Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
I'm not worried about AI art (anymore)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 авг 2024
- Hello pen friends!
Today’s video is just a drawing with a few of my thoughts (and a couple of audio glitches. Sorry). Today we’re talking about AI and art, and why it doesn’t bother me as much as it used to. What are your thoughts? Share them in the comments below!
The pen I used today is the Lamy 2000
And it’s filed with De Atramentis Urban Grey:
Some of my links are affiliate links. That means that if you use them to buy something, I get a small commission at no cost to you. You know the deal. Help me buy more pens!
Thanks! If you enjoy my content, give me a like and a subscribe!
bit.ly/3iVayOb
You can also connect to me and find me on other social media platforms through my website:
www.stephenink...
Chapters:
00:00 introduction
01:19 my background
03:34 Programmers are creatives!
4:40 different reactions
6:29 Bill Watterson
08:04 Customer Service
09:30 The Importance of Mistakes
11:27 So, what now?
Professional artist here, with just a couple of thoughts:
I genuinely believe that art jobs have been and will be made redundant with this (and any other) big shifts in paradigm. I had an uncle that trained as a signwriter, that training was largely superseded by digital graphic design and vinyl sign printing. Newspaper typesetters of old were replaced by computerised print processes, etc etc. Some new jobs will be created as a result of this shift, naturally. Some of the jobs I have had for well known companies on well known IPs were very much like brick laying; you're working to a very strict set of guidelines that cannot be deviated from, and though you are creating images, there is very little creativity involved in this process. I think those companies will try to replace these jobs with AI first (The fact that I don't particularly enjoy this style of work is secondary, I have no doubt that there are folks who rely on this kind of job for their income).
I think there will be whole cycles of piracy, theft, plagiarism, lawsuits, controversy, corporate buyouts and such before things will settle down. Such is the way of new ideas in a capitalist system. It will probably be very frustrating for a large number of people.
I think any shift towards 'perfection' (which one might see "AI art" as) will be countered with *some* rebellion. Look at Impressionism as a response to academic painting, punk music as an answer to highly produced pop music. Perfection is interesting, but not if that's all there is.
Finally, I think a lot of the things that one might imagine AI can do will be overstated, exaggerated, fraught with unseen limits. A lot of companies will find this out the hard way.
Ultimately, I believe things will change, but hand crafted art will never truly go away. I primarily work with digital art programs, wacom drawing tablets and 3D modelling software, but I still take pencil and pen to sketchbook to test ideas out and change things up, and it's still a very valuable workspace for me.
I’m pinning this comment because I think it’s the perfect compliment to my video. I would almost say counter-point, but I think you put into words some things I was struggling to explain.
One of the reasons I didn’t really want to persue art/graphic design as my vocation has a lot to do with not particularly enjoying making art for others. I get excited about commissions, and sometimes they’re fun, or I enjoy the outcomes, but often they’re just so stressful. Even as a teacher, I didn’t want to teach art for similar reasons.
Even commercial work that is heavily dictated by a large company, I think it’s not smart for them to be shifting to AI. I’m guessing that if AI engineers are ever forced to be transparent about how their programs are trained (something that I believe should happen and will vote for in an instant) Lawsuits for IP theft a million times over will be the inevitable result. This work is not coming from nothing, and companies touting their AI product as “magic” are being purposefully disingenuous. Plus, if a company can afford to work with a real artist, that has to be the more convenient option, right? Most business types aren’t creative in the same way an artist is. A lot of times when I am working for a client, they don’t really know what they want until I show them at least 10 things. AI needs to be prompted.
Punk rock. Exactly. Hand made art is punk rock. I will absolutely continue to make punk rock art until the day I die.
I'm a freelance graphic designer and illustrator and I have started to see AI creep into the industry. I see a lot more clients who are now specifically asking for "AI artists" for illustration work they need as well as "AI designers" for the logo design they need created for their business.
Many people try to equate this issue to when graphic design and illustration changed to being made on computer. That was merely a change in the tools that where used by designers and illustrators from physical to digital. The AI shift is not like that at all. AI is removing the artists out of art and the designers out of design. My rates are based on my skill, knowledge, years of experience, the time and effort it takes to create the work that I do. With AI, none of that is a factor. Once anyone learns the software, which takes maybe only an hour or so to get the hang of it, the artwork/designs are created in a matter of seconds with just some keyword prompts.
