A.I. Art is More Ethical than Human Art | Data Scientist/Philosophy Grad
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 дек 2022
- If the AI is cheaper and has the same quality then your decision is actually about how to spend money. On the one hand you allocate the money to a human artist to spend as they wish. On the other hand you pay a small amount for the AI, and then you are free to spend the rest however you like. If you really want to be ethical, you should always use the AI, and then spend the rest in an optimally ethical manner, like donating to charities, climate change prevention efforts, or medical research.
Of course this assumes an outcome-focused ("utilitarian") approach to ethics, if people seem to want more of this kind of content I'll do another one about the other big ethical school of thought...
Discord: / discord
======= Links =======
A pretty good video on utilitarianism: • Utilitarianism in 4 Mi...
======= Music =======
Music from freetousemusic.com
‘Onion’ by LuKremBo: • (no copyright music) l...
‘Snow’ by LuKremBo: • lukrembo - snow (royal...
‘Sunset’ by ‘LuKremBo’: • (no copyright music) j...
‘Travel’ by ‘LuKremBo’: • lukrembo - travel (roy...
‘Branch’ by ‘LuKremBo’: • (no copyright music) c...
‘Daily’ by ‘LuKremBo’: • (no copyright music) c...
#philosophy #aiart #art #ethics #ai #machinelearning #utilitarianism 
Наука
1. The value of a commodity or service is entirely subjective. This is a fact of economics, you cannot place a “fixed” price on anything. if someone wants to spend a thousand dollars on luxury items there isn’t a moral good or bad to be argued about, It’s merely their preference. If both parties agree on a price and there is no deception, there’s nothing to argue about.
2. Since each persons preference determines what makes them happy you cannot say what will “make the greatest number of people happy.” There are statistics that say people in poorer countries are happier than people in the first world. Saying we should make the greatest number of people happy is arbitrary to begin with, as you could easily say that it’s best to maximize the happiness of a few people. This is a longstanding problem for utilitarianism.
3. You started your argument by avoiding how ai works by training on data scrapped from the portfolios of artists. The question of the day is determining is that ethical. This line of questioning is a waste of time and itself is a red herring - logically fallacious.
4. Arguing that sending money to starving children is more ethical than supporting the arts is again a red herring. Both are nice things to do. Trying to frame this as an either/or when there are plenty of options is just bad reasoning. We can support the arts and give to charity.
The first 30s are broken, you can't consider the ethicality of AI generated images without considering how it work
check out kant over here
@@lewingtonn By your own logic, AI art should be stopped as a whole, because the small subset of charitable actions done by a minority of customers is not going to outdo the damage done to millions of artists, photographers, singers, voice actors, and so on. And that is not even to speak of dopamine desensitization due to mass machine output.
yeh we should spend it on A.I. companies gathering artworks from human artists that spend lot of time for their work.
like... ethically speaking, yes we should. It's unethical to put large amounts of money to support artist when that money could be spent better elsewhere.
@@lewingtonn spent better elsewhere? that is an opinion. also, this $750 you save by choosing AI over a human is your hypothetical. The ethical issue is that AI is using human art to train without the consent of the artists. MJ, SD and the like would not be successful without these human artists. Tell me it’s more ethical to steal from the artists and remove them from the equation.
@@lewingtonn The problem with utilitarianism is that you'll find that most people would rather live in a society in which unethical actions aren't excused, in any fashion. This also works better to prevent corruption creep. Also, if you actually want to be consistent, you should not put any money into AI art and donate all of it; on top of wanting to stop AI art as a whole, as your personal ethical actions are never going to measure up to the damage being done to millions of creators. Nothing about your position is consistent or ethical. Looking at your other videos, you have your own personal reasons for this pretzel logic, don't you?
In short: If you want to be most ethical, donate 100% and don't contribute to the replacement of human expression by AI.
you cant really examine how ethical it is by ignoring those three points you decided to ignore at the start of the video
you can't just ignore money
due to the fact that it's driving revenue away from human artists and putting money in the pockets of companies using their art to train the AI
you also can't ignore how the AI works because it's using nonconsensual data to train it and fuel it
and you can't ignore efficiency because, even though it's more efficient doesn't always make it better, why would anyone buy art that they can easily type a prompt and make it for themself, this AI art will only oversaturate the market.
as long as money is involve, the argument will never end..i do like art, sometimes i'm doing it for money sometimes not but i enjoy making it. if in the near future that being an artist is not profitable for living and my only job is wiping a robotic arm I will still doing art..
You should start to where each side are fighting for and remove money atleast for one topic, some artists are just fighting because they don't like their art being included in the database..
Artists create art and A.I. generates..
4:52 that's not an ethical question I dnt know how you framed it in that way. That's a personal choice of an individual how he wants to spend his money. I am not anti AI art but as far as I know this is not their argument. They aren't saying that one shouldn't pursue AI art becoz it is unethical or paying an artist is ethical.
.
Their argument is whether it is ethical to use AI art models trained on a data which artists never consented. If they have such rights .
With all due respect the part about whether it is ethical to use artists' works as training data would fall under deontology so he would only cover that in the next video.
Also, there’s no such thing as an ai “artist”.
To reiterate in the simplest of terms----it's really not that difficult nor expensive to support an online independent artist rather than A.I art ----in the way that it's currently being handled!
Like you can literally support charities & real artists at the same time for very little money.
A three dollar Patreon subscription can bring you a community & art from a person.
Like for god sake----even TARGET has public bios in stores of artists that work for them as well. 3 dollar wrapping paper supports them!
You can say that other issues are "more catastrophic" but I don't think that's reason enough at all---to say OK to A.I art.
I think it's also important to keep in mind---human art is also actually what brings people together during rough times in our rapidly changing society.
I believe art is a vehicle for human connection, especially for those who struggle with mental health.
With the rapid advancements of technology today, one could argue we are as a society, are way more prone to social isolation.
Artists online have provided people real avenues for connection
And while sure, A.I can also be a vehicle for human expression in its "own way" for sure!
But again, the way it is currently being handled----disrespects human artists in my opinion.
I myself, am not against A.I, as many have said, it can totally be a great tool, if it wasn't scrapping from real people who want to continue connecting with others through their own art.
If AI art is cheaper and better quality (at this point it's not) then then at best human art becomes a kind of charity cause (you're arguing that it might be effective as a charity) among many others.
At that point we'd have to do studies and measure the mental health benefits vs other charities like rough sleeper assistance, abuse survivors aid, etc.
@@lewingtonn How is it a charity when people are literally receiving a quality artwork product that they yearn for?
Do you value art?
I'm not sure how to convince you that humans have valued human art since the beginning of time----and not to say that A.I can't be enjoyable.
But I don't think it should be seen as superior or the only choice for people simply because it will be hypothetically cheaper.
But like I said, a lot of art is actually more accessible & affordable these days.
& When a human is in control of the entire process---a lot of intention and care goes into that.
I suppose the result of this will be met somewhere in the middle, I don't think AI will stop certain people in society from seeking human artists.
But that's not to say A.I should be thoughtful managed---not taking advantage of real artists. I suppose time will tell.
