The SamDoesArts Ai Situation. The art generators VS copyright war
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 июл 2024
- What is Ai art and how does it work? • What is 'Ai generated ...
Watch my video where I fought Midjourney! • Artist VS AI: Can AI D...
Watch me fight DALL-E 2 • Artist VS DALLE: Can A...
Popular instagram and youtube artist SamDoesArt is being 'replaced' by a robot, and the people making this model using his work don’t even see a problem with it. Is it a problem to use new Ai technology to try and replicate a particular artist's style?
Sam Yang rose to fame for his painterly anime style drawings and he’s amassed 2 million followers on instagram, and almost 1 million followers on RUclips.The drama begins two days ago, when Sam became aware that someone on reddit was feeding his artworks into their stable diffusion model to use as training data. They were trying to create a model that could replicate his iconic art style without his consent. Understandably, Sam was hurt by this.
Imagine spending years of your life studying art out of genuine passion from the ground up. Slowly learning how to draw anatomy, how to paint, how to utilize colour theory, and spending hours and hours on these pieces. You cultivate a unique style of artwork that becomes associated with your own brand. You even offer up tips to help other young artists build their skills based on what you spent years learning. And then, someone, without even considering asking you, uses the fruits of your labor to create an Ai which basically replaces you and does what you do in seconds. Yeah, I’d be kinda pissed too.
Unfortunately, instead of reaching out to this user on reddit, Sam decided to take to his instagram stories and broadcast the situation to his 2 million followers along with the person’s username. This, unsurprisingly, led to so much harassment that the user deleted both their reddit and twitter as well as the model. Not the best way to handle the situation. Of course, Sam didn’t directly instruct his followers to harass this individual, but… it’s just one of those “with great follower count comes great responsibility” situations.
Ironically, this situation actually sparked several others to begin working on their own Samdoesarts knockoff models with the intention of posting them out of spite.
Reddit users argued that you cannot copyright and own any art style, and that many people have similar styles to Samdoesarts or replicate and heavily reference his art anyway. But that’s not considered a problem because they painted the pieces themselves. Why does the method of creation matter? At the end of the day, both are emulating his style.
Sam and others have a different opinion. Sam feels that an artist’s style is a very personal thing which reflects their unique identity and lifeexperiencee, and that automating artists styles without their permission crosses a moral boundary.
And I would have to agree with him here when it comes to the issue of consent, and the issue of your name and brand becoming attached to images you didn’t create - especially that may be potentially controversial.
This video also discusses the similar situation which happened to artists Kim Jung Gi and Hollie Mengert.
00:00 - Intro
00:30 - The Sam Does Arts Ai Drama
02:24 - The Backlash
3:52 - The Kim Jung Gi Ai
04:18- The Hollie Mengert Ai Situation
05:10 - Do Ai artists respect the artists they reference?
What do you think? Do you think implementing new copyright laws could prevent the companies behind these Ai technologies from using artists' copyrighted work as training data for their models? Or do you think that it's impossible to stop what's already begun?
Also, stay tuned for a video where I discuss how artists could possibly use this Ai technology in order to enhance their workflow and push their artwork further.
ᴛʜᴀɴᴋ ʏᴏᴜ ғᴏʀ ᴡᴀᴛᴄʜɪɴɢ :-)
●▬▬▬▬๑۩۩๑▬▬▬▬▬●
ғɪɴᴅ ᴍᴇ ᴏɴ...
◙ Instagram: lola.hollid...
♪ TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@lola.holliday...
♪ Ai TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@lola.hollid.a...
⛾ Redbubble Shop: www.redbubble.com/people/Lola...
✍ More Links: linktr.ee/lolaholliday
Donate to charity every time you open a new tab for FREE: tab.gladly.io/?u=Bethenna
My outro music is 'Great Days' by the amazing Joakim Karud!
• Great Days by Joakim K...
●▬▬▬▬๑۩۩๑▬▬▬▬▬●
MY EQUIPMENT:
My microphone: amzn.to/3Ohj1eg
IPad: amzn.to/3QBvWJF
Apple Pencil: amzn.to/3ybhPn4
The argument that "he has over 2M followers, he won't be affected" is so disgusting imo. And honestly, I do not agree with cancel culture, I don't agree with batching someone until they are forced out of the internet, but as someone who has reached out to an artist in friendly ways to address some issues and someone who has been shoved and blocked, and they other part just keep their shameless behavior, I have to say most of the time reaching out doesn't work. People is problematic and entitled. So I don't blame him for ranting.
I agree that I don't think any artist with any amount of followers is necessarily "safe". We'll just have to see how this all plays out as this technology is still just in it's infancy.
I also don't blame him for ranting about it. Blurring out the name would've been ideal though as someone who doesn't have so many followers won't be so used to receiving so much hate suddenly.
