artist’s actual work. Someone may have worked hard to master that skill trying to support themselves. I took the long way. It sucks that someone as influential, got there off someone else’s efforts.
@@marcgilles4520 I understand how generative AI is made, and I believe there should be laws to make sure that companies can't use other people's work to train AI without their permission. I use AI as a reference, but the results can be inconsistent. Even though AI is becoming mainstream, I strongly believe that companies should still hire real artists who know about things like color theory, anatomy etc. I don’t consider myself an 'AI bro'- but I mainly use AI for creating unrealistic characters and animations. I’ve even animated 2D AI images in Blender on my other channels. For me, AI helps me save time but creativity doesn’t have to end just because AI-generated art exists.
@@xenn2996 it’s not about stunting creativity, or references, it’s about recognition. I don’t post artwork on social media anymore. Not given credit for work, is very personal to me. I can’t change what’s already done, but I’m not blindly going along with this. I have nothing personal against Ergo, just don’t agree with it. Unsubscribed
I remember how excited and Inspired I was when I discovered your channel late last year because there was a black artist and content creator who I could look up to as a young black artist myself.
Unfortunately my support for you has come to an end today. Doubling down on supporting the use of generative AI as an artistic “tool” in an environment where models are being trained on stolen artwork, and accepting the widespread use of these illegitimate generative AI models as a valid strategy or method for improving artwork demonstrates to me that we don’t share the same fundamental values on what it means to be an artist.
I respect your right to think differently, but I believe that the stance your taking will only harm artists in the long term, and stands mostly to benefit the large corporations who profit off the use of stolen data and labor.
Hey, interesting point. I would like to ask, what is your definition of an « artist »? What is it that makes someone an artist?
@@nico3144Don't sealion, just state your position
@@nico3144 To me, art is about the communication of human expression, experience and emotion, and anyone who does this using any medium or tool of their choice (including ethical AI btw) is an artist.
I don’t believe unethical generative AI can be used as a tool for artists because the vast majority of the artistic process is given away to a machine which has no experiences or emotions to share. It just copies the stolen experiences, efforts and emotions of millions of artists to produce an image which looks like it was made by a person. But it wasn’t.
As the person entering the prompt for the AI, you are leaving so much creative decision making on the table.
Look up to someone based on their work and morals, not their skin color.
@@j4kfr05t5 I didn’t look up to him solely because of his skin color, I looked up to him because he was one of the only people who looked like me in the online art space making content I genuinely enjoyed. It made me feel like if I put in the work, I could do it too.
I agree that morals and values are more important than this though, which is why I made my comment in the first place.
I’m disappointed. You were a big inspiration to me growing up and developing my drawing skills. I always felt like we were learning together. I wanted to be just like you so I practiced and practiced. I got pretty good and I’m going to college for art now. It’s going to be my 3rd year this coming semester. It hurts seeing some of my heroes turn out to be something other than they were. I hope you find joy in creating art that you instilled in so many young artists instead of using unethical means to pump it out for monetization.
What has he done that is unethical?
@@EmperorZelos using a.i. no self respecting artist is a prompter
@@KalicoKalso now we forget all the skills and outlooks he has shared just because he generated an image to be used as a reference.
Also u don't need to be a RUclips legend to know that mentioning ai will damage ur channel. I really don't see how he's financially gaining from any of this
@@Theo67-y5dno one said they’re forgetting his advice when it comes to art, but are we really going to ignore that his process looks stressful and dumb? Ai steals from artist who just want to share their work. It’s not only replacing us but other fields of work. So yes it’s unethical because he could’ve just used Pinterest instead of ai.
@@KalicoKal That's one of the dumbest things i've ever heard in my life.
I don't see how keeping that video up is admirable. If anything, the video could be used by lawyers trying to justify the implementation of ai. "look this sizable artist with a massive fanbase says that ai is a useful tool!" The fact that you said that you still have the opinions that you had in that video makes me think that you're convinced that the title change "fixed" the video. But the video's message was as tone deaf as the title that was intended to give context.
I guess we should all just shut up forever just in case someone with bad intentions takes us out of context ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@pagheit lmao yeah cuz that's exactly what my comment means! this is not the time, for a video advocating for an "ethical" use case for ai in art. that's it. you don't have to "shut up", just read the room.
Probably for transparency and accountability. Imagine if this got swept under the rug by that video's deletion. Addressing it directly is far more admirable than caving into pressure. The title change only "fixed" the first impression it might give, as originally it seemed to some people he was saying a real artist uses AI, rather than a potential method and case study of using AI as ethically as possible.
Do you really think a lawyer could use this in a court of law? I don’t know much about the law, so I’m genuinely asking.
I’m also going to assume we’re discussing American laws, unless you specify otherwise
@@GalateaHidalgo They're probably exaggerating, or misinformed. It "could" be used, but not likely, as there are plenty of other examples worth using that get the point across much more. I think the bare minimum of it being transformative has been met by a long shot, and I think that is what'll be used generally in court.
As an artist and a nurse I can clearly say: I don't want AI being involved in art, but I fear and dread AI being involved in health care in a way I can hardly express to people, who don't have much insight into the medical field. That's a can of worms we really don't want to open.
The first time I watched a video of yours I was in highschool, finally committing to doing digital work. I found your channel and was instantly inspired by your art and how you did things (hell you were one of the people in my research that convinced me to get an ipad pro that I still use today as my dedicated art tablet so I could use procreate among other things. Used to pop on a couple of your videos and draw along with you). Your journey and advice was immensely insightful even if it didn't always personally apply. Not long after I followed your channel you posted your concerns that all the algorithm or your audience seemed to care about was the latest expensive art tech you could show off rather than the art itself. I left a comment essentially explaining my opinion that it was you, your art that you put your effort into, that made your content enjoyable. That you didn't need fancy tools and gadgets; that just by making art you would attract and keep the kind of audience you were looking for; that personally I would gladly continue to support you even if you never talked about another apple product or drawing program again. I was there for your hard earned skill and how you chose to present it.
That all being said, after being subbed for many years it is incredibly disheartening to see that this is the stance you've taken with AI of all things. Let's get some things straight:
I do not think all AI is some blight on the world that needs to be destroyed. AI is a long term interest of mine, and I think it's a fantastic and wonderful innovation, but not all AI is the same. Conflating the usefulness of AI in non-creative spaces as proof that people are actually wrong about generative AI is a strawman that does nothing to benefit anyone. Even if I did ignore everything wrong with GenAI, it's achievements and potential won't mean anything if we choose to allow its creation to be fundamentally predatory.
That's what you seem to not quite get even after you thought about it more. I am absolutely of the belief that it could be a great reference tool for artists in the future, but it isn't a resource tool. GenAI is a tool used to produce final products without artists. It is once again a demonstration in how we can streamline art to not need human effort. Hell we have helpful forms of AI tools that aren't inherently predatory: the magic eraser tool exists even if it can be misused. The magic eraser AI isn't made and used to cut out human creativity, it's a tool made to make a menial task easier.
Also please don't imply the "There is no ethical consumption under capitalism" because nobody NEEDS to generate an art piece. That is not a necessity that people just so happen to end up doing in their daily lives as a result of just being a human who's trying to survive. It's very much so a frivolous luxury that you have to go out of your way to participate in, and that negatively impacts everyone in the long term.
