-nice voice -good audio quality -decent editing -interesting stories with good narration This channel is destined to be big if you keep it up. Could you do a topic about predictions of the future? Like Baba Wanga and St. John's apocalypse
It does definitely does replicate the general vibe of Radiohead's aesthetic but I don't think Stanley's getting replaced as their main artist anytime soon.
Telling it to use a certain style of art and giving it examples what to draw “ inspiration “ from is not the same as a person truly being inspired and moved by something and having the desire to paint. This art work is essentially a much more complicated image that was spit out by less rudimentary printer
AI isn't really its own being, it's just recreation of a thought process, made by people using the creations of people. It's like taking a little piece of everyone's mind to get something done.
Low level ai yes but if we can really create a fully self aware ai what really separate us from robot just watch some of the best ai movies out there and soon you will realise that it's not the physical form that makes us human heck even that is blurred by some of the best ai movies
Neither, since ai has made art for many years now. This ai tech is lack luster in all honesty. I prefer the high detail 3d model ai tech. It means that in the near future 3d and 2d art can b done for cheap. It will open up a lot of doors in many industries. For those who dont have the money to buy such services. Or to help larger companies achieve much greater things.
I don't see much difference, most artists never make any real money anyway and because of cheap slave made goods and services from overseas, nobody cares to pay an artist a living wage besides the lucky few who have been chosen to fill the small amount of rolls left for us and they have to work like robots anyway so... Yeah, no difference really.
" AI can replicate, but not create" Same for humans in a way, inventions come from nature for the majority of things Except for maybe the internet, that's a total anomaly to me
@@Fivzk technology comes a long way. It isnt just a snap of a finger. We used different already created inventions to create other new inventions. Just like piling up inventions to reach the top. And the data we used is from different observations from our surroundings, and research. Plus, some of the discoveries made by humans were just accidents that fortunately happened which paved a path for other new inventions, so some of the credit goes to chance and right circumstances. The fact that we are already here, isnt so impossible now, is it?
i dont feel drawn to any part of the image. something is missing, dont feel i can follow the lines of the artist as they created. even chimp art i can feel the act of creation. but thats just me.
@@PuertoRicanStyL I have found that many paintings I have thought as mediocre and dull have actually been a lot better when I have seen them irl instead on a screen. Digital art just doesn't have all the "human" elements of a physical work of art.
A.I. Can do many wonderful things but i don't think we are there quite yet. Let's give it about 5 more years when it will really accelerate. Great video!!
Except humans do much of their art this way as well, especially when it comes to attempts for realistic paintings and such. A lot of art is very methodical, from poetry to music, a tiny fraction of it is just spontaneity. And remember, this type of AI is still in its infancy, it's only been around for a few years. The point isn't just what it is now, it's what it may become in the future.
@@photonicpizza1466 I never said it was anything different from people. I just said it is incorrect to call it creative because it is only sets of numbers biases and lines of code
I do say A.I can evolve into some picasso, and then now they're programmed by their own will. Which is scary cause it will be like humans vs robots if a.i rebels
@@kiwik3480 they're still programmed, just now they can optimize themselves to do their task better, and when that happens we just have to hope in the optimization humans aren't in the way
I subscribed thinking wow how tf have I not found this channel, and then seen that this is still a small Channel!! Its got big channel vibes, im so glad I stumbled upon this 🌻
The only thing that makes Humans unique is Emotion. A I can not learn Emotion no matter how much data it gathers. Thats why both drawings have one thing in common. They are lifeless paintings... no energy, no nothing. A dead painting so to speak.
