In the Age of AI Art, What Can Originality Look Like? | Eileen Isagon Skyers | TED
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 авг 2023
- What happens when human and machine creativity meet? From an AI model trained on classic works to generate a seemingly infinite stream of portraits to a neural network that envisions otherworldly life-forms in impossible detail, media art curator Eileen Isagon Skyers showcases mind-bending art that embraces our increasingly technological future, showing how AI can stretch the scope of human imagination and help create worlds we could never design alone.
If you love watching TED Talks like this one, become a TED Member to support our mission of spreading ideas: ted.com/membership
Follow TED!
Twitter: / tedtalks
Instagram: / ted
Facebook: / ted
LinkedIn: / ted-conferences
TikTok: / tedtoks
The TED Talks channel features talks, performances and original series from the world's leading thinkers and doers. Subscribe to our channel for videos on Technology, Entertainment and Design - plus science, business, global issues, the arts and more. Visit TED.com to get our entire library of TED Talks, transcripts, translations, personalized talk recommendations and more.
Watch more: go.ted.com/eileenisagonskyers
• In the Age of AI Art, ...
TED's videos may be used for non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives (or the CC BY - NC - ND 4.0 International) and in accordance with our TED Talks Usage Policy: www.ted.com/about/our-organiz.... For more information on using TED for commercial purposes (e.g. employee learning, in a film or online course), please submit a Media Request at media-requests.ted.com
#TED #TEDTalks #ai #aiart 
Наука
It’s not that AI is a threat to human creativity. Humans will want to express themselves regardless. The danger is the extreme centralization of creative capital to a few Silicon Valley companies that create these models by using existing artwork from starving and non-starving artists. I rarely make comments about appearance, but this is the most well-spoken/dressed and beautiful woman that I have heard/seen in long time.
The girl googled bunch of artists and gave a presentation on "AI is the future", that too without any insightful inferences. I come back to Ted after years and this I get to begin with.
Can Ai work without internet service🧐
Simple response: "originality" can look like effort ..
I found your response more thoughtprovoking than the whole video.
one thing I feel tech people talking about ai and artistic creativity is they keep forgetting about one thing. Artistic creativity is not about improvement is about creation. The difference between art and technology is that unlike technology there is no improvement seeking. When you look at the technology from 1960 you can tell clearly that the technology we have now is much better, but you couldn't say that all the movies or fashion collections from the current times are better than those made in the 20th century because that is not how art works,that is how Technology works. Another thing being dismissed is that art and cretivity is not only about having a good idea, but taking control over it and going in a creative journey in the process of making it. You can ask ai to imagine a black flower with purple spikes but how you imagine it (the size, the shades of purple, the position of the flower...) that's what makes art enjoyable for the creator. I believe art will nit die as long as there is a public for it because quite frankly art is not necessary for survival so the only reason we have artists is beacause we want to be artist and people want to have artists. Art is a beautiful way to express our particukar humanity.
The weird surreal mush AI makes is so inspiring, it makes me almost interested in where that weird mush initially came from...
Just the thought of AI taking over all the human jobs is insane..
Because it will still cost money and precious mineral resources to maintain, or because it is laughably unrealistic as far as functionality? 😂😅cheers🎉
Thank God i am already a miner 😂
this video literally says nothing to me... I expected much more
"Is it even possible to be truly original as an artist anymore?". Not only this question makes no sense, it is also very dumb, with all the respect. Originality is not even the right word to use, it's not part of the topic here. Originality, is a self-explanatory word: to originate something, to be original. It is pretty obvious that very few artists in history have originated something "new", something that made a statement, something that would inspire others. Being original means giving life to something new that changes or evolves a form of art. That can only happen within a human mind anyway. That's why, with all the respect for this smart woman, I think the question was kind of offensive. Yes, it is still possibile to be original as an artist. It may not be common, but it's never been and it doesn't have to be. Now, the right word that she must've used is "creativity" (the skill of imagine and create), which has more to do with ideas about the subject of a piece of art and its style, than being "totally new". You can still have interesting and distinguished ideas from being inspired bye artists from the past or around you. You can look up to artists that you love and teach you things and still be YOU. Well, I see many talented artists with great technical skills that have ZERO creativity and distinctivness, I see people trying to emulate youtubers' styles (which lack creativity in the first place), and yes, there's lack of creativity and uniqueness overall. But there are many artists out there doing art that AI will never be capable of, not to mention the OBVIOUS emotional and personal counterpart of a piece of art that only a human can "originate". How can a Frida Kahlo emotional message be beaten by AI? AI IS NOT SENTIENT. So that question was kind of inappropriate. Now, AI can help create apparently unique images, but it all still comes from human mind in the first place. I'm not against AI tho, I think it can have its purpose, but making "art" isn't one of them. So it's time to ask our governments' administrations to make rules about AI. Europe is moving its first steps on ruling AI, but it's still too little. Let's rise our voices for a moral, ethical and regulated use of AI.