So that whole bit about compensating artists means nothing. People wouldn't have to beg for reparations if instead of trying to make excuses for GenAi and find a way to integrate it (trying to make it into something it's not), you pushed for an actual genuine tool to be made. Just because something exists doesn't mean it needs to be incorporated. Especially when we all know it's built directly on the predation of others.
Ex: You wouldn't use a loaded weapon to put holes in notebook paper; you'd use a hole punch which is specifically for and better suited to the task of putting holes in paper.
I'm probably not gonna stick around just because I don't want to encourage GenAI in my personal sphere at all. I do my best to remove it from my online experience by hiding/blocking accounts that post generated images, any search on the internet is done with -AI tacked onto the end, using adblockers, etc.
I do however wish you the absolute best. Thank you for teaching me so much and being such an influential part of my digital art. You've been an incredible source of calm and your videos were a great comfort to me. I do find it hilarious that in a video where you tried to prove how helpful AI could be helpful to your process you just proved what I told you years ago on that post: You don't need fancy tools and gadgets that just get in the way of what we all came here for; to watch you do art. Even if you never read this I hope you never stop making amazing art. Good luck!
ChatGPT make me an apology video
The disappointing part of the video is that you lose faith in yourself, "if you don't believe in yourself, believe in me that I believe in you". An artist should learn again to love their flawed styles...thats what makes us unique not the A.I. plastic surgery.
Ai plastic surgery is such a good way to put it
I don't hate you, but you come off someone who have poor judgement to me. If you can't see (well in this case understand) the rotten root of IA art and why it's deeply unethical I don't want you or your content near me.
The "yeah it's gonna stay so since I decided we can' beat them lets join them" is very sad to me. Knowing you have that mindset makes getting any motivation from you really hard...
Damn man that's sad, I just can't even trust anything from you anymore
This man is just trying to survive in a changing market by exploring his options and doing what he can to keep an edge in his industry. There's a disturbing lack of empathy being shown by the people who claim to be "supporting artists"
@@CrynalleHughes yeah, I agree with you. This is so disappointing, and not because of him, but because of the artist community. I have taken a break from creating for a few years here (mental health, exhaustion, burnout, same old same old), but I'm honestly considering just never making visual art again. People will like you until you step out of line... as if art hasn't always been about breaking the rules and challenging common ideas, just not THIS one, apparently (I'll probably still make little funny comics or stuff for the aesthetic of it in all honesty, but I'm really starting to loathe the very community I came from, "we support artists who agree with us on everything" is what they really mean)
You’re all just afraid of change. You’re right being afraid when deep down you know you don’t have the strength to be the master of your own destiny. I feel bad for ergo, but that’s the consequence of lead and guide sheeps.
Props for not deleting the vid. I think it's a perfectly fair position whether or not everyone agrees with it.
It should be deleted. The vid could be used by lawyers trying to justify the implementation of ai. "look sizable artist with a massive fanbase says that it's ok!"
@@JaxonPham I really don’t understand this position. Deleting would change little, people can still get ahold of the video or have copies. Adam Duff’s video is still floating around online even though he deleted it.
I don’t think trying to sweep ai use by the art community under the rug through forced deletion to give the impression of perfect agreed harmony for a better court position is practical or morally right.
All it is doing is creating infighting when someone isn’t conforming to the script. And if Josh did delete it, it would have fueled the fire that it is acceptable to keep pressuring until a creator is 100% toeing the line. That’s toxic. Full stop.
@@Peculiarpixel-s9l It's not just about being able to get a hold of the video though. Deleting the video is to say that you no longer agree with the position that you had when it was uploaded. While changing the title is definitely better than nothing, leaving it up combined with saying, that he still believes in what was said, really diminishes whatever apology I feel people took away from this video imo.
I guess we just disagree with the ethics of ai in art, as I don't believe any artist advocating for it's implementation are truly weighing the damage that their position could cause in terms of where this all goes.
While I agree being cornered into doing things can be toxic, I'd argue that it really is irrelevant to the larger issue here. Artists are fighting for their rights and for a better environment that will become the new norm for artists.
AI is nothing but theft. Art is a luxury earned through hard work and effort of the creator and unless you cant compensate for the creator for their art (unless the creator themselves ask not to), you absolutely dont deserve it.
To be specific;" AI generative is nothing but theft". Because AI bros 'll use "AI in health care is useful" as their shield if you say: " AI is nothing but theft". They 're so desperate to depend their lock pick tool at this point.
@huymaivan8671 oh yeah you're right, anything AI related that plagiarised from the creative industry is the real issue
@@garydickson Most of those who depend this guy is AI bros. You can spot them easily if they have this:
- use AI image as avatar
- "adapt or die"
- "AI learn like human do"
- "AI copy is the same as human take inspiration"
- "AI is just a tool"
For me, once u generate an image, paste it to your canvas, trace over it(albeit only some parts) you’ve lost me. Doesn’t matter how much u liquify or warp the image etc. those specific steps are a no go.
If that's what you think, take all the Inio Asano mangas (or every other comic you've in house), every art you have, put them into a bin and set them on fire. I tell you a deep secret: sometimes artists trace. We do that to speed up a process, to better understand a shape (like in this case) and so on. In this case was barely a floating movement idea (which, btw, is difficult af to draw). He decided to do that with AI because it was the point of that video.
Sorry lad. I broke your dreams about artists like knighs in shiny armor.
@@enzotriolo_ yeah, but u don't post your art that was traced. That's a study and not an art piece for the world to see. Tracing and posting is horrible, tracing and keeping it to yourself as a study that you did to learn and improve yourself is okay. I don't think thats even a secret. I think thats just bs because only low skill level artists will try to speed up their process by tracing. Your average artist that has been drawing for years will draw and produce entire fully rendered artwork in less time than with tracing. Sure tracing can speed things up. but I don't see a reason to do that. How are you gonna create entire comics with some parts being traced? Imagine the effort needed to even find everything wanna tracer over. You might as well draw it on your own because by the time you gather everything you need, you would have been done with it if u just drew it yourself. Plus it's way better to draw from a reference and try to draw it without tracing. That's gonna make you improve 10x faster. Tracing is only good at making your hand understand the movement that it makes when drawing some subject
@@enzotriolo_ Bro said *generate*. Asano takes pictures or makes scenes in Unreal Engine. Quite different. Tracing ain't the issue.
@@cosmosj7907 You're mislead there, a lot of traditional portrait artists trace (pet and animal artists as well) , time is money and the more portraits you complete in the shortest time frame, the better.
Removing the title on your previous video doesn’t change at all your stance on ai generators. And trying to justify yourself by doing these videos shows clearly your stance. You got called out and harshly, because this a very delicate problem with how these machines have been feed WITHOUT consent from thousands of artists, but you just don’t care simply because your own narrative “if I use it in the bare minimum , I can get away with it” . Good luck.
😂 bye bucko
The service you used scraped people's data without their consent, without giving them the option to opt in, and without compensation. How is it anything but a plagiarism machine?