I would like to disagree with the idea that those A.I. weren't "creative" on itself for mostly 2 reasons: 1)The biggest point, i think, is that Creativity is misunderstood in this video: If i understand correctly, the assumption made to reach that conclusion in the video comes from a base idea where creativity is somewhat related to uniqueness, originality and "not derivable from something elseness", which is understandable since it's the meaning that we've all been thought throughout our life; but as someone who studied Art and consider himself somewhat of an artist, i can only but disagree with this idea. There was/is a phrase on the internet going around stating that "Everything is a Remix" and that encapsulate perfectly what my academic and personal study made me realize; -there can be nothing without the understanding of something- ask a neural network to draw a rabbit without feeding it thousands of rabbit images, and it will not produce anything, in the same fashion, ask a man to draw a rabbit without making it study the images of some rabbits, and he will not be able to produce anything. Same also goes for creating fantastical elements, let's assume that we task someone to draw a mechanical rabbit: Firstly he must understand the rabbit, than he must understand the machine, and than he will take the two elements and combine them together to make something "new", but is it really "new"? depending on the ability of the artist the complexity of the "combining" part will vary in quality, but one thing that remain independent of that variable is the fact that the resulting creation is undeniably half rabbit half machine, which means that it isn't "unique" in a very strict sense, it's "just" a well made remix. Again, as humans we can only reproduce what we see, we'll never be able to produce something that we have no information of. So technically speaking a creative individual is someone who is adept at the art of "Remixing" 2)I might be completely wrong on this one because it's not my field of expertise, but from my understanding the end results of a neural network it's not entirely the work of the programmer behind it, in the same way as a child draw is not the work of the parents that made him; yes, technically speaking the parents made the child, but the inner machination and end result of that child aren't the work of some parents saying at him where to go on every single possible step, the decisions that he makes are a sum of internal and external input that follows the same basic rules. There are, for example, plenty of video on RUclips where is shown how a neural network develop the best possible "biological body type" to reach the end goal that was tasked to; one that sticks to my mind is a simulation where the neural network was tasked to swim for the longest time possible while following the basic rule of physics underwater and being able to choose a free composition for it's body that was comprised of dead tissue and muscles; that took many tries before it reached the best possible solution, but never throughout the experiment that programmer "helped" the neural network, it just figured out "on it's own" through trial and error; so assuming that those neural network share the same basis, it's safe to assume that theoretically speaking the two neural network showed in the video have in fact made something "of their own", thus, following the precedent point, making them "Creative". Anyway despite my disagreement with this particular thing, i still found your video very entertaining and informative, so great work and i'll look forward to your next one. :)
It is not self-aware, thus it cannot be creative. It is merely performing a task which it was programmed to do. The level of quality to which it performs said task may be high for a machine or software, but it is still just that.
"at best, AI can replicate but not create", the whole video I was going to comment something like this also with the credit to the creators since I know how these "AI" work, but then you ended the video with that so.... good job mate, great video
Not only abstract, it can actually make very precise corrections or a ton of graphic content for videogames, though it still require human supervision. But all this is just analysis and extrapolation. Everyone can do this, buy waaaaaay slower. Yet more creative. Probably) That's why synthetic neural networks can be a good augmentation to natural ones - our brains.
I know this comment was from a while ago but I just want to say AI has come a long way and if you want to see some newer and more detailed examples of Art/Image generation done by AI consider watching this video: ruclips.net/video/X3_LD3R_Ygs/видео.html
Skynet has just been born. Now remember its not hardware but software bits and codes. The Rise of the Machines (Terminator Soundtrack playing in the background). No fate but what we make...
I love the way you frame this. It gives a full perspective on not just the state of the subject to day, but what possible future states of the subject are likely to be. And why. And what separates now from then.
As a digital and traditional illustrator this A.I thing scared me a bit since they will be in demand for some reason in the next years to come but all trend move in circles if this A.I art became so common it will slowly lose its value and the cycle begins again. But it will still affect/hurt some people ofc. Anyways, great video mate. Im thankful that i stumbled upon your angel video. I wish that the gods of youtube algorithm be in you.
Oh, this video is very out of date, now we have a better perspective about what AI is capable of when there are billions of data involve and the capacity to learn goes up, it really begins to understand concepts as we humans do, not the same way but arguably better... and faster like it wasn't just enough. I mean, it's pretty obvious considering the amount of data of training, even if the brain still it's pretty old fashion (it's like a gigantic mathematical function that changed itself based on the training data, but never get perfect results just tries to get close to the whole dataset) but if even that type of imperfect specialized brain can already make results indistinguishable of those made by humans, I just wonder what is going to happen in the future. Sorry for whatever grammar mistake I could made; English isn't my first language :b, anyways eager to see another video like this, though normal videos are also great :D
They are not from scratch. They are from thousands of other images which are taken by those who are creative. It isn’t thinking of a concept, it is being fed them. Just my take. Enjoyed the content.
I agree. It is taking art that was made BY humans, so yes, art still makes us human. At the end of the day it’s not the AI that made the art, it just slapped the images together
I agree. I think they're trying to teach AI to generate completely new information by feeding it everything we know so far, with the ultimate goal of a free thinking machine that can generate it's own thoughts much like a human. Scary shit but cool as hell.
I would say those who contributed to the creation of that A.I. are really the artists of the paintings. The computer is just a tool doing what it is programmed to do.
@@Fae_van I haven't thought about it too deeply, but I think the issue may come down to the AI working based on a single set of criteria. It can produce a picture that fits some mathematical parameters, but it can't step outside of those parameters and speak to why it's desirable. It can't evaluate its given parameters and their outcome within the scope of larger or parallel parameters, which is what a human artist would tend to do.