You're right they might have just blocked and ignored him (and I've had that happen to me with people reposting my art) I think it's just a difficult situation to navigate a sitatuion like this when you have that much influence. Either way people would have probably googled the thread and harassed the creator, it's just an iffy situation for Sam and I do empathise with that
I don’t have any sympathy for them 🤭 if they wanna act entitled as if they made the artworks themselves, then they should also grow a fcking pair of balls when others criticize them. They’re basically playing victim once ppl retaliate in any way. Perfect example of gaslighting, trying to make us artists seem crazy for being upset that our work is being fed to a machine without our consent. I hope their lives are miserable from the cyberbullying because they obviously don’t have a brain to comprehend an another perspective outside their own damn selfish wants
Yeah, Sam did the right thing by putting that person on blast and shaming them off the internet, and I hope every real artist does the same thing. These situations need to be nipped in the bud before it becomes more and more socially acceptable. Putting your hard work out into the world only for someone else who didn't earn those same skills receive praise, attention, money etc. is infuriating.
Personally, I think Sam knew exactly what he was doing. He knew good and well that his followers would go after that person, which is why he put that person on blast in the first place and made sure to include their username so his followers could track them down as quickly as possible.
@@nonyabusiness3619 Exactly, the person themself said they would do it either way with or without permission. Much better to shame than to enable them. I encourage all artists to put them on blast idgaf, they have all the right to be angry. This is literally exploiting people without properly paying, they are gonna ruin another industry just because its more efficient to them. Sam def knew what he was doing, he’s not dumb. Props to him, using his influence to back up the rest of the art community bc currently it feels like we have no real defense 💗
@@lolaholliday how is he not owning his art it’s his drawing / painting he paints the characters and posting it on media platforms and that’s sort of thing it doesn’t make sense why he or other artist don’t own their artwork?
It's annoying how some are bluntly saying, "An AI won't hurt him since he has 2 million followers." And to me, that's very weird and frustrating. Imagine working on an art piece for more than 2 hours and someone makes an AI out of your style - or using your name - without permission. AND, there's people on their side saying, "It's not a big deal." Art takes time, effort, and hardwork. AIs are basically insulting those who put in that time, effort, and hardwork. Or, well, that's how I see it.
EXACTLY
I agree that I don't think any artist with any amount of followers is necessarily "safe" from losing income due to Ai in the future. We'll just have to see how this all plays out as this technology is still just in it's infancy.
@@lolaholliday I agree but I do think it's more on the followers. I would still put the person tweet and stuff up but I would cover their name just to avoid backlash but it's not sam's fault
Ironically I think bigger artists are at more risk because thats more people targeting them at once
Honestly, I agree that AI art is an insult who put effort into their pieces
But amplify that insult to a 100x because that's how I feel with AI art
At this point, I'm just thinking "What am I drawing art for, if AI is already doing it better than I am" It's incredibly frustrating and disheartening tbh
I wish we could go back to the days of people just accusing each other of tracing art and "stealing color palettes ", etc. it was annoying but i'd take that over this AI crap any day.
Ikr I want the old drama
If there was no Sam, the AI could never learn his style. To take COPYRIGHTED artworks to feed to AI and then say that can replace Sam is literally spitting on the sole person that made that possible to you.
@@sdrawkcabmiay you wouldn't be able to copy his exact style , eventually tou might come close to his style but you'll probably lose interest in becoming a literal copy of someone and your art style will change into some else entirely.
@@sdrawkcabmiay I feel like when a real artist copies another artist art style it feels like a fanart, but when a ai does, it feels like tracing, fanarts are a way to show appreciation for something that you like by putting effort in a artwork, when you copy an art style you have to study it and put effort to replicate it, the original artist can see this a similar way as a fanart, "someone put effort into making an art for me" it kinda validates that your art is so good, that other artists take it as an example, with ai artists doesn't have this, just like when a person traces over your art, posts it and says it was them who made it, an ai artist that without any effort just puts your name on the prompt, and has a copy of your art style, its kinda frustrating.
@@sdrawkcabmiay Its the same thing
@@sdrawkcabmiay Then theoretically that would be fine as it's your own work and you're feeding it to your own ai. Realistically that's very improbable, as your own skills would grow so would your tastes in how things are drawn or colored. In that case you could, of course, still use your own work in your own AI.
@@sdrawkcabmiay Without his art existing you wouldnt be able to replicate it accurately if at all
The AI is not "learning" it's a simplification made by humans, Ai is a mechanism and it constructs using the source material. No sourse material - no construction. Ai can't add anything new. And using someone elses work as a source material is like taking parts of the mechanism that doesn't belong to you, attach it to your mechanism and then claim it your own. This should be illegal. Ai must be highly regulated by law. Period.
This shouldn’t even require any “new” laws - using source material without permission is copyright infringement. Whether it’s to sell prints or feed to an AI doesn’t matter.