That's what humans do when they look at someone elses images and then make something similar. Noone has ever stopped them from doing so because they didn't have an angle to attack from. The only reason they attack ai and not people is because there's a single thing they can point their finger at. I think people should ban god. We didn't give consent to exist on this planet either. And you know people would have kiled god already if it existed in physical form. Perhaps that's why we are destroying the world. NEXT.
Oh my God, cry harder.
@@AG-qy3su 👆 bot spotted
You're a failure at understanding that AI was TRAINED by scraping BILLIONS of art pieces by MILLIONS of artists.
Pretty much any usage of AI steps on the backs of other artists that did not consented for their HAND-MADE work to be used to create their AI models and AI Empires.
They used PRODUCT to create a PRODUCT that other people like you use to create more PRODUCT. And I'm not blaming you, I'm just explaining it to you. But AI art is immoral by definition, it's stealing, it's burglary, robbery, it's literally criminal but it has not been regulated yet because it's evolving faster than law makers can even understand what AI truly is, which is an amalgamation of souls stripped away from artists, photographers, models, painters... it's something that doesn't belong to them.
This is what humans do as well , we make art based on what we see and experience , we develop styles based on others , that is like saying if your art has a similar style of X artist because you saw their art that you are stealing their art.
@@skylesai The same logic which AI bros has been use for year and it has been debunk along time ago.
Just let me ask you one single question: "Can AI train on another AI image without getting degenerated and collapse over time?" Of couse No
While human artist can learn from another artwork of other human artist just fine.
See, just a simple question and your fail theory already exposed.
@@skylesai Humans don't need art to create art, they create because they're driven by dreams, their life experiences, inspiration, imagination... Things which derive from the soul. Something an AI lacks. AI steals to compensate for what they lack.
@@huymaivan8671 Yes actually, synthetic data is a useful method for AI and is a recent development which allows squeezing more improvements, although, the LLM field is the one employing it the most now, visual models are not getting worse as was predicted by the increase of AI content, because obviously you can train discrimination methods -- the degeneration idea is the one that is not substantiated, it happens for specific approaches, you can't generalize it, I don't get why art bros like to talk about technology they don't follow.
@@BlackTakGolD AI company basically selling illusion pie to attrach their investor,
If synthetic data is useable they would did it from a long time ago.
The very nature of generative AI is thief not creative, therefore synthetic data generated by them is unclear data and unusable from the very beginning.
We don't say that AI is useless. We also don't say that genAI is useless. We just say, that genAI was unwanted yet we still got it, because TechBros decided it will be a good idea to automate the only thing that we SPECIFICALLY never wanted to be automated and convinced corporations that thanks to this they can save up some money thanks to layoffs. I hate genAI, I hate people behind it and I will never respect anyone saying that it is okay to use it.
Nobody is using it in a harmful way by accident !!! 1:33 My god i hate when people make excuses for others . The people that use AI to steal and copy brag about it publicly ! This is no accident .... in the end... AI steps on people and i won't stand for it.
Have you guys found a job yet?
*AI steps on people*
I don't follow, if you are describing issues with people using AI to do all sorts of badstuffs? If so, how is that "AI doing" X/Y/Z, not "person using AI to do X/Y/Z" like your first sentence seemed to state?
So true :"] I have no idea how he ended up like this. Also lol the ai bros response, they always find that one wrongly worded sentence so they try and defend themselves 💀
You can use ANY tool harmfully. You're judging the technology by how a small percentage of people use it.
Generative AI art is the pinnacle of nihilism; completely destroying human creativity. Without the process, it's just another form of nihilism.
The same could have been said about photography. Where do you draw the line? If a poem can be written in a haiku and that is art, how is writing a prompt not art? And do you know about all the additional work ai artists have to put in to get exactly what they want? This inquisition against ai artists feels like religious fundamentalism.
@@setzstone Please drop this photography argument. Photography demands knowledge of its fundamentals, how to use a camera, composition, how to use light, which lenses work best in a shot etc. Generative AI is a slot machine where you drop a bunch of text inputs and then let the model randomly assemble whatever it wants from its data. You can "fine-tune" as much as you want with a hundred of prompts and in-paints, it'll never change the fact you're just rolling a dice. Stop trying to pretend that typing "trending on Artstation" is an acquired skill.
@@Movel0 you don't know how it works to have such virulent opinions. You've not heard of controlnet, img to img, LoRAs, embeddings- you know nothing of the tools so your opinion is worthless.
I understand what you’re trying to say, I think it’s a good point, but that’s not what nihilism is
@@setzstone AI should never be claimed as ART, it is a GENERATED IMAGE. if your going to use AI, just use it like ergo josh. atleast then you actually put in work
Him, hey should I use ai
Fans, No!
Him, I’m going to do it anyway!
Fans get upset
Him, oh I’m sorry
What a joke
Him: *Makes a personal choice and explains why he made it*
Fans: "How dare you. Do what I want you to do."
Him: Sorry, but no.
I am not going to attempt to construct an argument that any use of AI is copyright infringement. However, I do believe that any use of AI, ESPECIALLY promoting it, teaching others about it, or otherwise encouraging others to use it is supporting the AI industry, which is in itself unethical. It doesn't matter if you are using it relatively ethically. If you aren't protesting or otherwise fighting for change, you are on the wrong side, and you are working against everyone in the community who is fighting so hard to make real change in the world. Far too many people have the attitude that it's here to stay, and we have to accept it. If that was our attitude every time we were faced with injustice, we would never change a single thing. We are in a position where there is a real possibility to make real improvements, and spreading this way of thinking sets us back significantly. It's exactly the way AI companies want us to think, and we can't fall into their trap.
AI isn't going away, you're right about that. there are practical applications for ai/automation to speed up tedious, technical parts of a creative workflow. but specifically generative ai is unethical. there is no reason we should normalize the commodification of art, as it is what makes us uniquely human. applications like Midjourney ONLY exist as tools for capitalism
Yeah, the same happen to atomic bomb. It dont go away, but when human kind realize their brink of intinction, they make "treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons" to prevent the use of it.
Saying some thing like"adapt or die" is just what AI bros would say to allow the justification of thief,
@@huymaivan8671The difference is an atomic bomb kills people. Ai at most makes you lose your job. Let’s not compare the death of millions if not the whole world to AI lol
I get where you're coming from, but your point seems null and void because most AI image genorators are currently struggling with the issue of accidentally scaping AI content. Due to the saturation of AI genorated images and the oversight that these techbros are starting to accidentally scrape AI content, we're ending up in this feedback loop where AI are just amplifying their own mistakes. So not only is content plagerised, it's also becoming increasingly shit in it's output, and most companies are having to spend thousands in man power to use delearning techniques, which is still a highly experimental branch of AI. Not only are you supporting an unethical tool, but you're supporting a bad one at that.
Edit: I really like Ergo Josh and will keep watching him even if we disagree. He has some good points and his perspective is refreshing and not the same mindless response to AI, but it still feels wrong somehow. I should be the exact person into AI, but the artist in me knows image generation doesn't sit right
with me, beyond all the ethical debates and plagiarism. It's just not the same as real art, and beyond that, it's so boring and dull. It copies the majority of popular trends and produces something even more mediocre and soulless. I feel the same as I do when I view corporate art, but even that has more merit then AI in my opinion.