I think the problem with this argument is we have required two choices... So the first choice is to go with artist or AI and the second is to donate to charity or not.
Choosing the AI-artist doesn't imply choosing charity.
it allows you to choose charity though. the human artist prevents you from choosing charity. Most people who use AI won't also use charity, but ethical actors can exploit AI to do more charity.
@@lewingtonn how do you so sure, we don't know about where the artists will spend that money maybe some charity works too, or maybe "art for a cause" we also don't know
@@lewingtonn wouldn't paying more for the traditional artist include the artist paying more taxes, than the lower cost artist? Wouldn't that even eliminate the possibility of you spending your dollar on something that isn't the greater good? Would that mean by proxy that it's always the most utilitarian thing to pay the highest price possible (given that it's taxable), so you put the most amount possible back into the community?
@@lewingtonnI've come around to seeing the logic. It's basically just saying, if your first priority is charity, you should spend as little as possible on everything else so that you can maximally donate to charity. And that is basically consistent with the idea of greatest benefit for the greatest number.
It really doesn't have very much to do with AI at all though.
@@lewingtonn For your argument to work at all, you need to prove that the ethical actions of a small subset of AI art purchasers outweigh the damage done to the people who's work was abused. Until you can do that, it is more utilitarian to stop the AI abuse.
Also, Art is already "frivolous". It is not needed for survival. Rather than break your back trying to view these AIs as ethical, it would be much better of you to spend NO money and time on "AI art" and instead donate whatever you can to good causes. This is clearly a bigger net benefit than AI art + charity.
"But what about the benefit of art?" -- that's precisely what you're undermining by doing it in the cheapest, quickest, and most impersonal way. We do not need billions of pictures being churned out by machine. Dopamine desensitization will only lead us to care less and less about beauty and art. You are not uplifting art by doing it like this, it is the equivalent of a grandma that for a present buys socks at the counterstore instead of sewing them herself. A hollow offering. There is nothing that we care about more when it is done en masse by machine. Look at our buildings, cars, furniture and so on and tell me we value beauty deeply, when it should be so easily available. It would be the most utilitarian thing to do to not contribute to the replacement of human expression and instead spend the time and money on decent causes.
I'm quite interested in the second part of the video. I hope you upload it soon! :)
Also, do you think there is a way to bring the opinions of AI defenders and detractors closer together? I am pro-AI and also an artist, so I am not enjoying the current state of things (people on both bands acting radical on twitter, for example), at all ^^U
Dont use twitter lol
@@user-zq4bn2hu5y I'm aftraid that's not a solution, people are getting radical everywhere, not just on Twitter.
Just something to consider when you are forming your arguments.... the economics of our society are about to change dramatically due to AI since AI will hit every industry. Overall product costs will drop because labor costs will drop, material gathering costs will drop, and on and on. Jobs will be lost, salaries will be effected, and who knows what else. You can make assumptions based on the situation right now, but in 5 years, the economic landscape will change so drastically, we might all be in a world of hurt.
very true indeed, we could also be in a world of good vibes!
@@lewingtonn Yeah, the whole utopia an AI bringing in an age of abundance seems like a fun dream. It's possible that it could happen. But better to be prepared for it not to be.
@@lewingtonn If there is one thing that will cause people to not care about beauty and art, it is it being done by machine. This may not be the case now, with it being a novelty, but it will be soon.
We don't need more "pretty pictures" handed out en masse by a program. What we need is an appreciation for what is beautiful. By flooding our day to day with cheap AI images that get the "ooh pretty" response, we'll care less and less about beauty. It will leave us cold because of its overexposure. That is psychology 101. We already drive grey cars, live in grey homes and use grey appliances. We already don't care if our surroundings are beautiful and pleasant to look at. And why should we? Beauty comes so cheaply to us. It used to be that even every bollard also had a decorative function, not anymore. The brain is made in such a way that it acclimates to everything, so when you overload it with quick AI art, dopamine levels will soon normalize and it will not appreciate it any longer, and why should it, they came by without great thought in them. If beauty were to "die", it would be like this, becoming fast food, with the beholders dull to it, like desensitized drug addicts. Is this your "progress"?
this sounds kinda like first and second industrial revolution... guess you want to go back and knit all your all your clothes. The thing you are describing has happened since the dawn of human history (the industrial revolution was only a very fast example of this), countless "jobs" have been lost and countless new were and are born.
@@artificialkid9008 Far from it. I'm an artist who has been using AI now for months. And I've incorporated it into my workflow. I look forward as to how it will open up creativity for everyone. And something like this has not happened since the dawn of human history. There's only a handful of times I could possibly equate with the development of AI, and all of them still pale in comparison to the potential level of transformation of our society. The invention of the wheel, discovery of electricity, the automobile, and perhaps the smart phone. This isn't really about how many jobs will be lost. It's about what our collective future will look like.
Love this content! Where I see the natural progression is traditional artists leveraging AI in their workflows to become more efficient. On a long enough timeline the decision isn't supporting an AI Artist or a Traditional Artists it's deciding which artist offers the best work for the best price as the tool of generative art becomes well-adopted.
Would love your perspective on the change curve for new technology and look at AI art through the lens of past changes like photography, film, TV vs Film, Video Games vs TV and Film!
"if you think otherwise your wrong", "you've interpreted what I'm saying wrong or your brain doesn't work" XD. Amazing
Wasn't expecting you to even attempt to cover rebuttals in such a short video lol
I definitely want to see the argument from another philosophical perspective, as I feel that utilitarian philosophy isn't in a good place at the moment, considering how some people used it and "long termism" to commit mass fraud
HAHAHHAAH you mean my boi SBF? Bro that guy's answer to the trolly problem is to leave it, kill the 5, then reverse the train back and get the last guy.
While in theory I agree with you, the counter argument would be that your expenses are someone else's income. By spending it on an artist you provide income and a small increase in money velocity. If we all spend more on each other we cause economic growth.
AI can be a deflationary technology, like a lot of other tech, and cause cause velocity to drop, lowering income and decreasing liquidity overall, forcing things such as stimulus and liquidity injections such as we see from the Fed and Govt.
In the long run I do think AI in general has the potential to bring a lot of good to humanity.
Is "income" somehow more effective than a donation? I haven't heard of this before, a link would be sick!
@@lewingtonn
Donations could be used to productive purposes, but you'd have to audit specifically to find out. In general, paying for a good or service which is actually useful in society can lead to an increase in investment towards more goods and services of that type. This leads to increased supply, and as a generak aspect the wealth of a society could be measured by the amount of supply of desired goods and services versus demand. Spending in productive endeavors can also lead to an increase in velocity (imperceptible for an individual but noticeable in aggregate) , and higher velocity allows for the payment of debts (the foundation of money creation), growth of gdp, etc. There's a lot of generalization here, and mine was simply a devil's advocate counter argument (mostly in jest) which won't always apply, each case has to be looked at specifically. If you want to donate, donate!
If I were to provide you with a simple link to get you started down the rabbit hole, though, I think it could be Ray Dalio's Economic Machine:
ruclips.net/video/PHe0bXAIuk0/видео.html
Why not type into the prompt yourself and donate the full $1000? Wouldn't that be the most ethical thing based on your argument?