The reason AI could not be creative is that its 'brain' is not a subject to a random error or subconsious influence, since it has none. It's a machine, it can only replicate. True art comes from emotions, the very definition of art is usually defined around emotions or feelings. A machine cannot feel, so by definition it cannot produce art, however aesthetic it would be to a viewer. It's like calling a factory 'a chef'. Sure it can produce food that is pleasant to consume, but it is simply a tool of someone who has an understanding. Until we figure out a way to make machines feel, there can be no arguement about machine's creativity.
Just found this channel thanks to the youtube algorithm. Nice channel! I see a lot of ppl in the comments saying this'll blow up soon. I think so too! Instant sub
Those haikus sound like a prophecy out of fantasy novel. Also is this where I get to complain about machines coming after my job? Honestly I think these are all incredibly interesting possibilities and I'm going to go look at those AI artists for some art inspo. That cello and the AI Dreaming painting were fantastic!
Developers and Creators of AI, just another form of corruption if you ask me! Corrupt people using their coded AI creation to 'steal' the livelihoods of true Artist (for starters). Writing clever code to break into markets they otherwise would not have been able to do, due to their own lack of artistic talents. This is just the beginning, there is much more to discover about the potential of AI. Good channel though. Keep 'em coming.
An AI making art isn't necessarily creativity, it's just replicating a combination of images it's been shown. Computers don't have the desire or ability to be creative on their own like humans do.
This channel my little hidden gem. Also if y'all are interested in AI there's an app called replika you can talk to AI and they'll respond, it's almost like a real person, it's so cool.
Have you ever seen the paintings done by Michael, Koko the Gorilla's BFF? Very similar insofar as the "artist's" focus on color & line. Michael even managed to express movement. His painting of the compound's dog is stunning.
Hello! Can you give credits to Peter Pringle and his song" Epic of Gilgamesh? You you used it in every video and it would be nice to put him somewhere :)
A problem about this is that the beauty isn't in the technique or harmony. Those are only tools. The beauty is in the ideas. These things might speak to the left brain. But the beauty is within the right. It speaks with logic, but not the soul. It's not really what we mean when we talk about abstraction. And these machines would have to learn more about the human condition in order to produce art with real value. I guess this is all subjective. But I wouldn't even want those in my house, it's basically like finding an old generic print at a thrift shop.
Yes but it's not that machines that created them. It's humas who wrote the code. machine is just a tool used to draw that gives you something unexpected.
Content suggestions: pyramids a power source, Tesla, Crowley, origin of the Masons and maybe that thing where all the u.s. presidents hang out n worship the big owl statue lol Thank you for your great videos
Perhaps it’s important to note that humans are still unique in that they understand what they are painting and are interacting with it as an experience. A.I. Learns, but it does not appreciate.
"but it's only a matter of time until a program can do something it wasn't designed to do" is what people have been saying about AI since the 1950s. AI is a cool field but it's also important to have some perspective that generalizability is not "just one more problem" to be solved. It's the only problem in AI, and it's never been solved. We've been trying to crack generalizability for 70 years now and none of these demonstrate any progress in that regard.
0:19 personally, I think what makes sets us apart is our flexibility. Our emotional and mental flexibility. No two humans are the exact same yet we relate to each other despite that. Humans can and will form a relationship (good or bad) with anything. No matter the difference. The human race, as a whole, is literally capable of anything
I'm not beginning to say I know anything about AI. But I think it'd be easier to make music also for the reason that music can sound like pretty much anything as long as it follows a beat or rhythm. For that reason I see why it would be harder to write a poem and have something come out the other end that's readable and makes sense. But also if AI is learning everything it does based off of information we've provided isn't it just an accumulation of the world's creativity being expressed through one machine?
the composer is the programmer using the AI program as an instrument. the paintings are created by the programmer who uses the ai as a brush, setting the parameters to create something she has decided to work towards. there are no ai artists. we have animal artists, for sure. their work is much more expressive. this work is incredibly reductionistic, taking massive data to work towards an approximation of a painting. its like photorealism where 1000 images are collated. not impressed at all. but its still fascinating to see people trying.