Next step, photobashing ai images in an artwork💀
true
It already does
"I crossed the picket line and got called a scab, woe is me"
I hope your life continues to be as miserable as I know it is😊
I like the fact that you came and admitted to the faults in that video that were impossible to miss. Namely, that angry tone which drove you to hurt your audience. I mean, you even called the piece "What the meek see". Let's not pretend that wasn't also meant to be inflammatory. So, even though I understood what you meant about making use of whatever tools we have available to us, it's hard to excuse the use of something that has it's very foundation built in a harmful way to a whole community of people. So, yes, I was disappointed too and thought of never listening to you again.
However, I've always liked to listen to what you have to say. That video you made on your Yor Forger piece motivated me a lot back then, when I was struggling with my artistic insecurities. That and many other videos were a great incentive and helped me look at things in a better perspective. That is why I think it's a great attitude to come and be open about this like you just did. Turns out that you are just human like all of us, who would've thought :]
It is important to let us know you're mindful of all that you talked about in this video. It's important also to show the ability for growth, as you've said. I entirely agree that emotions shouldn't be hidden and stashed away, because they're a huge part of creating art too and just being human in general.
I still don't agree with the premise of the last video, because I don't think there's any way of supporting generative AI (just the one that generates images and videos, the models that are helping humanity in a meaningful way are fine), exactly because of how it came to be. There was also Adobe trying to use anything people made in photoshop to feed their generative AI initiative. We have to guard ourselves against that and don't give them any spec of an argument for them to try to use against us. If not for the benefit of the community, for us to not leave entire parts of our skillset relegated to a machine, if nothing else. Lest this becomes a crutch.
In summation, I'm glad you took this to heart and thought on it. There's a lot there for all of us to learn
Or you could just not engage with a technology that is still in its infancy and is being highly controversial in the field. There's absolutely nobody forcing you to use it.
There's also nobody arguing that AI's use in other fields hasn't been helpful. Of course people are complaining about AI in the context of picture making. Assuming otherwise just makes it condescending to whoever you're talking to.
If you're really concerned from an educator's point of view where you want to teach people a "better" way of using the tool, start by teaching what the tool actually does and why its use is frowned upon. Educate them on why there's a debate.
Now, if you're just chasing clicks (which is very obvious from the last video's clickbaity title and writing AI in lower-case to avoid filters) and wanting to be early to the party for teaching people how to use AI "like a REAL artist would", you're doing it like a champ. This video really just shows how you don't really care about the subject itself and it's more of a matter of toning it down because people are angry at you.
In other words, maybe you should add a couple more lines to the title of the AI video to sound even more petty, maybe that'll help.
All publicly available image generators are trained by scraping art from various sources, the network sometimes reproduces close copies of specific pieces or even mangled versions of signatures. The works are used without consent. Unless you invest a ton of money to create a new data set and only include images with people’s consent, it’s inherently unethical to use. AI is a fascinating field and has many uses, but the art stuff is basically a lost cause at this point.
Definitely not all of them
@@milkteamachine I disagree with this take. What you described is basis of learning. Even a human, after they have studied an art piece, they have the ability to create something similar to an existing piece. Obviously AI can also do the same but guess who's prompting the AI to do it? It's us. So AI isn't "unethical", humans are. Just prompt it to make something original and we're good.
"The works are used without consent." By posting it to a public forum you have given informed consent. I can download your PFP, photoshop it and use it how I wish.
Nothing unethical about that.
@@RegBinaryYou have to understand that these programmers, the people making these generators, are taking tons of copyrighted artworks without the consent of artists to fuel their tech. They did not pay or ask for the permission of copyright holders to use these pieces to create their product, which they’re now using for commercial purposes. This means that the labor of artists is being used to fuel a product (many commercial) which would not be possible or nearly this advanced without their hard work, yet they receive no compensation and were never asked for their permission to be apart of these projects.
So it’s still unethical and still along the lines of theft.
@@GoldenTV3If you use another’s work to fuel a product without their consent or permission then yes, it is unethical. Actually.
I’ve subscribed to you for a long time and have been following your stance in this whole AI thing and always give you the benefit of the doubt. But I guess now I know where you stand. It’s kinda disheartening when you clearly missed the point why artists are angry at these generative AIs. Well, it’s a goodbye, then. Good luck on your future endeavors 🥲
I appreciate your transparency and your attempt to explain your thoughts and feelings in a more mature way than you did in both your previous community posts and ai related video because it created the impression for me and likely other viewers of your channel that you were trying to willingly deceive and try to pull a fast 180 with ai going from promoting an anti ai stance to trying to shift towards the other. I’m glad that you’ve cleared that up more.
I think of course in hindsight that if you had explained things in more detail like you’re doing now and including that nuance that it wouldn’t have blown up quite as big as it ended up doing, though of course there will always be a few folks that can’t see the nuance.
I do hope that you continue to do studies like you used to, promoting healthy habits for intermediate artists to help them improve their fundamentals and enhance their craft even if it’s less fun than simply coming to rely on a comforting crutch or shortcuts to make up for skills that they don’t have yet but can if they can develop if they put the time and effort into it. I think that that aspect of your content is drastically needed and creates a positive impact on the art community.
Watching your channel for the past few years I felt like I was growing alongside you on a journey of improvement in art giving hope and confidence to many young aspiring artists that with enough practice and discipline we can reach our personal art goals and become the professionals that we hope to be. It’s also why hearing about the previous ai workflow tutorial video was a bit disappointing at first because the way you had worded your community post gave off the impression that you were thinking of using ai as a quick fix to make up for your current lack of knowledge with drawing straight hair which was really antithetical to what your channel had always represented.
I’d love to watch a video of you studying hair and improving your understanding on an aspect of humans that you aren’t as knowledgeable in yet. A professional artist does sometimes use shortcuts, however they do so while still knowing and being able to do the thing to a competent degree manually, thus making it an active choice instead of a crutch. I hope that you have a good day and keep on creating.
The problem I have with AI generated stuff (beyond the obvious theft) is that I consider that Art in any form is all about sharing a very personnal message with audience/consumers/anyonewhosees/listen (call it whatever) thus creating kind of a bond. For me that very bond is called Art and is goddam precious. How would you feel if every kind words that were ever adressed to you by people you love, were never genuine, all copypasted or at best reformulated from the book "kind words for dummies" ? That’s how I feel when I see a nice image and discover it’s made by AI. All the admiration I may have had instantly vanishes. Sadly it is indeed kind of a naive point of view that has nothing to do with how the actual lambda consumer consumes art. ( like fast food rather than an actual vector of human emotion). It is also kind of a flawed argument because every mind on earth sees Art differently. Some may give it a capital letter, some may not and that’s fine. That being said, Josh you still have my genuine admiration & subscription, with love. Can’t wait to see what you’ve been cooking traditionnally 😀
@ergojosh I perceive that your values include curiosity, mastery, support, authenticity and compassion. You do a lot of self reflection which is refreshing. The internet, especially social media is a place where a lot of people expose and vent their judgments, criticism, anger, and cancel people for being brave enough to share their perspectives. As a multimedia artist who was alive 20 years before the internet , I value curiosity and experimentation and this means I have played with countless mediums, technologies, techniques, instruments, processes, moving between analogue and digital and back again. I feel somewhat apprehensive about putting my work out into the world because it triggers a fear of rejection. Witnessing the type of anger that people on your channel express does give me anxiety as some of my work involves AI in the process. However I also understand that I need to focus on the resonant energy and intention behind my work not on how it will be received. I thank you for continuing to be brave and curious, and I wanted to extend my gratitude and encouragement to continue following your creative intuition rather than allowing others to influence and dissuade you because of their negative judgments. Your creative output cannot and will not please everyone
Your consistent support of 'AI is Inevitable' is a self fulfilling prophecy. AI has its place, but it's replacing human jobs and should not be encouraged in the arts no matter how small. Your stance is puzzling and disappointing.