Thank you!!!
It has so much potential and exciting things to give in visual art. I think its more scary in case of music and reproducing human voices.
She says, " this 'piece' is produced by, (inset human name here).. But, my questions are; how old are these "artists".. how many years did they study perfecting "their art".. their medium? Because I'm an artist, who's been playing around with Midjourny since the Beta and I know that "pieces" of equal quality can be prompted by an 11yr old wannabe accountant, in under 2 days of practice... The reality is this isn't produced by a, (insert human name here)... It's produced by an AI algorithm... She talks about curation of hundreds of images, a repetitive task greatly suited to... you guest it, AI!
... Stop pretending that 'Human digital art' isn't in intensive care, right now. The first to fall in two decade obliteration of human worth.
been thinking of creating my own paintings then selling them on ebay ,i know a bit about it all ,but my paintings will be nothimg but honest ,thats important
AI creates images not art. Our inability to define art leads us into this silly conversation. Nevertheless the art industry will do it's thing and put together marvelous exhibits that we can gather around, sip wine and prance around in various styles of blackware.
Ai creates images not art. I just wrote that in my comment then scrolled down and saw your comment. Glad to see I am not alone.
I also wrote something like If you use Ai to create images you are not an artist you're a user.
Couldn't agree more. My biggest issue with ai companies is they refuse to pay artists money owed to them for the art that was taken without permission or compensation. As far as art. If it isn't done by human hand i.e. pen, pencil, paint, sculpting ect. And if it is a mass produced product. Not a one of if you will. Then it's not art. Line drawn. Art defined. If one mass produces images then they are is what's called a commercial image producer. Not a classic artist. And a commercial image producer should be compensated for their original works, that would be images made on software not enhanced by ai. Before others can profit off their images, including but not limited to ai software users or ai companies / corporations. There are some really good artists that use Wacom tablets and other hand held devices to draw amazing things without the ai crutch. Pure skill and years of dedication to hone their skills, proficient on computer as well as classic medium. And some do mass produced images and should be paid for their original works. Mass produced images are a dime a dozen. An original piece could be worth much more, and rightfully so.
For me... I put it this way. A.I. And Robots aren't inherently bad. And won't be our equal.
How is it. ( That I can for the first time in my life ever doing it. ) I can Tell my desired texture of wide flat pasta noodles in a boiling pot of water.
From scooping one up and dangling it from a wooden handle stainless steel stirring utensil, over 15 inches long ? And feel the exact desired texture from holding the wooden handle, because I chewed pasta before? And where did my desired texture come from? You get the full fledged connection to this video right?
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE NEVER REPLACE YOUR JOB BUT THE PERSON HE KNOW HOW TO USE A.I. THAT CAN DEFINITELY TAKE AWAY YOUR JOB.
AI art is fascinating! It's a blend of human creativity and technology, resulting in new and unique artworks. This makes us rethink what creativity means and how technology is shaping art. And we should talk about both the positive and negative sides of this new art form
AI should be assimilated to advance humanity rather than fearing it, there is enough fear. Show love and be love, this is art ❤
Pay all the people that the ai companies stole from and I will give it a try. Not against ai. I am against theft without compensation.
Deception always comes gift wrapped. 🎁
DO NOT BE DECEIVED 👹
entered because of the title, stayed because her outfit ateee!! :p
Man, this is a super video!! My main takeaway is that artists like Claire Silver ain't just sticking to old-school methods. She's out here mixing things up with AI, 'collaborative AI artist'. It's like she's using the AI to make a connection between old-timey art and the crazy digital stuff of today. Real genius stuff, man.
I've done art that AI can't do having ai around has made me break my own boundaries artistically and creating that which could never be conceived by ai Is why I knkw art is not dead
Just sitting down, thinking and using your creative brain will help you break artistic boundaries too! 🪬🖌💎
@Schoohness actually i find that "not" thinking is more beneficial to the creative act. The wisdom in your comment is that a big boundary for many people is just doing the work to begin with. Whereas I'm referring to trying new combinations. I see it as 3 items.