I ran your argument through my “Peter Singer Model”. Unsurprisingly it came to the same conclusion.
aaaah, I see you're a man of culture as well...
If you are a trained philosopher you should be aware of the second formulation of Immanuel Kants categorial imperative.
"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end."
I think we have to discuss according to this if taking the output of someones skill and labour to create something that is able to replace that person in total without compensation, when it comes to the question of this persons livelihood is threatened, might be a violation of this core principle. Analogue to slave labour and exploitation is ethical problematic in this sense, that it is objectification of a human being to a mere tool in the hands of others.
I think we have to discuss if the consideration of ai models trained on someone elses art with the potential of replacement can be qualified as exploitation in that meaning, or why not.
Oh, you're approaching me?
You're asking "is AI art violating the preferences of artists (and therefore treating them as a mere 'means')"? It boils down to how much transformative license you as a creator give to the public by publishing your work online.
If the license is very broad, nobody has the right to complain. If it's narrow we're violating the preferences of artists and acting unethically in doing so. I don't really know how to go about working out how broad the (implicit) license is though... Someone MUST have covered it.
@@lewingtonn I myself do not believe that this point is valid at the end. But I think we should take it serious and carefully discuss all this objections of deontological ethics to the topic as well.
@@lewingtonn artist might have been unaware how severe their licencing of art was. Maybe without any fault of their own if a technology emerges that sudden that is capable of replacing them and using their very own archievements they contributed to society against their prosperity in the end.
Kant was a diva bro
@koiboi I don’t study philosophy, so feel free to dive the school bus here. Does utilitarianism theory say that whatever makes one most happy is also the most ethical thing to spend their resources on?
In my life experience I can say that I personally know a lot of people who spend on things that make them very happy that are also very unethical. You?
LoL I loved that while the rest of you were out there getting laid I was studying this stuff line. Laughed pretty hard at that one. When I was majoring in philosophy my dean of the philosophy department had a joke he overused often.
"The business major asks how much will it cost, the engineering major asks how does it work?
The philosophy major asks would you like fries with that?"
😆
Despite the pile of circumstantial arguments, koiboi's point remains close to the core of "use what is cheap. As for his argument about charitable donations, why would a person choose to give money to an artist when he or she is free to use the money saved by using AI? I think the argument itself is not logically self-consistent, and is closer to an excuse used by koiboi to hide his morality and to whitewash his crude understanding of the connection between the value of art and the artist.
What koiboi doesn't realize, or chooses not to believe or acknowledge, is that models such as diffusion are pure shit if they are divorced from the countless works created by artists on the Internet, and that attempts have been made to train these models with art from before copyright law and with copyright-free public material, and the results are not what people want.
Interestingly enough, AI proponents have always used open source free as their central position to take the moral high ground. But once an artist points out to them that AI should only be used to learn free material, and proposes to restrict AI from learning all art material that appears on the Internet, AI proponents stop using open source as their core position and turn to "limiting AI development" and "reducing productivity" as their core argument. " and so on as the core of the argument; or to take a lower position, that the means of AI is "re-creation" and never plagiarism. Only the progress of the legal community in the field of AI in the next few months will see a definitive conclusion. I hope that day comes soon, for the good and bad of the artist.
koiboi also fails to realize the process by which the value of art is generated. The high price of quality art is not only linked to the work itself, the latent part is related to the artist himself, such as the time spent by the artist to study art, the artist's personal aesthetic style, the idiosyncrasies of the artist's senses, etc. Remove the part that belongs to the artist and you get AI art that is the same product as fast food restaurant food in this context. Only, the difference is that the AI selects the work on the internet without any permission from the artist.
So koiboi, please tell me, how can you use AI to maintain the productive nature of the artist even after you have deprived them of the connection between the artwork and the artist? If you can't allow artists to maintain their productivity, what makes you think that using AI will do more for them instead? This is a classic example of picking up a bowl to eat and putting it down to curse.
Thus, the core of koiboi's argument lies in the consistency of the first and last arguments for the rightness of burning the bridges, and the legitimacy of compromising the interests of some to satisfy the interests of others, especially in an environment where the artist community lacks the power to resist, and where similar arguments do not even encounter really fierce resistance. Of course, koiboi is not the only one who thinks this way, including several leading figures in the AI community, as well as a large number of utopian fantasists and AI "artists" I know or have come into contact with, all of whom hold similar or the same mindset, as we have all seen.
To sum up, people are divided by groups, and things come together.
Malaria nets is the most efficient charity option
:D awesome
Buying AI art is "More ethical" Because then you will save money. Thus will have an "option". to donate money to charity! So by this logic. If someone is pissing me off or causing a situation that might cause me to have to deal with something At work that might cost me some time. Its okay for me to simply beat the snot out of them. And put them in the closet, or far worse. . As long as i take the time i saved and go volunteer at the local soup kitchen?! ( or at least acknowledge that as a (possible option ) . Or you could just donate to charity and skip attempting to justify some unethical nonsense altogether.
Respectfully, I think your argument steers the focus away from the actual issue.
While yes, there are tons of issues in our societies today---especially in less developed countries.
One could argue that using Amazon Prime could ALSO allow people to donate to more charity.
Especially when it comes to that fact that Amazon provides essentials that people may struggle to afford with inflation.
Despite the fact that Amazon is known for not treating their workers well at all....
But to make this comparison with art?
One could simply decide to not buy a commission AT ALL & woo! They'll have 1000 dollars for a charity they care about!
But instead it's ethical to turn a blind eye from the art community for the sake of having more money each month?
I think that's what makes this argument irrelevant in my opinion.
I think the bottom line is the way current A.I image generation is being HANDLED---- IT HURTS INDEPENDENT ARTISTS.
And I think the actual numbers you use are also not very relevant either ??
🦋A person could literally support an independent artist on Patreon for 2 dollars a month rather than support an app subscription that has severely taken advantage of the very same artists.
ok so firstly yes: the numbers are hypotetical. At this stage I don't think AI actually IS cheaper for the same quality as human artists, but it will be within 5 years.
Secondly the whole video is about opportunity costs. You are saying "it hurts independent artists" but thousands of people are being hurt constantly. If AI can free up some capital, maybe we can reduce the overall suffering by allocating capital to the most needy.
@@lewingtonn Um, how exactly? Do you think Patreon will just... not exist in 5 years or?
Again I personally just do not think it's a good enough excuse to allow A.I to take advantage of artists.
Consuming art isn't the same as putting bread on the table. therefore, people can use discernment on what art they wish to give money to, and when.
People could... theoretically... just, not support an A.I subscription?
Should we really just make the excuse that "hurt is everywhere" every time a company of a few individuals misuses data for profit ?
@@kimster9674 I just mean that AI art commissions or at the very least AI-Assisted art commissions will be significantly cheaper for the same quality than human-only art commissions.
If you had three conditions to meet, they that it would be cheaper going with the machine, that it’s equivalent quality as a human, and that ALSO would spend the balance they saved going with AI ethically; then you have something.