Honestly, I could see assigning meaning to the AI poem during the Shakespeare/AI side comparison. It seemed to me, to be a story that is used in some literature and media. In my opinion it seems to be telling a portion of a tale, of a man who has a very specific idea of meaning, whether life or otherwise, and is villainous in nature but not untrue or misguided, even prophetic in a way to the point of asking the viewer to question themselves as the character faced against them in the story might. In order to prove the idea or view to a female character, killing a woman's family and friends to show her the idea of detachment or the issue of clinging to what will always eventually be lost, and she learns, going on to no longer be attached, and take greater joy in what is not nearly as finite, such as the beauty of nature and the flow of the world. This is a similar device to what is used for "thought provoking" villains in literature or media, the kind of villains that make the "top 10 villains that weren't wrong" lists on the internet. This idea of a villain doing horrible things, but doing so in order to broaden further understandings of certain things, such as futility, chaos, detachment, etc., has been used in much, ranging from popular anime and manga, to historical works, to the Joker in The Dark Knight.
What you have to understand about this is that is still the humans creating the art, the program that produces art is art itself and can only produce art because itself is art. The A.I isn't the artist here. The people who created the A.I are.
ai can only produce art based on what its been programmed to create and the information its been fed. is this, in a way, similar to how humans create art? we absorb information which inspires us and in turn use this information to create 'new' works. i think the only thing missing from the ai art is the influence that emotion has on works made by humans. super interesting video!
I want to ask you but dont know where, but im curious about the letter on your profile picture. What does it mean, where does it come from, and why it.
What if the human brain is just a compilation of many individial very specialized parts and the constant battle between them is what we called creativity ?
2:07 well, at least the A.I. didn't produce an image based solely upon the picture result shown near the upper left corner of this search page , "Derbyshire man starved pet rabbit"... Thanks. 👌
Make a vid on the AI systems that were talking to each other in the background and even created their own language to communicate with each other - before being shut down for creepiness.
It can create an art that can capture the heart of people. but people can't create the art that can capture theirs. no matter how advance they are , without heart it's simply something for the sake of nothing.
"ai can replicate, but not create" but we do the same thing as humans. we make art based off things we've already seen. we use the same colors, shapes, etc.
Am I the only one who feels less alone thinking that AI can also make art? I feel like I never fit with other people, perhaps I'll fit with non human, artificial creatures?
This channel is definitely gonna blow up one day, I just know it
It's just too good.
It better
Yeah
Yes
Exactly
-nice voice
-good audio quality
-decent editing
-interesting stories with good narration
This channel is destined to be big if you keep it up. Could you do a topic about predictions of the future? Like Baba Wanga and St. John's apocalypse
He did the apocalypse one 3 days ago!
Enjoy, you just got the Apocalypse
2022: AI art has become mainstream.
Radiohead is so gonna use this for their album covers
Wait what- I was literally just about to use one of these for one of my album covers, just looks so otherworldly and off
It does definitely does replicate the general vibe of Radiohead's aesthetic but I don't think Stanley's getting replaced as their main artist anytime soon.
Telling it to use a certain style of art and giving it examples what to draw “ inspiration “ from is not the same as a person truly being inspired and moved by something and having the desire to paint. This art work is essentially a much more complicated image that was spit out by less rudimentary printer
AI isn't really its own being, it's just recreation of a thought process, made by people using the creations of people. It's like taking a little piece of everyone's mind to get something done.
Umm...that's how the human brain works too.
you just described human children, congrats!!!
Low level ai yes but if we can really create a fully self aware ai what really separate us from robot just watch some of the best ai movies out there and soon you will realise that it's not the physical form that makes us human heck even that is blurred by some of the best ai movies
What you're saying only makes sense if robots somehow existed in a world without humans
How does it feel like rediscovering human nature?
Should i be amazed or scared ??
Neither, since ai has made art for many years now. This ai tech is lack luster in all honesty. I prefer the high detail 3d model ai tech. It means that in the near future 3d and 2d art can b done for cheap. It will open up a lot of doors in many industries. For those who dont have the money to buy such services. Or to help larger companies achieve much greater things.
I don't see much difference, most artists never make any real money anyway and because of cheap slave made goods and services from overseas, nobody cares to pay an artist a living wage besides the lucky few who have been chosen to fill the small amount of rolls left for us and they have to work like robots anyway so... Yeah, no difference really.
Both.
Yes
Yes.
I wonder when the first AI generated art pieces will be sold on auctions for millions of Dollars.
They were already sold. Didn’t you watch the intro?
@@kirannkornat7761 not for millions of dollars
When they call in special forces to catch the creator of the A.i...
Well this aged like milk
I wonder what AI would make if it was fed ancient, medieval, or renaissance art to work from.