Just asking himself if "Atomic bomb is Inevitable" then would he adapt to 100 million degrees Celsius when the Atomic bomb explode. Or why should "treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons" exist in the first place.
Apply the same logic for AI and you can see how stupid and delusional those AI bros are.
As an artist, I am not mad but sad. Regardless, I still admire your art, not AI
The art community really loves a good pile on. I mean, I don't particularly like the story of generative AI imagery so far either. What the companies have done was wrong, the business model is unethical etc, but...but...but...this man painted a picture people. He didn't kill your dog, or blow up a kid in Gaza, or punch a baby. He painted a picture. If ya'll are really that upset about a youtuber painting a picture and using AI as REFERENCE, turn the computer off, turn your phone off, go outside, look at the stars, contemplate how small this whole planet is in this vast and practically endless universe. Think about all the souls on this tiny organic spaceship flying through space, what they're all going through, from those fretting about the future of digital art, to those fretting about life and death. Where does this fall on that spectrum in terms of importance. Keep some healthy perspective.
Yeah, i won't say ai is trained ethically or not. But something just seemed wrong.
It's like if people protested how a sausage was made. IF vegans didn't go after the meat factories or people. But instead started trying to send death threats and mobbings to people. of course the real life police would get involved and arrested. There's a story of anti hunters vegans who tried to cut down the hunting posts to cause leg injuries. The hunting community, not the type to look over things after their father broke a leg, found them.
It's unclear if they went missing but if you play with fire, don't be surprised if you end up burnt.
But with art. It feels like "im worried about being replaced, lets make you feel afraid to be around me" "less people are coming" "im left behind" "THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT" and idk.
If there was a easy solution, it'd have been done already by now. But i stopped trying to care and just walked away, even with 100-1000$s spent on art.
Not because i didn't enjoy it at the time.
But it literally felt like it had turned from past recreation/pay and chat with someone. to feeling hated, resented, demonized, mob, treated like a beaten wallet to pay atm rent, while dissapointing them anyways, while a thousand people had money troubles, while also watching people refuse to pick up 20-45$ a hr jobs.
For hells sake, it's not great but even a job at Bucee's gas station can apparently pay 25$ a hr to 150k a year or in and out or a trucker job paying 40-70k a year. Would it be art, no, but it could keep people alive.
I know people want to be famous artists and im not trying to burn the dream becuz evil ai satan.
just i don't want, enjoy, or want art anymore. i want hte whole chapter burned and gone, i want to move on. I want healthy people in my life, not unhealthy fictional fic addictions. People seemed to want $$$ addicts, not people.
Nah, deserved, plus he knew it was going to happen
@@Lumollanot deserved.
@@shscksDeserved
you should try to do your own model with only copyright free content + your materials and see how good it is.
It won't be any good, by the way, and you're wrong. You don't know what you're talking about technology wise, and it's apparent when you equate the machine learning used for generative AI to the machine learning used for medical purposes.
It's fine to be pro AI, if you want to be, but educate yourself on what you are promoting, and how it relates to the arguments you're using to defend it.
@@GarudaPSN This. I just can't fathom how he doesn't get it.
Fr tho, no one does actual research anymore
@@GarudaPSN I agree
I do like and respect this guy but unless he says I will never do this again i feel a little uncomfy watching his videos. this dude is a fantastic artist without using any form of ai and that's why I follow him in the first place. I like watching him talk and draw. with that said if I was in his shoes I would say "yes I messed up and I will never use ai again." i feel like if your using it to generate ideas with words that's one thing, hell I do that every now and then although when I do it I just end up scrapping the ai's concept all together and just start brainstorming on my own because even word generation is quite generic. currently I don't where I stand in all this but I will never support ai for art making unless somehow someway the tech bros stop stealing other peoples art and I know Karla Ortiz is working her ass off to do so but it just won't be that easy and I wouldn't be surprised if it just gets worse.
how any artist can look at those lifeless abominations of AI that give me shivers and say "they're getting better" is beyond me
No hate at all, we are all trying to find ourselves as artists. I totally understand being excited about finding something "new" in a process.
People reacted way too emotionally to your previous video, and I could see the hypocrisy in people calling out your art literal "shit" just because it had an AI stamp on it. I believe they would not even notice if you had not say it.
I just think that using ai in a process and rationalizing it is a cope. Im not saying its impossible to do it though, you are just too ahead of time.
But at least try man. I would want to be remembered as someone who fought not as someone who gave in.
I wish ai tech was used and created like the 3-d models artists used to pose, but knowing all the data and images used in ai was ripped straight from the internet is the problem.
If they just asked or an ai coder decided to make a clean program where artists can volunteer or be payed to input their images THEN that would be okay. If a program can do lineart over a sketch, or can fill in a change the colour palletes would be fine. But knowing a program has frankensteined other artists works
please tell me you at least got paid to shill AI, because it makes no sense to fight your existing viewerbase over using AI to generate some hair 😂
Ok now that's just a war crime. XD
I like how you have to believe that there's some corruption so you can feel like you're in the right. You people are dog pilling and harassing a talented artist who committed the ungodly crime of *gasp* TRYING TO USE AI IN HIS WORKFLOW. And somehow you all think that you're the good guys.
I saw the video and because I've followed you for so long, I know it came from a place of love regardless of how the message was conveyed. Thank you for clearing it all up. I'm sorry for how people treated you. Know that I support you. I will never support hate. 💜
Amen
Like in the words of Garth from Wayne's World: "It's like people only do things because they get paid. And that's just really sad".
I'm not against AI, I think it is just a tool for still creating in a more efficiente way, the video that you made didn't make me think in any bad way of you, at the contrary, I thought "Oh wow, maybe I can use this tool better" and it did, thank you for still investigating and for developing your own art, everyone has an opinion and they should respect the one that you have as we should respect the people who are against it.
It's still disappointing to see an artist use AI. You don't realize it, but you just gave the AI bros the thumbs up. So, congratulations I guess? For welcoming a "tool" that is actively harming other artists.
Harming in what way exactly? A generated picture that took half an earlobe from some random clipart?
@@rinyyp7742 Are you kidding me? What is there to not understand? It doesn't matter how much he used it. It's the fact that he's a popular artist that literally shows how he uses the AI and a popular artist that DEFENDS and promotes that. If you don't see anything wrong with it then you're blind.