Since it's so easy to do, the flood of people generating AI work in the marketplace will drive rates down significantly. AI may not completely kill the creative industries, we'll have to see what happens. I think AI is going to make it even harder to earn a living as freelancers in industries that are already incredibly difficult to succeed in, and a lot of people are not going to be able to keep their careers going.
I’ve pinned this comment because I think it’s an important perspective.
I’m sorry that shortsighted people are ruining you livelihood.
What I hope will happen is what happened to hip-hop in the 90s. At the beginning of the growth of the genre in the late 70’s and 80’s is that sampling beat and other musical snippets just happened indiscriminately, because people didn’t realize they were supposed to be paying attention to sampling. I head someone recently say that a lot of the hip hop from the beginning of the movement can’t be re-released because it would cost millions per track, with all the royalties that would have to be payed out. That’s what AI really is. Sampling with unpaid royalties.
Any advertising group or client in need of graphic design with any amount of farsightedness should be holding off from using AI for their licensed images. I think they’re writing a blank check to be cashed whenever the right legal team figures out how to prove that AI programs are stealing from human artists. There’s a lawsuit from Getty Images (it might have been settled already but it’s an interesting read) and more will follow.
I think the future of AI needs to be about transparency and fair play. It’s a bit of a Wild West situation right now, but I don’t think that can last forever.
I know that doesn’t make your hardship any less in the present time. I think the courts are where the important decisions will be made. I have hope for a positive outcome. I intend to vote on every AI centric legislation that comes up on ballots in my country. AI generated art taking over our commercial industry is a terrible idea. I will avoid my support of it whenever I can.
My friend in comp sci explained to me very simplified the ai art is just a calculator on steroids but images instead of numbers
I wish it were that simple - because the "numbers" are someone's intellectual property, labor and years of struggle and experience.
It is a neural net, like the human brain. It is not procedural or algorithmic.
@@kit888pretty much every neurologist disagrees with that and MIT published a study debunking that claim and saying that it's dangerous and irresponsible for AI marketers to make claims that neural networks work like the human brain.
Marketing is a huge issue here. I keep hearing so many programs marketed as “magic,” when really it’s a complex algorithm and it’s not being explained really for what it is. It’s really not a replacement for human thought, from what I have seen, but there is a lot of wishful thinking on the part of marketers and a lot of panic on the part of laborers. Cold, calculated thinking isn’t the result of either daydreaming or terror, as that is what we really need now.
I agree with the comments below, it is hard to think of it that way when people’s livelihoods are a big part of that calculation.
I've worked in graphic design and communications in different contexts and having the ability to augment my work with actual hand-made drawings is an incredibly useful skill - even if it's just a tool to sketch out ideas and as a direct conduit to the very creative ideas I have floating around in my actual brain.
It's that "wouldn't it be cool if it looked like this - let me show you!" and then drawing that *exact* thing kind of skill which is really a kind of magic that we as humans can do that I'm not sure the current technology allows ( though the whole brain interface thingamabob is definitely a thing...).
I'm sure AI will be able to produce most kinds of high quality images but there's something about a simple line drawing - especially excellent drawings like yours - where the simplest of lines can have subtle details and touches that add enormous depth and meaning in the form of humor or commentary or whatever.
And while I can draw perfectly adequately with an iPad and an Apple Pencil, there's something about putting ink on paper that frees the creative juices in a way that modern tools don't.
And when I'm not drawing I'm apparently watching videos of other people draw and also buying the pens they recommend...Thanks!!
I agree completely, and even want to go a step further. I think drawing in some capacity (not necessarily “good” drawing) is a necessary skill that should be taught to all students in school. At least the ability to understand how to represent an idea graphically, and describe an objects relationship to its environment should be something that everyone can do.
If I, a mostly visual person, had to learn algebra (and benefited from that learning, I reluctantly admit) then the math kids should have to learn spatial/descriptive/visual skills. I think that leads to a more wholistic understanding of the world, which would be a benefit to society.
Thanks for the video, i completely agree. Love the drawing also🤩🔥
Thanks!
AI has several ways of generating images:
creation from text.
creation from a sketch.
creation using inpainting methods, which embed images into existing images.
creation reacting to the author's strokes.
This last step is hardly shown practically by anyone, as this method precisely conveys human ideas. AI reacts to colors, line angles, etc., without any guesswork.