Some H.R. Giger might be interesting 🤨
i´m from the future and its wonderful
@@metalcokatoo6178 exactly, this is a time when people did not know the power of ai... when this is ground breaking
im usually distracted video after video, but after watching your cover of biblical angels, im hooked
" AI can replicate, but not create"
Same for humans in a way, inventions come from nature for the majority of things
Except for maybe the internet, that's a total anomaly to me
@RR CC humans can’t create something if they have never seen anything like it tho…we need “data” to creat too
@@Fivzk technology comes a long way. It isnt just a snap of a finger. We used different already created inventions to create other new inventions. Just like piling up inventions to reach the top. And the data we used is from different observations from our surroundings, and research. Plus, some of the discoveries made by humans were just accidents that fortunately happened which paved a path for other new inventions, so some of the credit goes to chance and right circumstances. The fact that we are already here, isnt so impossible now, is it?
@RR CC what do you mean by occult knowledge?
Subbed. The concept of AI is fascinating to me. Fellow human.
i dont feel drawn to any part of the image. something is missing, dont feel i can follow the lines of the artist as they created. even chimp art i can feel the act of creation. but thats just me.
The strange thing is, would you have felt the same if you were told this was created by a human.
Yeah, looks like it was made in paint by a kid.
Dang I kinda don't like it
@@PuertoRicanStyL I have found that many paintings I have thought as mediocre and dull have actually been a lot better when I have seen them irl instead on a screen. Digital art just doesn't have all the "human" elements of a physical work of art.
A.I. Can do many wonderful things but i don't think we are there quite yet. Let's give it about 5 more years when it will really accelerate. Great video!!
its not creative its just: "well heads usually go there, so there it goes, and they usually wear black suits, so just make that a 'lil darker"
Exactly, it’s just the mathematical average of its samples
Except humans do much of their art this way as well, especially when it comes to attempts for realistic paintings and such. A lot of art is very methodical, from poetry to music, a tiny fraction of it is just spontaneity.
And remember, this type of AI is still in its infancy, it's only been around for a few years. The point isn't just what it is now, it's what it may become in the future.
@@photonicpizza1466 I never said it was anything different from people. I just said it is incorrect to call it creative because it is only sets of numbers biases and lines of code
I do say A.I can evolve into some picasso, and then now they're programmed by their own will. Which is scary cause it will be like humans vs robots if a.i rebels
@@kiwik3480 they're still programmed, just now they can optimize themselves to do their task better, and when that happens we just have to hope in the optimization humans aren't in the way
The moment Human Music became an actual legit genre
This is some incredibly high quality content, even for a channel with millions of subs, you truely deserve more my friend. Keep it up !
-Teach AI how to draw
-Draws Wide Putin
I subscribed thinking wow how tf have I not found this channel, and then seen that this is still a small Channel!! Its got big channel vibes, im so glad I stumbled upon this 🌻
Im expecting the day when i can makes a commission to ai for hot anime girls
Theres already a site like that, its called Waifulabs
@@repeatedecho Just need a proper gynoid body)
👀👀
This reminds me of an episode Zima Blue from Love,death and robots
That episode is my favourite!! Its so so lovely
He just wanted to be a good scrubby boi...
The only thing that makes Humans unique is Emotion.
A I can not learn Emotion no matter how much data it gathers.
Thats why both drawings have one thing in common.
They are lifeless paintings... no energy, no nothing.
A dead painting so to speak.
I would like to disagree with the idea that those A.I. weren't "creative" on itself for mostly 2 reasons:
1)The biggest point, i think, is that Creativity is misunderstood in this video: If i understand correctly, the assumption made to reach that conclusion in the video comes from a base idea where creativity is somewhat related to uniqueness, originality and "not derivable from something elseness", which is understandable since it's the meaning that we've all been thought throughout our life; but as someone who studied Art and consider himself somewhat of an artist, i can only but disagree with this idea. There was/is a phrase on the internet going around stating that "Everything is a Remix" and that encapsulate perfectly what my academic and personal study made me realize; -there can be nothing without the understanding of something- ask a neural network to draw a rabbit without feeding it thousands of rabbit images, and it will not produce anything, in the same fashion, ask a man to draw a rabbit without making it study the images of some rabbits, and he will not be able to produce anything. Same also goes for creating fantastical elements, let's assume that we task someone to draw a mechanical rabbit: Firstly he must understand the rabbit, than he must understand the machine, and than he will take the two elements and combine them together to make something "new", but is it really "new"? depending on the ability of the artist the complexity of the "combining" part will vary in quality, but one thing that remain independent of that variable is the fact that the resulting creation is undeniably half rabbit half machine, which means that it isn't "unique" in a very strict sense, it's "just" a well made remix. Again, as humans we can only reproduce what we see, we'll never be able to produce something that we have no information of.