But although that if past is prologue they’re going to spend it on unethical things as often as not, if not more, it’s still an uncertainty. A maybe. So we can’t say it’s ethically imperative if we can’t guarantee it equates to ethical use of the money in the end.
yeah, that's as far as the claims I am making go. If you have the choice then it is always more ethical so save money, and spend the remainder on something hyper-ethical. It's unethical to act in any other manner.
Thanks, really thanks for make this video. I love it.
I agree @koiboi, from an artist point of view: A human artist can upgrade their toolset to include Ai to stay competitive and accomplish more. That's what I'm doing. Back up a few years and ask, Is a digital artist fair to a traditional painter? In the past, was it fair to the hand drawn draftsman who did not want to learn the computer? The introduction of new technology has often disrupted traditional ways of working and can lead to changes in the job market. This is called progress, and why we are not still painting on cave walls.
Your argument is quite the reach. There are several reasons why it doesn't work, starting with how it doesn't address the actual moral issues with using someone's work to put that person out of their job, so yes, for most people it will fall flat, as most do not want to live in a society where unethical actions are excused in any manner.
But mostly, your argument is inconsistent and self-defeating:
Millions of photographers, authors, graphic/fashion/car/architecture designers, painters, mangaka, comic artists, animators, texters, voice actors, singers, draftsmen etc losing their livelihoods is not going to be trumped by the money that a tiny subset of customers are now going to donate. So even if you yourself donate that money, it would be of greater benefit to society to stop this abuse.
Then there are other issues:
1) Allowing this sort of corporate abuse leaves us helpless against further abuse down the line, such as more automation, like a google instant personalized content service replacing most of media (yt, movie, games, books, art) as we know it. Maybe you don't care that much about human expression, but a lot of people do.
2) Rather than break your back trying to view these AIs as ethical, it would be much better of you to spend NO money and time on "AI art" and instead donate whatever you can to good causes. This is clearly a bigger net benefit than "AI art" + charity.
"But what about the benefit of art?" -- that's precisely what you're undermining by doing it in the cheapest, quickest, and most impersonal way. We do not need billions of pictures being churned out by machine. Dopamine desensitization will only lead us to care less and less about beauty and art. You are not uplifting art by doing it like this, it is the equivalent of a grandma that for a present buys socks at the counterstore instead of sewing them herself. A hollow offering. There is nothing that we care about more when it is done en masse by machine. Look at our buildings, cars, furniture and so on and tell me we value beauty deeply, when it should be so easily available. It would be the most utilitarian thing to do to not contribute to the replacement of human expression and instead spend the time and money on decent causes. It also needs to be noted that this is going to have consequences hundreds of years down the line, us valuing art and beauty will be in SPITE of AI, not because of it. I think it would be more ethical to pay an artist, who may donate some of his income himself, or may be poor himself, rather than contribute to this.
It also needs to be noted that the gut reaction for most people to using someone's work to put that person out of their job, is that it is obviously unfair. Most really are not going to bother trying with this pretzel logic of how a thing that is inherently not ethical becomes ethical vicariously by -- in the grand scheme of things -- rather minor, potential circumstances.
For your argument to work at all, you need to prove that the ethical actions of a small subset of AI art purchasers outweigh the damage done to the people who's work was abused. As that is unrealistic, it is more utilitarian to stop the AI abuse.
You have hundreds of problems with your arguments:
1 - Art is a job, if you make people unemployed the tendency is that the quality of life of those people also falls by the wayside, generating health problems that are equally damaging to society.
2 - Society doesn't have the necessary ethical discernment to apply money in aid programs, in the real world, most probably these people would just buy more things for themselves or save money.
3 - Ethically and logically speaking, turning a monetarily stable person into a poor person to help another poor person is the same as nullifying the ethical goal of helping people.
4 - "Artists can work with other things" This is not true, it is proven that as the age passes the re-entry in the job market is difficult and not always successful. Besides, the job market is looking for specialized labor, and who will pay for the study in new areas for artists? No one has been willing so far.
5 - In the majority of the world, especially in the countries of the south, working with art is hard work and may not guarantee a living, but the governments don't have help programs for this type of situation, so what you are basically doing is increasing the amount of poor and unemployed people in countries where the artist needs this money to live.
6 - Artificial Intelligence Arts are unethical about the use of data, not only in relation to artists but with personal documents and photos, and can favour political use of data.
7 - Art is not only the image, but the training, experience and work of the artist on his work, philosophically, the search for an "art" artificial intelligence goes back to a consumerist view of art, widely disliked by humanity for causing various social problems.
8 - In the perfect world you are proposing, artists can stay without working and it's ok because it's not an "important area for humanity", however, there are already studies in psychology and psychiatry that show the effect of art in society as something that requires attention.
9 - What about the people "starving people in Africa" who are artists? Are they left out? Are they disposable?
10 - "We should invest in programs against global temperature changes" By this logic, should we stop paying so much for programmers, scientists, judges and all other professions so that it is actually done by everyone?
11 - Among the concerns about the use of artificial intelligence, studied by psychologists, psychiatrists and neuroscientists, are the depression and anxiety generated by the dependence on AI for common tasks, and if we take art as something necessary to man, as many anthropologists have said, the results of this are at least predictable.
12 - If it is better to spend money on causes such as those listed by you, then why are they spending money building an artificial intelligence that makes art?
13 - Are you willing to defend that supporting about 17 million PEOPLE (Artists) is less ethical than supporting a robot?
14 - "If we look at the long term" Yes, if we look at the long term, we could stop consumerist practices, we could fight against corruption promoted by companies, we could fight for more efficient human rights to the world population, but we are stopping buying art from humans.
15 - I may be wrong here, but as far as I know the power supply of a super computer or a computer server is today one of the most environmentally damaging factors in the long run.
16 - Ethics is not about helping as many people as possible, but about intelligently analyzing the consequences of an act in order to decide whether or not to do it. In your logic, there is no problem to kill the world population (as an example) if you see that it will be the cause of its own destruction.
You don't seem to understand the concepts of ethics, and you don't have the ability to broadly analyze the consequences of what you are saying, making me believe that you don't have the ability to do so, just a personal criticism. I recommend artists to unite against this kind of narrative that uses fallacies to reach the general public. In case you are wondering why this is a fallacy, it is simple, because it judges an ethical and moral issue only by the theoretical or simplified optics, in an attempt to entice or end an argument, when details make a difference, in this case, it can mean the lives of several people in the medium and long term. It is noticeable how the video uses this fallacy, along with common sense based concepts such as the nature of moral ethics or memorizing plausible arguments against this torpid narrative.
Is it therefore even more ethical to not use either artist and spend a few dollars on stock imagery?
yes! if the stock imagery is of commensurate quality yes yes yes!
Just eradicate entertainment system entirely and also capitalism, we shouldn't even think about working on any art when there's even a single person in the world who has no food or home. Instead of working on ai art they should make ai government that focuses on basic needs of every human by neglecting nonvital needs of priveledged few.
@@lewingtonn then a stock image company that pays royalties and also splits the royalty to support causes (maybe even causes from a list chosen by the artist) would always be the most ethical decision to make?