1. A medium (paint, chalk , dirt , sparkles , tattoo ink etc)
2. An applicator of the medium (brush, tattoo gun, spray bottle , bare hands , cloth or sponge, a toothbrush etc)
3. A canvas (an actual canvas , glass windows, another human, an old brick wall , your exs car etc)
I've found by being inventive and creative making combinations of these things has been very fun lol
"Art" by definition is a HUMAN expression.
What AI does is just combining numbers, it is WE that misslabel it as such.
Do Neural networks use thousands or millions of images at a time?
No 😂 that is not how it works.
The model is 2GB.
You can't compress a billion images into 2GB
AI can be incredible but nothing is like something created by human hands.
And that's why I like it, some of it is otherwordly and incomparable to what you'd expect to see from a human.
Hello. I use these tools to create art work. I use it to edit my photographs, art work as well. These tools are very helpful for creativity. I also use these tools to compose music as well. There are so many possibilities. There are no limits to creating new things.
@@tiberiousjc3739 Most of the artists back then copied other artists. Which means that art was never original. Do you watch videos on artist, and how they copy one another. Nothing is original. Begin by watching everything is a remix. From art, to music, writers.
@@tiberiousjc3739 If you're trying to insult anyone with your opinions I don't blame you for it. I always study any field I want to learn more about. I get the answers I need then I begin my journey. I don't debate anyone, because the answers I got were from professors of universities, and art critics from around the world. Most of their answers are updated, and remain the same.
anything not done by chatgpt, which is plageurism isnt it?
TED IS DEAD
It used to be a source of discoveries, inspiration, thoughts provoking and learning. This talk shows it’s content can now belong on Tik Tok
Sad 😢
DAMN this woman is beautiful
Still have trouble making hands, well, for now.
There is nothing profound or meaningful happening inside these AI's. The creation of Art requires above all intent and a desire to communicate- no such intent or desire exists in these machines- input the same prompt with the same seed value and they will give you more or less the same image over and over and over again- they will never grow weary of the repetition, never yearn to make something new- they are dead things and anyone who imagines that these dead things can be harnessed as engines of artistic inspiration are deluding themselves.
The best that can be said of them is that they might function as very elaborate rorschach blots in onto which one may project one's own ideas- but the notion that they represent some new frontier in the realms of artistic expression is laughable. Kaleidoscopes make pretty patterns too- they do not, however, make Art.
There is nothing profound or meaningful happening inside a camera, either - it is simply measuring photons. But just as photography can be used as a tool for creative expression, so too can AI.
AI art generation is just as meaningful and profound as the advent of the camera. Blanket dismissals of any intrinsic value are short-sighted, and fail to see the bigger picture.
I think we are in agreement here- there is nothing profound or meaningful happening either inside an AI or inside a Camera- the creative intent of the human is all that matters. However the premise of the Ted talk is that AI itself is capable of actual creative intent- which is like saying the camera has it's own ideas as to what makes a great photograph- a claim I think we can both agree is nonsense. AI's cannot create anything meaningful because meaning can only arise in the context of a desire to communicate- and AI's have no such desires.
To ask what an AI meant by the output it produced would be like asking what your toaster meant by that specific shade of brown it created on the surface of your breakfast- both these phenomena are the outcome of mindless processess devoid of any attempt or desire to communicate anything.
@@paulhiggins5165 agreed 👍 thanks for clarifying. My only followup would be to add that I’m excited by the new creative possibilities these tools are presenting to artists, allowing them to rapidly explore new ideas which might not previously have been possible.
very
Can the Arabic translation be activated? ❤❤❤❤❤
Seems like with AI technology being incorporated, there's far less room for originality to prosper. You're basically reliant on a tool that helps you achieve tasks far quicker than you would've ever anticipated.
It also makes talent irrelevant. An AI could create a million designs in the time it takes an artist to painstakingly produce a piece of their own.
Answer: you let the AI do it better than you. It has access to the full range of the near infinite possibilities of pixel arrangements and can combine any number of subspaces in it, you just guide it through it with the prompts.
It really makes you wonder, if Ai can do almost all our jobs, what will we be doing in the future? I hope that we may one day find the solution to this answer.