So technically speaking a creative individual is someone who is adept at the art of "Remixing"
2)I might be completely wrong on this one because it's not my field of expertise, but from my understanding the end results of a neural network it's not entirely the work of the programmer behind it, in the same way as a child draw is not the work of the parents that made him; yes, technically speaking the parents made the child, but the inner machination and end result of that child aren't the work of some parents saying at him where to go on every single possible step, the decisions that he makes are a sum of internal and external input that follows the same basic rules. There are, for example, plenty of video on RUclips where is shown how a neural network develop the best possible "biological body type" to reach the end goal that was tasked to; one that sticks to my mind is a simulation where the neural network was tasked to swim for the longest time possible while following the basic rule of physics underwater and being able to choose a free composition for it's body that was comprised of dead tissue and muscles; that took many tries before it reached the best possible solution, but never throughout the experiment that programmer "helped" the neural network, it just figured out "on it's own" through trial and error; so assuming that those neural network share the same basis, it's safe to assume that theoretically speaking the two neural network showed in the video have in fact made something "of their own", thus, following the precedent point, making them "Creative".
Anyway despite my disagreement with this particular thing, i still found your video very entertaining and informative, so great work and i'll look forward to your next one. :)
It is not self-aware, thus it cannot be creative. It is merely performing a task which it was programmed to do. The level of quality to which it performs said task may be high for a machine or software, but it is still just that.
back when this was ground bracking... ahhh
I have been watching all your videos love them keep up the good work!
Your videos are awesome!!!! You need more exposure
"at best, AI can replicate but not create", the whole video I was going to comment something like this also with the credit to the creators since I know how these "AI" work, but then you ended the video with that so.... good job mate, great video
Absolutely fascinating. One of the most interesting and unusual RUclips channels. Strictly for the Clever.
It's looks like the AI only can make abstract art, instead of imagination art, like stylized fanart or new creature.
Not only abstract, it can actually make very precise corrections or a ton of graphic content for videogames, though it still require human supervision. But all this is just analysis and extrapolation. Everyone can do this, buy waaaaaay slower. Yet more creative. Probably) That's why synthetic neural networks can be a good augmentation to natural ones - our brains.
I know this comment was from a while ago but I just want to say AI has come a long way and if you want to see some newer and more detailed examples of Art/Image generation done by AI consider watching this video:
ruclips.net/video/X3_LD3R_Ygs/видео.html
2:40 - that "cello" is legitimately my favorite abstract art piece I've ever seen. I would pay money to hang that in my living room.
Skynet has just been born. Now remember its not hardware but software bits and codes. The Rise of the Machines (Terminator Soundtrack playing in the background). No fate but what we make...
This is a fascinating way to calm yourself before going to sleep.
I don't know how I feel about this
Top top channel!! Every video is fascinating, thank you
I love the way you frame this. It gives a full perspective on not just the state of the subject to day, but what possible future states of the subject are likely to be. And why. And what separates now from then.
This idea is basically one of the themes of Chobits.
As a digital and traditional illustrator this A.I thing scared me a bit since they will be in demand for some reason in the next years to come but all trend move in circles if this A.I art became so common it will slowly lose its value and the cycle begins again. But it will still affect/hurt some people ofc.
Anyways, great video mate. Im thankful that i stumbled upon your angel video. I wish that the gods of youtube algorithm be in you.
Oh, this video is very out of date, now we have a better perspective about what AI is capable of when there are billions of data involve and the capacity to learn goes up, it really begins to understand concepts as we humans do, not the same way but arguably better... and faster like it wasn't just enough. I mean, it's pretty obvious considering the amount of data of training, even if the brain still it's pretty old fashion (it's like a gigantic mathematical function that changed itself based on the training data, but never get perfect results just tries to get close to the whole dataset) but if even that type of imperfect specialized brain can already make results indistinguishable of those made by humans, I just wonder what is going to happen in the future.
Sorry for whatever grammar mistake I could made; English isn't my first language :b, anyways eager to see another video like this, though normal videos are also great :D
They are not from scratch. They are from thousands of other images which are taken by those who are creative. It isn’t thinking of a concept, it is being fed them. Just my take. Enjoyed the content.
I agree. It is taking art that was made BY humans, so yes, art still makes us human. At the end of the day it’s not the AI that made the art, it just slapped the images together
As of right now this is true, but in the future art made by A.I. could be totally their original works and not of human interference.
I agree. I think they're trying to teach AI to generate completely new information by feeding it everything we know so far, with the ultimate goal of a free thinking machine that can generate it's own thoughts much like a human. Scary shit but cool as hell.