@@xn4pl I can't tell if you are being genuine but YES, I stan this comment super hard!
@@barryjones6479 yes, or if an AI is cheaper and better, an AI (the free ones give stock image companies a run for their money already). The imperative is to achieve your goal as cheaply as possible, and then spend the proceeds in some ethically optimal fashion... at least imo
What about the argument that the art is stolen? Stable Diffusion, etc, were trained on images without artists consent.
🍿
Regarding with Koiboi's point it is Ethical to pay your bills . Instead of paying an Artist to draw NSFW . 😆
I think you have missed the biggest point artists have about A.I. Art:
the model was trained on the work of these artists, and want their piece of the pie.
----------------
I would argue that if a human created art based on an artist, thats fine,
but if an AI created art based on an artist, they copyright infringement?
-- sounds like a descrimination issuse to me
I'd argue the model IS an artist.
(Noting that I have created and published many songs, as an Artist)
--------------------------------
as for maximizine profits vs morals:
talk to the pig and chicken that gave you breakfast:
Morally, how are we treating them?
Lets not pretened they are related.
well sure, but don't say that art is only based on other artists, i'm an artist and i grew up in province where technology is limited, i learn to draw by seeing things, scenes, emotions,imagination and experience that is not captured by camera nor drawn by other human, yes i lately improved it by the use of technology learning fundamentals, perspectives and such...creative process is complex don't tell it like it only base on a single line unlike A.I. generated images that is as said "based" on artists.
@@medyotulog271 I didn't say that art is only based on other artists. I said AI art is only based on other artists. Although I admit I can't draw to save my life, I do compose music, and AI is nipping at my heels too ~ I'm guessing months until AI can make music better than me. Am I hurt? Threatened? These emotions are not relevant.
We are in a river of tech that is picking up speed. It is fact. My fundamental point is pandoras box is open ~ art, and TONS of jobs are about to be replaced.
I can whine, or adapt, and I dont' see whining working for anyone. the only solution I see is some sort of U.B.I., and a acceptance that AI can do this now, but
i'm guessing we are discussing the tip of the iceburg as we Titanic our way out to look at it.
What a chad 😄
Troll spotted
Artists do have one legitimate gripe against these AIs. It's not the AI itself. It's the fact that training data is harvested from places like artstation without the artist's permission, that artists can't opt out of that data harvesting, and that these AIs are basically just mindlessly making variations or rearrangements of people's art to circumvent copyright. You are tricking yourself into thinking that the AI has an imagination because it produces something that is "new" in the sense that it's different enough to circumvent copyright. But it's essentially just outputting interpolations of the CLIP embeddings of images in its database. Sometimes it outputs something that's very close to an input image (e.g. the famous Nat Geo picture) but it has no way of detecting when it has accidentally directly copied something. It copies particular artist's styles, and you can even ask it to produce something in the style of a particular artist, which is fine if it's a dead guy like Norman Rockwell, but it's not so cool when it's someone whose particular unique style is their whole livelihood. Show me an AI that doesn't depend so heavily on copying art that is harvested from people who never opted in and never gave permission, and you'll have a point. Otherwise everything you say also justifies just straight up copyright infringement, just stealing existing images from artists and using them without paying. "But you can spend that money on charities instead!" Good grief.
"Images in its database". No images are stored in the AI model (2GB). Do you even know the meaning of stealing? How about you start by giving legal examples that support your accusations of theft and copyright infringement, to give your arguments a minimum of credibility.
just wait till those artists find out about screenshots
@yessopie I think your reply is so on point
@@cesar4729 What do you mean theres "no images in the model" ?
People have been saying repeatedly that certain forms of A.I have SCRAPPED *billions of images*--- off the web from Shopify, Art Station, & even private medical records.
Everyone keeps saying you can't "copyright a style" & that's how they've been presently been able to get away with it---because artists are in a vulnerable position on the internet.
If this A.I technology was somehow working on it's own without this nonconsensual data collection----I literally would have no problem with it.
But it's CAPITALIZING on the years of hard labor of artists, it would not be able to EXIST without said artists.
But ya'll are going to say that's ethical & just, simply because it's cheaper?
Just because something is CHEAPER doesn't mean it should be morally respected.
I believe It's not just a technology advancement----it's a profit machine designed to rip off thousands for the benefit of a few.
l feel like you can compare this situation to someone owning a hypothetical magic oven that can instantly produce any kind of food product at will---after collecting every private recipe in the entire world that chef's worked hard to create.
But oh its not "plagiarism"
because the soups are being randomly mixed together by an algorithm??
I don't really think a lot of consideration has been taken for this change that basically happened overnight for these chefs, aka, artists.
& people keep comparing this situation to past advancements but i feel like no one thinks about how those advancements like photography----were GRADUAL.
People had literal time to adjust to this-----the art school i went to could not even foresee this happening.
There is no stealing. First of all, Ai has no access to internet, and Ai does not store art on his data. what you don't understand with "machine learning ", as its name indicates, it learns like a human and produces something new, and what you say "different enough to circumvent copyright" is a pejorative way of referring to "creativity", as an artist don't we want to distinguish ourselves as much as possible ? despite the fact that we are influenced by a trend ? It is even possible for the AI to combine several styles, and bring out a new style, which does not exist anywhere else in this world . Because, basically, that's how we learn as children, we start by looking for models to practice on and we are influenced. But should we punish the child who looked at a model on artstation to learn how to draw ?
I see it more as a fear, not of being replaced by AIs, but of not being creative enough to surpass them. Where some people waste their time fighting these machines, other artists use them to their advantage by improving their productivity. It's up to the artists to become better and outperform the competition, because let's be honest, nothing will replace the free will of the artists to follow the instructions of a client.
With AI, a client will be "satisfied" with a result close to their desire, but with a human, they will be "accomplished" in their desires, because they can discuss, mime, transmit emotion...
You began with a framework of liberalism. What about those people who dnt believe in Western ethics at all? And dnt have a utilitarian framework. Coz I dnt. Just asking you know. Am also not against AI art.
i literally address this lol wut??
Our utilitarianism is imperceptibly turning into social Darwinism. "You can" turns into "you should."
You have to manage your money as efficiently as possible or you will be devoured. Painters should unite, fight and pin AI to the wall for stealing their art. Otherwise, the painters will be devoured.
In any case, everyone will suffer. If machines win, then corporations will monopolize the art market. you will have to pay much more for art and the sledgehammer of copyright will be deadly. It is unlikely that the painters will win, but if they win, the fire of the war with machines will make them the most mercantile creatures in the universe....art will become very expensive.
And the $750 that you send to the starving children of Africa will go to buy a Kalashnikov assault rifle so that these children do not interfere with pumping all the resources out of their country. And anyway, we're all going to die.
I have to disagree.
I don't believe it's moral to give away money to charity.
I also have no strong opinions on the morality of using ai art vs expensive commisioned work but there are certainly reasons why people would prefer something made by someone with a passion for their work vs something made by a machine, even if the quality of the machine generated piece is on par with the human.