Second comments😮
First viewer😮
The thought that AI art, or all forms of AI ‘creation’, is mere auto-referencing on a gigantic scale immediately, for me anyway, de-masks the whole thing. It suddenly took a massive leap backwards from a position of interest and intrigue for me to being almost entirely irrelevant. Art, design and creativity at their noble best have always been about the ability to pluck something out of nowhere, out of thin air that existed only in the mind of the brilliant and visionary. This is more like a child rumaging around in the toy chest of forgotten gifts and getting a cheap, momentary thrill from a refound item that was briefly desirable or popular. Art is never about an archive. It is always about what is next and what is unexpected. AI has a glorious future. Not in this area of human achievement.
AI will take over both art and photography. Yes, technically people still produce and buy paintings but they only look at them in museums on vacation in between gorging themselves on thousands of images a day on their screens.
Welcome to the new age. Approved
Human originality would be termed "humanorganic" in case AI have such a huge influence on originality in the future. What do you think ?
I think that's a good choice 😢 *warning psychosocial networks disrupted, this is not a unique thought*
This talk could have been actual few years ago. I am creating more mind blowing art than what you see in this video, today.
How do you know that they are Mind Blowing?
Exactly. This is old news and people are already reverting to a time pre-internet.
Not only does this talk refer to technology created within the last 2 years, the digital art sanctuary thing you're doing was being done by people like ViHart (especially using VR) to explore virtual spaces (museums, 5 dimensional space, etc...) several years ago. Way to put your foot in your mouth.
"More mind blowing?" I get that taste in art is subjective, for example I think your art clashing with the environment looks bad, but I don't think acting pompous is how you get people to appreciate yours. (Also, nice NFTs bud) 😅
(Also, don't worry, I didn't give this guy a view: the timeline thumbnails was all I needed 😘)
@@AyushSingh-be2nm for their artistic value (I have thousands of unpublished works) but in some cases also for their photo realism (which can be judged not just from my work but also from some recent videos that can be found on RUclips)
Nice talk with cherry picking only good the stuff of AI art, While we know most of its use was to steal non AI artists work and unethically resell their carbon copy without consent. I wonder what would these AI artists do if they had no more real artist product to feed their enigma machine that they dont even own.
Note that i'm not against machine learning models but their users are very toxic (positivity) and unethical
Yeah this talk really seems to label anyone rightfully criticizing ai art as "pessimists". We need to create laws protecting human artists from having their work used to feed these AI programs without their consent.
"unethically resell their carbon copy without consent"
What..? No one's using these models to recreate exact copies of the original training data
> *carbon copy*
The only way to do this barring overtraining (which is undesirable to have) is image to image with low diffusion rate, which is a problem not with text to image generation, but ... with how people use image to image!
I’m married to the pineapple under the sea
Learn how to take a pencil it's a good start
First comment
Yet pointless and nothing to do with the video
Collaborative Ai artist yet another title you give yourself to help you sleep at night and justify the use of a technology that makes creating art so much easier for you. OK, you trained Ai on thousands of your own images then call on that Ai to produce new images based on the images you fed it. It is still the Ai generating the images based on your work but without your input how come they don't get that.
> *to help you sleep at night*
Or maybe it's just another name that sounded neat or sounded like it was more concise (IDK about the last).
> * It is still the Ai generating the images based on your work*
And? How is it a problem to use AI trained on your own work, especially if just as part of the process?
@@gondoravalon7540 OK 1. Anyone can make up a title descriptive or not, try typing it into a job search engine and see what you get.
2. I never said training Ai on your own artwork was a problem, what I'm saying is that once you have trained the Ai it's no longer you creating the art to me they are just images. The process is now determined by the Ai without the users input, so in my opinion and please remember it's my opinion, the Ai is creating images not art and you are no longer an artist you're a user.
2023((G)) “Respect and dignity.” Furthermore:
At first, I was just happy seeing super brilliant tool to make arts like a magic, then I realized it's basically a theft.. so confused
While this talk of AI is taking place Skynet has entered the chat. Have fun before the real AI revolution begins
Yawn....
Artificially generated images, not art.
With AI, we humans can actually focus on higher forms of intellectual and creative works and let AI deal with mundane works. The pessimist probably thinks that way because they focus more on things that can be replaced. Human intelligence and creativity is irreplaceable. If they don't have these, then it's time for them to level up and join the new generation of humans.
Who gets to decide what is mundane? Does everyone think the same way about what is mundane?