@@judgementkazzy1750 He betray the very community who make him porpular in the first place
@@rinyyp7742Even if you want to make the case that the output of Ai art is original (which is utterly ridiculous), at the end of the day THE Ai WAS TRAINED ON STOLEN ARTWORK. That’s the part we have a problem with. No matter how you slice it, IT’S THEFT, IT’S UNETHICAL.
Got it? Got it.
Unsubbed immediately. Have a good day 👍
Cheers
Cry about it))
@@orus_inantis Why would I be crying over my unsubscription from a channel that I have zero interest in? If anything not having swill in my feed is a benefit to my user experience on the platform lol
@@meat3958 agreed
@@meat3958 no one cares what a loser thinks
Funny thing how everyone who using Ai trying to manipulate with health, robots and other shit lol You’re “artist”, you don’t need Ai, this is not the same as health care or robots cleaning in dangerous places. I hate this type of artist, pretending they are one of us, protecting Ai.
Still…not understanding a single thing here. Very disappointed.
Good luck in your future endeavors
What don't you understand?
If you don't understand, then perhaps your thinking is flawed.
@@CrynalleHughes He doesn't understand because he doesn't want to understand. it's why he didnt refute any points. People who thrash their emotions around like this don't deserve to have their opinions taken seriously. moving on.
AI is theft. No AI works without theft. Now knowing you use AI, I will avoid interacting with your art ever
*"AI is theft"*
Is IMO useless, and an incredibly dangerously broad statement, since "AI" is a wide range of technologies with a wide range of being made, and with an equally, if not greater, range of potential uses.
@@gondoravalon7540stop being pedantic, you know what is meant
Traditional art is good. I love working with traditional art. It's so relaxing and creative. 😊
I really appreciate you sharing your views and thoughts on AI as an artist.
It's disheartening that right now, most people are so polarized by social media that the mere mention of AI makes them hate you. You are a brave and good person; most would choose to simply stay silent and leave us other artists in the dark, but you are doing your best for all of us, even knowing that you'd face all this backlash.
Be strong, and know that many of us deeply value and support you and your work (but most are just scared of saying it aloud).
@@overpope3510 Thank you for sharing your perspective. My comment was intended to support the importance of open and honest dialogue about the use of AI in art. We all benefit from transparency and open discussions about ethical implications.
It's no surprise that AI in art leads to some heated discussions, but it's crucial to remember that behind every channel and work is a person trying to explore new forms of expression. Before assuming bad intentions, it's beneficial to listen and try to understand the perspectives of others.
I understand that there are concerns about how some artists use this technology, and it's a valid topic that deserves attention. However, Josh made a video specifically to explain how he might use AI in his creative process, trying to be as ethical as possible within his understanding, and (as he himself says in this video) he has listened to criticisms to try to improve (for instance, by stopping using MidJourney).
Regarding the community, the vast majority of followers continue to support the artist, which suggests that many value this type of innovative content and his honesty in presentation. Losing some followers is a natural part of any artistic evolution, especially on such divisive topics.
The diversity of opinions is vital in any artistic community, and we should strive to keep our discussions as respectful and constructive as possible. We are all part of the same global artistic community, each exploring and expressing in our own way.
man...disappointing take on ai for sure. You created a safe space for us artists to talk about our issues, us artists are saying ai is an issue to us...and you say lets use ai? Come on man just draw your own art we dont NEED ai. We dont NEED electric lighting you can choose to avoid these tools
Watch in a few you years, you all will start doing it. Cowards.
"I found a strategy." Yeah i guess you can call copying what a computer stole a strategy
1: Computers cannot steal, only people can.
2: It is not stealing, the artist still have the property
3: You're an idiot.
*Yeah i guess you can call copying what a computer stole*
Generating a new image isn't stealing, IMO.
First, I would like to say that you are an important person, both as an artist who shares his knowledge and as a dignified, hard-working and serious person.
And, second but not least, I believe that some of the criticisms you mentioned are really very empty.
I do not feel comfortable with the way AI tools aimed at illustration and audiovisual production "work" (in the most "piratically savagely root capitalist way" possible), mainly because this is happening without efficient regulation and without a mature and non-polarized debate. And that is why I reject using it. But, keeping quiet about this topic (or keeping others quiet), and not knowing what it is about, will not help at all (at least for us, as a category).
I hope you are well, do not get discouraged and continue sharing your knowledge and serving as a professional inspiration, as always, in the healthiest way you can.
A big and fraternal hug!
it was what i felt after watching the video, the part where you didn't talk about AI were nice, chill and educative, but when AI was in the mix you were a bit more harsh and direct even aggresive i would say or in defensive state rather than a pedagic mindset, That the only issue I have with your video.
As someone who mainly does photobashing and traditional line art, it would be dishonest of me to deny that AI has advantages over using photos to create art, since I only started photobashing about two years ago. That's when I realized where I was struggling. I learned a ton by watching one of my favorite artists do it. I picked up a lot about grayscale, composition, and stuff like that from their tutorials. Watching your videos helped me a ton with understanding values and how to use them in my art. I've definitely improved over the past two years because of it.
I know what I'm capable of as an artist, and AI is definitely a tool I can use. It’s made my process way faster. Most people are stuck on whether AI art is real art or not, but I do note that it can be a tool if you use it like one. AI can't really capture the intention behind a piece like a human can. That's what sets artists apart from AI. One thing I’ve noticed in this AI vs Artist discussion, is that people who aren't artists usually just care about the finished product while Artists love the process. We're always tweaking stuff. So, while AI can be helpful, I still have to make the decisions on the whole creative process.
I love photobashing compared to traditional drawing, and I recently realized how AI could be a huge help. I wouldn't use it all the time but It's more like a tool in my kit. Like, if I need to generate a piece of wood for a building I'm designing, I can generate it and then use it in my photobash. It's definitely speeds up the process, not replacing my skills.
One AI generation uses around 10 litres of water
@@Caesarpinaceaehopeful laws can help with stuff like like and the ethics of Ai if it did I think a lot people would use Ai and like the tech of course not stop drawing
@@magicalgalaxylavender not to mention ai is trained off of countless already stolen works
@@Caesarpinaceae *One AI generation uses around 10 litres of water*
Generation, as in image generation?
That's definitely gonna need a citation.
Dude…
Disappointment in the current perspective you hold on the ethics and presentation of ai cause of your influence on me and others. Not disappointed in you as a human on the other side of the screen.
Anyone supporting midjourney that steals (art, labor and prospect) is an action many feel to contribute to ire.
We are all capable of learning and growing and holding multiple opinions.
We are not luddites who bawk at all ai as an insidious enemy. Its obviously useful with certain ethics in mind. It's unfortunately a tool that has been aimed at extracting skilled labor and personal sentiment for nefarious profit and devaluation.
So seeing it from a person who you learn motivational skills from and resilience, and has a Cara account is weird.. optics and very jarring.
Dont think you're bad. Just think theres a certain level of awareness you at one time possessed and now you possess an acute awareness.
I still don't fully agree with some of your more surreptitious opinions on ai and implications on those who are not fully behind all forms, many people can not guarantee their place in an industry dominated by ai. Many have lost jobs and opportunities.