This was a fun take on the subject. However I think we should leave ethics out of the picture all together for this subject matter. Art and Ethics is like oil and water they just don't mix well. If they do you are going get into muddy territory because both art and ethics are one of the most subjective things in human culture. What you consider art may be trash to my eyes and what may seem ethical to you may be totally fine to me. In the end a human artist is a person and a Ai artist is a person too are they not? So who are we to judge who is a more valuable person and which side is more ethical? Ultimately the market is king in a Capitalist culture. If a customer wants a pretty picture for 1/5 of what they pay a human artist, so be it. There is no ethical issue here. Just plain numbers. Customers want better quality for less and Sellers want to sell their product to maximize profitability.
Up is down
Right is wrong
Bondage is freedom
Now stealing is ethical.
LMAO
did you watch the vid?
@holedplot2752
Implying that saying stealing is happening makes it so, and removes the need to demonstrate it happening. Overly simplistic reasoning that, IMO, hurts the discussions, and ability to actually address ethical issues that exist with this tech.
How do you know what the people saving money by paying AI 'artists' are going to use it for? You are making a ridiculous assumption that they would use it for good or for charity, you're argument is based on this, so without it it falls apart. Is this even serious, is this trolling?
bleeeeah, I tried to be so clear with this :'(. All I'm saying is what a moral agent SHOULD do if they find themselves in this situation. I'm pretty sure I never say anything in the video about what people will ACTUALLY do.
@@lewingtonn yes you did make it clear that is what they should do, and no, you didn’t say anything about what they would do. That’s precisely the problem. Your argument is only valid in a fantasy world where everyone used their money saved for “ethical” things, which is super subjective anyway. But even if we presuppose that we all agree on what ethical expenditures are; if ethics is the basis of your argument, how can it be valid if they didn’t spend it on ethical things? Your argument could only hope to approach validity if people used that money for “ethical” spending at least 51% of the time. I think it’s only fair that we assume the money is going to be spent-donated-etc, not saved, since it would have been spent anyway if on a human artist, making the money a sunken cost. It’s going to be spent on something, but we have no idea what it will be. So your argument can only stand up if we know it’s going to be spent on ethical things at least most of the time. Will it? Does that seem logical it will? Do you see evidence and trends that people would spend that money ethically? I’m not saying it’s impossible but I sure as hell say it isn’t likely. What do you think?
@@lewingtonn assuming people are moral
Agents doesn’t make reality equate to them spending money saved by paying somebodies computer to make art for them instead of a human, on ethical things. They simply wouldn’t do that. They’d probably spend it unethically most of the time. I would wager that neither is more ethical as much as I’m not a fan of AI fakery. At least you are giving a person money. When/if the AI is making it themselves and you’re just paying a coder way up the chain, then you’ve taken food off both of their tables. Helping the AI train would be doing just that, slowly if not immediately taking away two jobs rather than one or neither.
The most ethical would be to spend all $1000 towards charity. No art for you >:|
I'm both, a traditional artist as well as ai artist. Im more towards Ai art and its a bitter future so im preparing myself to adapt
I think a better ethical argument is reducing the amount of human labor spent on the least meaningful and most mechanical parts of artistic production, freeing up artistic labor for where it matters most
Just imagine humanity would have decided not to use the printing press in favor of labour protection of all the people that were writing books by hand. The result would have been most of society remaining without any access to education.
education and art isn't the same thing though... Through the internet the vast majority or art was viewable to anyone for free at anytime, and learning do make a living from art was attainable though difficult for most people (simply making art was always available to everyone as long as you can spare some time)
With AI though everyone suddenly feel entitled to be able to produce GOOD art with little effort, and now that the new toy has been released it's gonna be hard to pull it back.
What's going to happen is that the entry level jobs where young artist usually develop their skill are gonna dissappear, the poor are gonna have to rely on AI as a crutch to break into the market and only the very wealthy are gonna afford the time to actually develop real draftmanship on a level high enough to make a living.
To me that's leading us to a more unequal playing field and, in the long run, all art will be disposable trash
@@elinn1405 but calligraphy in book production was a form of art.
You sound more than a bit like those artists when photography showed up.
@@elinn1405 >"some time" Not "some" but a significant amount of time. if you want a custom avatar or caricature for a wedding invitations it's a big difference if you can get it in 10 min from AI or you have to spend months (years) to learn it yourself. Same reason people eat fast food: many don't have "some time" to cook.
@@samthesomniator what I meant was that society gains nothing from art (or more specifically painting and drawing) becoming automated, unlike the invention of the printing press and camera.
In this society, automating any job is only hurting people.
AI has the potential to make our lives better and solve our problems, but these companies are only interested in selling a shiny new toys that noone really needed
@@contrarian8870 there's no barrier of entry to create art, everyone can pick up a pen and doodle just like they can write a poem of a speech.
I get that a lot of people feel shame about expressing themselves creatively, but outsourcing the job to an AI isn't really addressing the issue.
It'd be very sad to rely on a Chatbot to write a wedding speech on your behalf, just like it is using an AI characture instead of a doodle. It sucks the charm right out of it.
I believe people are using AI to cover up insecurities they don't need to have to begin with
you're just putting options to people where to spend their money...
people have choices and wherever they spend their money we cannot do anything about it.
Я не художник, и для меня, как для нехудожника, ИИ для рисования видится как инструмент, который ускоряет работу, что в теории позволяет и/или сократить рабочий день художника и/или увеличить количество рисунков и/или уменьшить число художников. Нет ничего неэтичного в переходе на более совершенные виды производства. Можно конечно поспорить: "ты не понимаешь, это другое, ИИ лишь копирует работы настоящих художников и если все будут использовать ИИ в рисунках - эволюция исскусства остановится". Нет, не остановится. Потому что никто не мешает попросить нейросеть нарисовать две картинки, а потом указать ему, какую из них он нарисовал по вашему ИМХО лучше. К тому же, более дешёвые рисунки означают, что можно больше эксперементировать.
Про платить компаниям: не хотите платить компаниям? Открытий исходный код и stable diffusion вам в руки. Тут уже художников надо заставлять не использовать коммерческие программы, а не против всего ИИ бастовать.
Про цену и стоимость таких работ: до тех пор, пока человек должен тратить рабочее время, то, что они произвёл будет иметь стоимость. А на цену жалуйтесь этому самому человеку. ИМХО продавать ИИ рисунки как NFT или продавать их по цене ~~традиционного~~ цифрового рисунка - несправедливо.
Про искусство: меня всегда бесило что художники мнят себя творцами. Что именно они создают что-то абсолютно уникальное и неповторимое. При этом творческой работы у художника над рисунком столько же сколько у программиста таковой над кодом. А мы ведь знаем, что программисты не создают абсолютно уникальные и неповторимы вещи, верно?
Про авторское право: да, искусственный интеллект смотрел и срисовывал ваши работы! Прямо как... любой другой пользователь интернета / художник! Вы хотите запретить ИИ СМОТРЕТЬ на ваши художества? А обычным людям вы не хотите запретить тоже самое, не? Самое смешное, что хотят! Я имею ввиду, обычным людям. Поумерьте свою токсичность, пожалуйста, господа художники.