The biggest plus is that it can generate any style, which encourages the authors themselves to seek creativity
I have a coworker who has been playing around with AI art, and now she’s got a sketchbook and some nice pens. Maybe AI will actually end up creating more human artists after all.
I completely agree about human connections. I believe they will be more valuable as we go forward. However, it may take awhile for some people to realize how important the human connection is.
Yes. And the only thing that I am concerned about is whether or not people will realize that in time to preserve some semblance of the art community that we have now.
Not entirely sure what your question for an expert was.
I'm convinced a bit more each day that I'm fibbing when I say I'm an expert.
I'll attempt to answer a question that might be close enough:
'Can AI do anything but recreate bits and bobs of the input?'
If the representations of 'feature space' are disentangled, than we can reasonably expect our model to generate new things.
If on the other hand, the representations are entangled, we could call that model 'overfit'.
In my observation, for a model like Stable Diffusion, it is not enough to say the overall-model is overfit - there is a non-uniformity in the quality of the outputs.
For a image like the 'Mona Lisa', there is a strong tendency of mode-collapse (overfitting in the gen-domain) toward that image. it's as if the Monalisa was a large planet or moon, and the trajectory of the denoising process gets pulled toward that gravity - presumably due to many instances of a Monalisa in the training data.
I appreciate this comment, though I can’t with any integrity claim that I understood more than half of it. Haha.
I guess the question is more along the lines of style, more than original content. Though to be fair, I think only one artist in a thousand actually creates things from a truly unique sense of style. I have a friend, for example, that is a huge fan of James Jean (for good reason, he’s awesome), but for quite a few years, whenever I looked at his work, it just looked like James Jean had drawn it. To be clear, my friend wasn’t copying James Jean’s art, he was making art that he thought looked good, but what he was doing just looked so much like the style of another artist, that it might as well have been from that artist. I don’t know if I’m right about this, but I feel like if the commercial art industry goes from being influenced by AI to being fully driven by it, innovation in creativity/style will get caught in loops like this. All for lack of that one in a thousand artist.
So then, that makes me wonder if the human experience that I have making the art has enough to do with the value of that art for the viewer/consumer to keep human-driven art (and by a broader stroke, Human-driven labor) in the front of industry, with AI operating in a more assistive role. That’s my hope, and it’s there that I think AI serves humanity best.
@@stepheninks Yeah, I don't know either way.
Industry definitely prefers less expensive options, such as 3D over 2D animation... but I think many of us prefer the 2d animation.
My current bet, is that humans will find AI more and more chilling as it rises to greater heights.
How we give evidence to our most human qualities is maybe a question worth exploring.
I've never understood why photography didn't kill realistic art.
I also don't understand why I can't get myself to be interested in making digi-art, esp. since I like to make long, straight lines. What's your favorite vector drawing app?
I like Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo, because they’re cheap, and have a lot of options for output files. In my opinion, they’re the best non-subscription competitor with Adobe’s products. Adobe is pretty much the industry standard, but their subscription service feels like paying a creativity tax.
Yeah, photography changed illustrations for sure, but I have a feeling humans will always come back to it, no matter what. I think there’s an inherent fascination with that creative process. Almost like playing god.
Personally, for me even with digital work, it always starts with paper. That’s just what I like.
I’ve seen evidence for both cases. One Disneys Marvel Secret Wars has all the visuals created by AI for the intro. Thereby replacing jobs there. On the other hand it assisted artists for their backgrounds in Netflix shows, and they’d work over the generation.
I see that as well, and I definitely don’t want to seem as though I don’t have any concerns. I definitely do. I think that some things will shift, and some things will adapt. Definitely some jobs will disappear, but art will remain, and even if the worst decisions are made, and AI absolutely wrecks the commercial art industry, what is left will not be worth looking at. People will come back to art made by people. My point is that that is the purpose of art; human connection. Art devoid of purpose is dead on arrival.
@@stepheninks I completely agree! 👍
AI is sterile and bland, devoid of any emotion! Even AI narrated videos are hard listen to and sit through.
Yeah, it’s that lack of humanity. I feel like when I see someone’s art, may favorite thing about it is how it surprise me, or even challenges me. There are things that are upsetting, and imperfect. That’s what makes it fun for me. Discovering another human through how their art represents the world.