Hope to see more mind over matter, grit and determination videos about manual art that I've grown to enjoy on your channel. Take care either way
This is embarrassing, the staggering environmental impact of AI and the art theft should have been enough for you to apologize and leave this all entirely but instead you rather make excuses. Unfollowing.
AI is a tool for corporations, not for artists.
Actually a tool for thief and scammer and grifter if I must say.
I don't know if you'll see this, but I just wanted to let you know that what you did was very brave. The conversation around AI Art has always been extremely hateful and toxic, and a lot of artists have been wrongfully harassed because of it. So many of my favorite artists who haven't even touched AI have been harassed by these same people, simply because some trolls wrongfully accused them of using AI in the work. So I wouldn't blame anyone for staying away from AI altogether or claiming they are anti-AI simply to keep these people away.
You tried to experiment with a new technology and whether or not you think that technology is right for you is completely your choice. You are an artist and regardless of what these people want you to believe, they do not own you or your process. You owe nothing to them. These people who turned on you are misguided children, throwing a tantrum and lecturing you on what art is without even having stepped foot inside the professional art world. They are a loud minority and not worth your consideration.
Take care of yourself, and know that you do have fans who truly appreciate art and understand the work it takes to make it regardless of what tools or mediums you use.
I think AI is never going to go away so if you like it or hate it, you're going to have to deal with it. It's never going to stop. You're going to have to either adapt and use it or fall behind unless there's like lawsuits that ban it and compensate artist which probably won't happen. Since everything is going to be AI in the future, you might as well incorporate it. Use it as reference to improve your work. Don't like copy it but instead of like generating images and tracing over them for example you can use it as photo reference.
In the future it's probably going to be like the Disney movie. Wally where nobody works and AI does everything for us and then they'll introduce universal income ubi and then you can do whatever you want with your free time because if a lot of jobs become automated people aren't going to want to work. If you have to go to school unless the government makes it mandatory and pays for your education so you can contribute to society. Because if all the minimum wage jobs are done by Ai people really work anymore. I never went to school for anything because I never found it interesting. The only thing I ever like to do was art .
There's a good RUclips channel that talks about this a lot. David Shapiro.
Honestly, with things as fractured or hatemobby as they can be. I'm kinda half worried about like a Jonestown or just like if it's crying wolf, Some people raised prices 100$ to like 1000-2499$ next to "Don't like it? Don't buy it, i have plenty of ORDER" posts of like chibi cat arts.
Arts is a little like a NFL, 1% get 90% of the attention, Honestly with Dragoneer's death /passing. I think even a Wall-E "Dystopia" would be optimistic. Not saying they live great lifes, they're in a gilded obese cupcake cage but like.
It sounds like a teenager's idea of a apocalypse, everyone on their phone, vs what happened to Dragoneer, dying in a hospital with a 27000$ hospital fee.
Guy was super anti ai and super artist supportive, he owned a major site and while Furaffinity stayed out of the anti ai talks, it was definitely one of the sites that banned it. Guy even paid out of pocket, alledgely bought artists computers and drew for people and was super supportive of the arts.
Then he died in a hospital, alone with nobody irl, with unclear bank account balance, potential 0$ in savings after spending every dime he had on others or going into debt to buy a site that despite popularity, may or may not have lost money, like -0k-60k a year out of pocket(Source: made it up)(?).
But like, he did everything anti ai dreamed about, he banned ai, he fed all his money out of pocket, gave every dollar he had.
Then he died at age 40 of a lung infection he couldn't afford to -27,000$ treat or decide to die. Like artists were talking about seeing evictions weekly or running out of money, customers were saying money was out/depleted/exhausted, people were infighting/screaming about money. while also talking about old memories but also fighting.
A walle world seems less depressing where everyone's on a phone but not dead than a world people just die but their hand drawn pornographies or arts remain as a legacy, or the same people are dead but hand drawn + ai generated pornography.
it all feels like valuing unhealthy pornography addictions over healthy relationships. Not in like a "i can't stop" but a "we can stop, we just choose not to" "we will hurt people to continue drawing furries with 18 feet sticks and scat diapers" stuff.
Say what you want about online art. But it's usually something you brag about in a fourm to praise, not your parents at a dinner table.
So if robot do all the work , who gonna pay for your monthly bill? Your rent money. House dont pop out of thin air and the land dont expand either, only the earth's population is raising.
Thank you for the video. Mistakes allow us to grow. All the best for you, Josh, especially now when you need this extra energy
"Many of you are sold on the idea that any ai is completely useless" - that's a false statement that you just put into other people's mouths. I read many comments for that unfortunate video of yours, I didn't notice that people are sold on this idea, we understand that such a technology that can, for example, analyze the state of the crops in the greenhouse and spot the mold on a berry, - is a very useful technology. But when it is used for scrapping millions of photos, artworks, videos and voices and creating huge spaces for theft and copyright infringement - that's where people have the problem with it. You do not address the real problem people see with image generators, that is my impression. Though I admit I saw some comments that were just a direct attack on you and they were harsh, I would feel offended too
That's false thou, there were comments like that. Also, Ai is not the one doing the scrapping, is us (humans). Like he said in this video, people can do really bad thing with any tool at their disposal, but that doesn't mean the tool is completly bad. Not trying to defend the way is used at the moment of course, until regulated it is going to be a feared and hated technology (rightfully so)
@@yu-sama I doubt that scrapping is done manually, ai may be used to extract data from websites. In my comment I also used an example that showed how ai can be useful, I don't know if you noticed it or just ignored. People are not afraid of the technology, they are outraged. Because using some LLMs and pretending that it is some badass new "ai" technology is outrageous. And in the comments people were calling out image generators not "ai" technology as a whole, there' was just too much gaslighting in the marketing of LLMs, so now it is easy to point fingures at people who are rejecting "usefullness" of image generators and tell them - "oh, you must be neoluddits, you are against technologies" When it is so far away from truth
There are comments LOTS of coments including here, undermining Ai usefullness for inspiration and reference . Saying that referencing real life pictures is better therefore ai should never be used. Go gaslight somewhere else
@@jjnhjnh3378 I never said that image generators are useful for inspiration and reference, they are totally useless. But I admit that Ai technology can be very helpful in many other fileds, in agriculture, for example. Go read the definition of gaslighting
@@alexandrapetruk5614 What he said is true. Artists are against any type of use of Ai. They are completely extremist and see no nuance. Read my comment again, you missed what I said, lol you artists skipped reading comprehension class 😂😂😂
Before i get into the solution, a few pointers:
- You should keep in mind that not everyone has a community of people and a personal brand like you that can generate income for them anytime they want.
- We can outlaw AI Stolen art by going to every website (Governments set a president for Redbubble, Artstation, Etsy etc.) so then it doesnt matter who uses it to steal art in Russia or China, they still wont be able to post it on the major sites.
- Nightshade and Glaze will get better, so every artist will use them
- Art was stolen, literally, and when it comes to music, the ai songs get banned? - we need to stand up and set a president as craftsmen not just artist.
Solution:
Study to be an "artist" for 10+ years.