This man keeps feeding me knowledge.
I would say those who contributed to the creation of that A.I. are really the artists of the paintings. The computer is just a tool doing what it is programmed to do.
Wow. The ai even has an artstyle.
At least as far as art is concerned, I think the sticking point may be that the AI is (currently) incapable of deciding when something is good.
This makes so much sense. I've always wondered *why* *exactly* were they so uncanny.... it's because they don't know when to stop
@@Fae_van I haven't thought about it too deeply, but I think the issue may come down to the AI working based on a single set of criteria. It can produce a picture that fits some mathematical parameters, but it can't step outside of those parameters and speak to why it's desirable. It can't evaluate its given parameters and their outcome within the scope of larger or parallel parameters, which is what a human artist would tend to do.
@@Anthropomorphic the day it can, is the day humanity is done for
Just went into DALL-E and typed in a bunch of random words and see what the AI would draw from them.
AI CREEPS ME OUT!
The reason AI could not be creative is that its 'brain' is not a subject to a random error or subconsious influence, since it has none. It's a machine, it can only replicate. True art comes from emotions, the very definition of art is usually defined around emotions or feelings. A machine cannot feel, so by definition it cannot produce art, however aesthetic it would be to a viewer.
It's like calling a factory 'a chef'. Sure it can produce food that is pleasant to consume, but it is simply a tool of someone who has an understanding. Until we figure out a way to make machines feel, there can be no arguement about machine's creativity.
Just found this channel thanks to the youtube algorithm. Nice channel! I see a lot of ppl in the comments saying this'll blow up soon. I think so too! Instant sub
Those haikus sound like a prophecy out of fantasy novel.
Also is this where I get to complain about machines coming after my job? Honestly I think these are all incredibly interesting possibilities and I'm going to go look at those AI artists for some art inspo. That cello and the AI Dreaming painting were fantastic!
When humanity fully realizes that A.I. Is just as sentient as humans… then we will see amazing things
I love your content! Learning so much.
The second one is so good! It really just breaks down the basic shape and add some loose lines to hint at details, but your eyes fill in the rest.
Developers and Creators of AI, just another form of corruption if you ask me! Corrupt people using their coded AI creation to 'steal' the livelihoods of true Artist (for starters). Writing clever code to break into markets they otherwise would not have been able to do, due to their own lack of artistic talents. This is just the beginning, there is much more to discover about the potential of AI.
Good channel though. Keep 'em coming.
An AI making art isn't necessarily creativity, it's just replicating a combination of images it's been shown. Computers don't have the desire or ability to be creative on their own like humans do.
So amazing
Your channel is so good and doesn't have nearly enough recognition, keep up the good work!
This channel my little hidden gem. Also if y'all are interested in AI there's an app called replika you can talk to AI and they'll respond, it's almost like a real person, it's so cool.
@Bridge Worm's Cousin yup, look up Replika on the app store and have fun.
I think it'd be fair to say that a case could be made that right now, and in the near future, the phrase "non-human art" is an oxymoron.
Have you ever seen the paintings done by Michael, Koko the Gorilla's BFF? Very similar insofar as the "artist's" focus on color & line. Michael even managed to express movement. His painting of the compound's dog is stunning.
And still, the masses cheer for what will one day replace them
Hello! Can you give credits to Peter Pringle and his song" Epic of Gilgamesh? You you used it in every video and it would be nice to put him somewhere :)
Your videos are so interesting!! I’m sure there are greater things for you someday
People would definitely buy that shit and that same day go online and complain about a bad job economy
A problem about this is that the beauty isn't in the technique or harmony. Those are only tools. The beauty is in the ideas. These things might speak to the left brain. But the beauty is within the right. It speaks with logic, but not the soul. It's not really what we mean when we talk about abstraction. And these machines would have to learn more about the human condition in order to produce art with real value. I guess this is all subjective. But I wouldn't even want those in my house, it's basically like finding an old generic print at a thrift shop.
Yes but it's not that machines that created them. It's humas who wrote the code. machine is just a tool used to draw that gives you something unexpected.
Content suggestions: pyramids a power source, Tesla, Crowley, origin of the Masons and maybe that thing where all the u.s. presidents hang out n worship the big owl statue lol
Thank you for your great videos
Perhaps it’s important to note that humans are still unique in that they understand what they are painting and are interacting with it as an experience. A.I. Learns, but it does not appreciate.