Про рабочие места: а кто их не теряет? Все недовольны. И вы недовольны. И это нормально. В капиталистическом обществе. Сами подумайте, разве это ИИ виноват, что вы работу теряете, а вместе с ней и возможность выжить? Разве отменой нейронок можно исправить это извечную проблему безработицы? Неа, нет. Решение не в этом. Но решение есть, и однажды оно даже было применено на практике...
Ух, вывалил, что накопилось. Да ещё и на довольно сложном русском. Вы уж простите меня, иностранцы ^_^
bad argument, if everyone went with that logic it will create more homeless starving artists and people will stop doing art because you can't sustain a living doing it anymore and the outcome will be a world filled with remixed AI art, and if i am a next generation artist why would i spend 4+ years learning art if i can't make a living off of it and have to compete with 3 second AI generators?, therefore human artists slowly fade and art stagnates and ceases to develop because AI can't learn anything new because at the end of the day its just a sampler tool, its a lose-lose situation long term for a short term win, and not to mention the forgery and stealing of identities the artists will face, and you don't have the artist perspective here, the "starving artist" trope is real, artists aren't getting paid enough for the amount of work they do despite how difficult it is to learn how to draw and paint and ai art has devalued it even more, and spending less money is more ethical because i *could* donate it to someone that needs it? it is not the artist's fault that there is people in need out there, we don't have an excess amount of money unlike governments and companies so you are taking money from the wrong people, its like saying to artists "yeah we used your work to train these AI's, and its cheaper than what you charge so its more ethical", and this greedy capitalist view of just get what's cheaper for personal gain is how you get long term problems like climate change.
I don't think the issue is which is more cost effective so you have money left over for other things, the issue is AI generators learned off data and work collected by living people without getting there consent first then trying to make money off the product they involuntary contributed too. So is buying AI art not basically rewording exploitation?
Artists should be fighting for ubi not a uphill battle. The genie is out of the bottle and there's no way to put it back in because everyone now has their own bottle on their computer. The need to earn money to survive is the real problem and is why artist ultimately feel threatened . However, it is important to remember that ai art does not diminish the value of human art unless it is used as a tool for greedy corporations or as the only way to make money for a living. Call and message your senator about ubi before its too late! Art is only the beginning lol look at chatgpt its in its emphancy just like ai art was with the crappy dalle mini images not too long ago and look how quickly that got better O.o . In the long run, everyone will need ubi, not just artists. The fight starts now....
Sure thieves...
Art can be done beside work. I like doing art but probably wouldn't choose it as a career. I've chosen engineering and now IT (I'm changing my career now). It's always a risk that your job will stop being in demand and glorification of art shouldn't change the perspective. And guess what, maybe I will have to change my job again. That's how world works today. Maybe I will be planning oranges in 10 years
I guess let's not speak on behalf of artists pls. Coz even though I am. Not against AI art but it seems like people are trying to downplay the effort goes into creating ART and somehow pursue it as a side gig. No people are working.
Insanely based my bro
Wrong.
Disclosing my bias, I’m pretty pro AI art and automation in general.
But I feel like your utilitarian analysis has a pretty big hole in it. You’re basing your entire argument in this idea of opportunity cost, meaning that if one spends more money on a traditional artist versus an AI artist, then one cannot put those lost resources toward more ethical causes like fighting climate change or feeding the hungry.
Here’s the problem with that. You’re assuming that people act in the most ethical manner possible and they clearly don’t. In reality, if someone has surplus cash leftover from using an AI artist, they are far more likely to use it to buy luxury goods for themselves than they are going a donate it to charity, because people act in self interest, not in the ethical interest of others.
And a lot of the things they would spend their money on will reinforce harmful systems like sweatshops and the consolidation of wealth into the hands of a few capital owners.
the actual claim was trying to make was that if you wanted to be ethical, you should use the cheap option and donate. I don't think I made any stronger claims than that, like how people are likely to act en-masse
@@lewingtonn then it’s not really an argument on whether AI art is ethical or not, it’s an argument on how one person specifically could most ethically spend their resources. And I mean in this case, don’t buy the art at all, spend it all on starving kids or whatever.
@@Creslin321 yeah, 100% yes, I was assuming that the art outcome was necessary in the hypothetical, but ideally yeah you wouldn't even do that you'd just sell all your organs right now to fund solar panel research.
Then I will say this, from the very beginning AI is not ethical, why do you use the names of artists as stylization in AI while still alive? Why do you collect galleries if there is a normal photorealistic mode in AI.
At the same time, you do not demand equally ethical steps from the companies behind all this and do not say that they should deduct something to the funds or compensate for losses to those whom they are trying to replace by stealing and training the machine on their own labors, justify mass data theft, which is already a fact, your argument has no power, and the video sounds as if the child is making excuses to his parents why he needs this particular toy. Moreover, I would ask you to show your diploma if possible, since philosophy does not deny logic. But you prefer to ignore most of the facts, you are more incompetent, spreading misinformation, I would even say criminally incompetent.
Based
What's it based on?
@@jacobnapkins1155 not based
Allow an artist to pay rent, or allow an artist to go homeless and rely on charity : 🤔
Automation is based
There i said it
Based on what?
@@jacobnapkins1155 Based on Deez Nuts
@@jacobnapkins1155 jk you're cool
Outside the circle of religions, morality is just a nonsense. If you don't believe in afterlife, then do whatever makes you happy a maximize your please before your end. Otherwise, you have to consider consequences.
If you buy ai art youre part of the problem
Ai generators is no ethical at all
Its like using aimbot in a game that dont have anti cheat
No, it literally is not. Using aimbot in a multiplayer game causes unavoidable harm to a player's experience... harm that is not inherent to these tools (for instance you can train it off your own works, or off public domain works).
(Also, aimbot in single player games ... it may dampen the experience for you, or I, but who the fuck cares if others choose to use aimbot in their own singleplayer games? 😂)
@@DanknDerpyGamer well i seen evidence of bozos duplicating artist work to 99% exact look alike with ai and they dare to sell that
and then being called out for bs the internet the fake artist blocks everyone and the original artist considering issuing DMCA
explain that
It is sufficient to do AI art just be aware of the drawing of the hands. Totally , making AI art is about the style that can be achieved. Now , problem with this ART GURUS ranting is creating hype and Doomsday in the art industry where they also use art as an reference and proclaim a Guru for Noobs. You only support Artist and Art Gurus because you believe with art that they do. And even if you tell them to do commissions dont expect they just would do it for your cause.
I dont think the AI artists deserve any money
because there is very little labor in sitting and telling a machine what to create.
The traditional artist uploaded their work to the internet at every possible opportunity with hash tags etc to get their work in front of the eyes of as many people possible.
While at the same time enjoying a certain amount of scarcity because of the limit number of people with the raw talent but ALSO because of the gate keeping being imposed by those on the political left who decided who gets hired/invited/showcased based on having the “correct” political world view.
The AI tech has decimated this paradigm.
Scarcity?….GONE forever
and now the great “unwashed masses” of ANY political Ideology or religion ,education level etc can create any visual communication imagery& content they desire with ease
to promote their personal & political world views on equal footing.