Create original pieces with your style. (weather throughout the years or after the 8-10 year mark)
Feed your personal AI the data (your art, your style)
Sell your style to companies (make illustrations faster and cheaper as a freelancer -- you are basically selling your style at that point)
Make comics with your style (create stories faster with merit to it and the right to call it "yours")
Generate references for your (ongoing) artistic evolution and journey
Re-feed your AI with more of your images.
The older you get, the faster you'll be able to generate your art since you have built up your own library.
This could be "AI as a tool" and not "AI as an APP for Tech Bros to profit and oversaturate the internet with trash"
It's interesting to see the controversy around in using AI references. A lot of people are upset, arguing that AI is 'stealing' other people's art because it learns and generates images based on existing works. But if we think about it, isn't that exactly what artists have been doing for centuries? We study the works of others, absorb different styles, techniques, and ideas, and then use that inspiration to create something new.
when we admire a painting, photograph, or illustration, we often incorporate elements of what we love into our own art, consciously or unconsciously. This process of influence and inspiration is a fundamental part of how art evolves. To say that AI is stealing because it mimics this process is like saying that humans 'steal' when we learn from other artists.
The real value in art isn't just in the references or inspirations, but in how we transform them into something uniquely our own. Creativity is about taking the raw materials-whether they come from nature, other artists, or even AI-and shaping them into a new vision. Instead of seeing AI as a threat, maybe we should consider itt as another tool , one that can open up new possibilities for creative expression.
Your statement: "AI leanr like human do".
The same logic which AI bros has been use for year and it has been debunk along time ago.
Just let me ask you one single question: "Can AI train on another AI image without getting degenerated and collapse over time?" Of couse No
While human artist can learn from another artwork of other human artist just fine.
See, just a simple question and your fail theory already exposed.
And I knew you're also another AI tech bros aswell.
Your statement has nothing to do with what i said. i didn't say it learns like humans. I said its the same logic , we get all our ideas and styles based on what already exists.
@@skylesai you said it's the same logic , it's just another way to say "AI learn like human do"
But infact it's not the same logic, my simple question above already proved that and you cant proved otherwise either.
Thanks for making this video. I think it's healthy to reflect about ourselves and the others. AI is not absolutely one thing or absolutely the other, it has a gray area that we artist need to understand and keep discussing. People on social media (not that much on RUclips) are getting used to respond really drastically to everything. I admire how stoic you became at the end. People need to realise there's a human behind the screen.
great, one of my favorite youtubers became an AI bro, time to desubscribe
I respect the time you took to make a follow up video and to address the heated topic, so this isn't exactly aimed at you but in general towards AI. When people are against AI, we aren't wearing tinfoil hats and screaming at computers. AI of course has helped in a lot of industries, from pointing out spelling mistakes, creating datasets, recording audio ect. It's the idea of tacking 'AI' on to everything, and the unethical way it's being used for art, writing, and now even videos. It's release with no regulation or regard, has already changed the internet. You can't even open social media without being bombarded by generated articles with questionable sources or millions of 'fanart in the style of' generations. Stock and photo sites are now loaded with generations, I can't even type dog on pinterest without getting weird images that sort of resemble a dog. So no, it's not that AI can't be useful, it's the implementation with wild abandonment, and misinterpretation of what the software is that makes people upset. The term AI, is being thrown on to everything with the idea we already have some real life Jarvis, when we don't. Most of the creative feats the programs are producing, are off the backs of real people, they didn't come from nowhere. This is why there was an entire writer's strike, and honestly artists should have done the same. The programs were blatantly pulling entire parts of people's scripts, essays, and books into 'new' content.
No one can stop people from using it, but take a second to understand why creatives might be upset with the use of these programs. The video brought up healthcare, it should be addressed that they too are replacing human steps with AI as well. It sounds good in theory, it must know better than us, but now when it messes up it your insurance gets denied , and no real person will handle it. Have you ever been annoyed by a bot on a phone call? Imagine if that same bot now controls whether you get important medication or not, the less we leave to real people to save money, the more dangerous this become. I'm sure other companies will follow, out of FOMO, or not realizing they're using an undercooked egg to do the heavy lifting. Such as what happened with a recent mass train outage in New York, leaving people stranded. What this breaks is trust, which is rather important for a brand, and for content creators. It's not "ai art bad", it's more so why even try to teach it that way. It's concerning because before this tech, tracing and color picking were still destructive towards an artist's growth, now they can paint right over a generation. I think unless you're some top tier professional with limited time, that people should focus on studying and practicing. It's why concept art is often different then people's personal artwork, they fill different roles. No one 'needs' AI to learn hair or anatomy, it skews your own progress.
not deleting the video shows a lot more backbone than adam duff
I’m not going any where. I’ve enjoyed and learned a lot from you and I’m gonna rock with you through the ups and downs my friend. This may be a down but we all grow from mistakes that we may or may not have made in our artistic journey. Keep pushing brother!
Thank you for having a level headed response and I appreciate that you are not letting the mob mentality buckle your view.
Even if we may not agree with everything I can at least say that I do not condone the video, but I am also not condemning you for trying something. I wish everyone could have that mindset of knowing the difference.
I stay because you’re always evolving.
Thanks for keep going.
Most AI art discourse really feels like a few people made a opinion based on critical analysis of the situation. And the the majority just copied and pasted a bunch of talking points without fully understanding what they mean.
Try not to make a video without at least 10 logical fallacies: mission impossible.
Lmao
The ai glazers in the comments LMAO
Indeed, feels like ai bros found out about recent ergojosh coming out and decided to support him on the second vid
i dont even fw ai at all but yall are reaching and glazing each other's hate wagon.
so you're either a true artist or an ai glazer. No inbetween good to know
@@Johnpelocayeah, that’s pretty much correct. Because an artist has no need for AI, and would never support it - unless it can be rebuilt from the ground up in a way that’s actually ethical. But not in the current state it’s in.
how to recognize AI tech bros:
- "adapt or die"
- "AI learn like human do"
If they mention any of those thing as their statement, that's indeed a Tech bros. No misunderstanding here.
Using traditional is exactly what I was hoping to hear. An art supply is an option to take an art lesson...while AI, and more broadly, the entire digital art world, can be seen as a new kind of art supply, it's like how many historical art methods were dangerous, involved strong solvents or toxic pigments, etc. Here it's primarily a social danger, where we don't know how much is human and how much is machine, so the tendency is to assign credit entirely to one or the other. This kind of danger is dangerous precisely because we don't grasp the shape of it and how to handle that safely - and even though tons of people are using digital, it doesn't have a tradition to it like sketching with charcoal or making sculptures in clay. Since Josh has come from a position of being a consumer of digital tech, doing reviews, etc., part of the deal is that he has to suffer a few slings and arrows to continue pursuing the new stuff. There is no "dehumanization risk" certification on an iPad.
Moving over to traditional helps in that it provides some grounding for the digital technique. Digital is extremely design-heavy, while traditional adds elements of live performance to it; the discipline that stems from that is on a different level and can help anyone get a sense of their artistic preferences and style.
And nobody will be calling you out on your upcoming Crayola Twistables drawings, I promise 😂
Yeah. We are not against AI itself (that shit was used since around 1960). We are against GENERATIVE AI and how it is made.