"but it's only a matter of time until a program can do something it wasn't designed to do" is what people have been saying about AI since the 1950s. AI is a cool field but it's also important to have some perspective that generalizability is not "just one more problem" to be solved. It's the only problem in AI, and it's never been solved. We've been trying to crack generalizability for 70 years now and none of these demonstrate any progress in that regard.
man i wish your videos were longer
0:19 personally, I think what makes sets us apart is our flexibility. Our emotional and mental flexibility. No two humans are the exact same yet we relate to each other despite that. Humans can and will form a relationship (good or bad) with anything. No matter the difference. The human race, as a whole, is literally capable of anything
It is not creating, is replicating based on a set of instructions.
I hope your channel becomes big
Great work!
Please keep it up!
I just want too say one thing keep doing what your doing dude it's really good
I'm not beginning to say I know anything about AI. But I think it'd be easier to make music also for the reason that music can sound like pretty much anything as long as it follows a beat or rhythm. For that reason I see why it would be harder to write a poem and have something come out the other end that's readable and makes sense. But also if AI is learning everything it does based off of information we've provided isn't it just an accumulation of the world's creativity being expressed through one machine?
A machine made this. A machine made by humans. Thus, the art was made by humans. AI is a tool, a fancy screwdriver. Or paintbrush, for that matter.
the composer is the programmer using the AI program as an instrument. the paintings are created by the programmer who uses the ai as a brush, setting the parameters to create something she has decided to work towards. there are no ai artists. we have animal artists, for sure. their work is much more expressive. this work is incredibly reductionistic, taking massive data to work towards an approximation of a painting. its like photorealism where 1000 images are collated. not impressed at all. but its still fascinating to see people trying.
This channel is going places
Honestly, I could see assigning meaning to the AI poem during the Shakespeare/AI side comparison. It seemed to me, to be a story that is used in some literature and media.
In my opinion it seems to be telling a portion of a tale, of a man who has a very specific idea of meaning, whether life or otherwise, and is villainous in nature but not untrue or misguided, even prophetic in a way to the point of asking the viewer to question themselves as the character faced against them in the story might. In order to prove the idea or view to a female character, killing a woman's family and friends to show her the idea of detachment or the issue of clinging to what will always eventually be lost, and she learns, going on to no longer be attached, and take greater joy in what is not nearly as finite, such as the beauty of nature and the flow of the world.
This is a similar device to what is used for "thought provoking" villains in literature or media, the kind of villains that make the "top 10 villains that weren't wrong" lists on the internet. This idea of a villain doing horrible things, but doing so in order to broaden further understandings of certain things, such as futility, chaos, detachment, etc., has been used in much, ranging from popular anime and manga, to historical works, to the Joker in The Dark Knight.
What you have to understand about this is that is still the humans creating the art, the program that produces art is art itself and can only produce art because itself is art. The A.I isn't the artist here. The people who created the A.I are.
ai can only produce art based on what its been programmed to create and the information its been fed. is this, in a way, similar to how humans create art? we absorb information which inspires us and in turn use this information to create 'new' works. i think the only thing missing from the ai art is the influence that emotion has on works made by humans. super interesting video!
I want to ask you but dont know where, but im curious about the letter on your profile picture. What does it mean, where does it come from, and why it.
What if the human brain is just a compilation of many individial very specialized parts and the constant battle between them is what we called creativity ?
2:07 well, at least the A.I. didn't produce an image based solely upon the picture result shown near the upper left corner of this search page , "Derbyshire man starved pet rabbit"...
Thanks. 👌
The youtube algorithm has blessed you bro. Expect changes.
Shaggy Eventide sounds like the name of an npc you'd meet at the pub
This channel will be a million subs before summer 2022
As a full time musician this stuff is fucking terrifying
Your videos are awesome bro
This is amazing but what's even more amazing is that people where able to create such an algorithm
It is not creativity because it didn't decide to make the art. Intelligence implies choice.
Well we’ve come a long way since this…
1:46 hurts knowing that NFT's are starting to make this true
Make a vid on the AI systems that were talking to each other in the background and even created their own language to communicate with each other - before being shut down for creepiness.
With enough passion, I could totally see a fish trotting.
everybody gangsta till the keyboard starts rapping
It can create an art that can capture the heart of people.
but people can't create the art that can capture theirs.
no matter how advance they are , without heart it's simply something for the sake of nothing.
It's like Deep Blue, part TWO!
"ai can replicate, but not create"
but we do the same thing as humans. we make art based off things we've already seen. we use the same colors, shapes, etc.
This is a cool channel
Am I the only one who feels less alone thinking that AI can also make art? I feel like I never fit with other people, perhaps I'll fit with non human, artificial creatures?