It's not about the effort that the person put into his/her work. You could put effort into something that nobody values. It's about the value.
Also take into consideration that these models can be biased and politically slanted to subtly brainwash its users, en masse.
you forgot that ai is also very useful for disabled people. The mechanisms used to develop ai iages like data scraping and training is used to make products that makes life better for disabled people, if things like data scraping were to be made illegal because of all this nonsense, it'll impact research in a not so good way
Based.
While I'm here I'll plug my favourite cost-effective charity, feel free to give them a look: Against Malaria Foundation (AMF)
Based on what?
@@jacobnapkins1155 "Based" is slang that means something like "grounded in reality" (as opposed to some goody-goody ideology)
and it's freeing up all these struggling artists to pursue new and better ways to express themselves. we're approaching a time where people will almost literally bring their dreams to life. whether that's providing a stream of consciousness and having an AI assemble it into a book or play; creating music without requiring the dexterity for playing instruments, or the training and correctly-aligned brain to learn digital composition via software; people creating movie-length anime in their bedrooms with just passion rather than wrestling with unintuitive software and techniques. it's a good time to be human. well beside all the plagues and war and inequality and... fuck. but for people privileged enough to be able to complain about emerging AI tools,.. dang just embrace it. open-source AI tools + free/cheap cloud + increasingly global internet access (and the unimaginable number of smart phones) is a brave new world. This was the world that they promised: humans, if they choose, can sit around in (virtual) scenic gardens creating and consuming an endless ocean of media while the machines feed us, and create and power the tech. or die in a nuclear hellscape. either, or.
Artists never asked to be freed from their job or a living wage, or are you gonna decide what's best for me and my peers?
If your so obsessed with your own imagination but don't care about the craft and all you wanna do is sit, back, relax and have an infinite amount of custom made imagery and music surround you, why don't you just close your eyes and daydream a bit?! (works wonders for me)
Until UI is actually realized and we don't have to fight against capitalism anymore, I'd love to keep the job I have thank you very much.
@@elinn1405 >"Artists never asked to be freed from their job"
Textile workers in 18th cent didn't ask to be replaced by machines, either, but they were which is why people can clothe themselves today for a $50 total (cheaply), and not $5000 with human-labor weaving.
>"are you gonna decide what's best for me and my peers?"
Not "you", but the market. The market makes such decisions.
@@contrarian8870 the reason we can clothe ourselves that cheap isn't just machines, but through grossly underpayed labour overseas and environmental destruction.
A big part of the problem IS that fast fashion is cheap, people throw it away regularly like trash and don't care because they can easily afford a new shirt. Nevermind the massive environmental damage they create.
...at least for clothing the argument can be made that everyone needs clothes to some degree, but nobody needs art given to them for cheap or free. They just feel entitled to.
The market has no ethics or moral compass, it's literally a race to the bottom until every natural resource is depleted and every worker automated. We should rely on strict legislation to ensure we don't fuck ourselves over, but it's nowhere strict enough as is
@@elinn1405 the point was, the job and living wage are still there, it just won't be gate-kept behind software like Daz and Blender and sold to an extremely small audience. The artists that devote hours every day working on their craft will have as much or more opportunity to make money from it. 99% of people won't be spending hours a day playing with AI tools, that "professional" 1% will still be creating most of the art/music/etc and selling to a much wider audience than currently.
People that never had the opportunities to go to art school, or practice for hours every day, or access to expensive software and hardware will also get to contribute. AI tools are just a bridge. Sure you can create a pretty picture with words in seconds, but you can also create a composition using AI tools like in/outpainting, and traditional methods, to guide the AI to end up with something created with artistic expression. And rather than a person commissioning an artist for a picture of a fish, they might ask for fish themed digital diorama where the fish live in a monitor and interact with the person. An expression that a normie couldn't hope to create while the artist familiar with available tools and prior experience could easily create for them.
And the whole new realm of digital avatars and spaces from Meta to UE5 will all create a massive demand for clothing and models and environments. there's no way using traditional tools that humans could ever keep up with the demand we'll see in the near future.
Artists, especially digital artists, are perfectly positioned to really profit from this AI revolution.
@@lytanshade Most of us will keep our jobs, but using AI will be a REQUIREMENT to use, no matter if we agree with it ethically or not or even like it's output, and I find that part gross...
Tools like Blender and Daz are amazing, they're free and capable programs if you wanna use them and still leave you with almost full artistic control.
These tools also still leave space for artists that can acomplish the same results just as fast in 2D, there's even still concept artists drawing on paper which I think is amazing.
But the artworld never NEEDED an AI revolution and we didn't ask for one, the only motive this is being pushed is to make a shitton of money but society won't get any better.
And the bigger discussion here isn't just about AI art, it's about AI in general and why would we even want it to begin with? We're not just eventually displacing every workforce out there, but also outsourcing everything that makes us special to computers for no good reason
I think AI art is giving the possibilites of the tech a bad rep because the monetairy motive is blaringly obvious, and I can't see a future with it that doesn't make life meaningless and depressing
I think it is simpler than this. AI art is ethical because there is more people who are benefiting from it, than people who are hurt by it. There is way less professional artists than everyone else. And the hurt could be adverted by a potential welfare system to help those who are automated out of their job.
this take seems quite based to me also
That way of thinking is why I am HEAVILY anti collectivism. It always chews up the individual. We can not have an ethical system or society if we don´t respect the rights of the individual. So just because 5 people want what 1 person has shouldn´t give those 5 people the right to just take from the 1 person. In this case companies have done data laundering and taken from the individual.
@@henriksahlstrom4482 I don’t think it chews up on individuality, but more so on a minority of people, to some some extent. In order to have a maximum amount of people as happy and as less hurt as possible, a minority of people will suffer from it. Not everyone is fit to live in a society, especially if their wellbeing can only be gained at the cost of multiple other’s wellbeing. An extreme example of this would be those who enjoy hurting others.
I am for this kind of system because I am benefiting from it. And I think a lot of people against it are benefiting from it too without realizing it (like paranoid conspiracy theorists who blame their problems on everyone else).
But whether I am for it or not does not matter, since this system is meant to benefit as much people as possible, this much people would be likely to strive for such system, and this would represent a majority.
This all sums up to a never ending fight between majority and minority, in which majority is always winning in the long run, because it is in its nature.
But how knows. Things could turn upside down.
@@shizumi5243 The smallest minority is the individual. You are basically just saying that the collective should benefit at the cost of the individual again but wording it differently. The majority coming together and saying "now we should have access to this individuals hard work and property for free because it benefits us and it only hurts one person" is the basis for slavery.
@@henriksahlstrom4482 the majority I am talking about is made of a maximum amount of people possible. Slavery only benefited a small amount of people and hurt a lot more. This is about maximizing happiness and minimizing hurt.
Diversity of individuality contributes to that happiness. It does not matter by how much your individuality/identity is different from most people, if it does not cause more hurt than happiness to yourself or others. In this ethical model, a bad action is one that result in more hurt than happiness, and a good one is the opposite.
Society naturally strives for utilitarianism, because it is about benefiting the largest amount of people possible. Not to be confused with the most powerful people.