@Orange ai literally takes the images themselves and puts them in the database. Humans don't work the same way as machines
@Orange the difference is humans can learn to mix different influences into something new that looks nothing like what you were inspired by. it does take a while but it is something unique to us. atm AI can't do that but maybe in the future it will, until then maybe we do need to put something into our international copyright laws on regards to how to avoid having AI art used as plagiarism. we already do for literacy and musical works, I don't see why illustrations & designs can't have the same plagiarism rules applied.
Y'all are incredibly misinformed on how AI works and it shows. The AI models are less than 2gb in size and do not contain any images. They physically *cannot* copy your works, due to size constraints. There's simply no way to fit millions of images into 2gb. AI does not, at any point, *copy and paste* works of art. If you look at a work generated from an AI, you will not be able to find any part of it in any other picture. Because it is indeed 100% new. It *can* create new works entirely unseen before, by combining concepts, art styles, etc. In fact, I've done just this. I've trained an AI model on photos of myself, and then used the AI to draw a picture of me in van gogh's style. This van gogh style self portrait is not something I had before using the AI, nor will you find a van gogh portrait of me anywhere online. It is 100% new. It could not have copied the photos of me, since the resulting image is not photorealistic like the provided photos. It could not have copied anything online, because there are no drawn images of me online. So what exactly is the AI copying here, if you think that's what it does? Instead, what has happened is that the AI learned what van gogh paintings look like, and what I look like, and then created an image that satisfied both criteria. The resulting image is 100% new. Yes, existing images were used to teach the AI what van gogh paintings look like, and what I look like, but that's how *everyone* learns what things look like. Do all artists copy then, because the only way they can acquire info about the appearance of something is by looking at it?
@@meikahidenori Stable Diffusion can mix things together, it's advanced exponentially in the past months, new papers on arXiv come out everyday that double it's performance
As a young artist, I spend copious amounts of effort and time trying to perfect my art. I’ve watched countless amounts of videos done many pieces and trashed many pieces, yet my art still isn’t perfect. I learn by studying and watching videos of artists that inspire me such as SamDoesArts. Knowing that all that work and research can all be erased and done in seconds by AI is very unsettling for me. Whilst I’m not completely against AI, I believe it should not be allowed for someone to take someone’s love and joy for art and put it into a machine just to sell it and make money off someone else’s art.
so true OP!! speaking facts frfr
@Mel Says It doesn’t matter. AI CAN learn it faster but it doesn’t mean people should use it as a toxic way to get around copyright
Not that the whole selling issue applies in this particular scenario - but the idea of people selling purely Ai generated artworks just feels a bit weird to me
@Mel Says Sam does art have copyrighted art pieces. Since AI is legal to the public they can basically straight up copy art pieces and won't be able to get charged since "technically they didn't steal anything"
@Mel Says I don't understand what's point of automating art?
Art is supposed to be gratifying and a skill that's achieved from hard work.
Even if Ai can create something in seconds.
It would only give you a few seconds of gratification.
After that you realise how meaningless it is.
Why are you so eager for it to happen?
Have you ever tried to do anything In your life that makes you want to push yourself?
Every day waking up and thinking how you can improve yourself.
The joy that you feel after accomplishing something that you worked hard for can't be compared to the instant gratification an Ai can give you.
3:19 I feel like if Sam went in private dms to ask the user to stop, it would’ve done nothing.
So many artists got their art stolen, copied etc. and when they went to ask nicely to the thief to stop, the thief just doesn’t give a damn a keeps stealing. At least this time, a thief was finally stopped
EXACTLY. seeing how that person spoke about sam and other artists, there’s no chance they would’ve stopped and politely taken their work down. they felt entitled to sam’s work, and genuinely believed what they created was their sole creation. these ppl are delusional.
THIS he did nothing wrong. i would've done so much worse
@@jeoseung9575 literally, pple are making that a problem as if someone literally didn’t make an ai out of his art
How exactly was the 'thief' stopped?
Now people have trained far improved versions of the model, that now perfectly replicates Sam's style.
He antagonised a huge community of people who can train models, it only takes a few days of work, what do you think will happen?
@@pmmm712011 "he antagonized a huge community of people" my brother in christ the AI art community inherently has fascist roots, theyve already done plenty of antagonizing to
themselves just by existing and doing what they do
The more I learn about AI art community, more I hate them. Talking shit and attacking artists that are literally fueling your AI work is like attacking a chef at a restaurant while expecting him to still make food that you can steal
You crybabies screaming at clouds about AI 'stealing' art are no better. You are fueled by nothing, but hate. What can your art tell the world wish such fuel?
@@kozlorog Hate? Its justice you wise ass prick. Yall mfers are relishing in this shit cause you have no skin in this at all. Artists are least fighting an AI wave that yall will be crying about in the future after it takes even more then just art.
I'd love it if an AI could allow people of all backgrounds to enjoy the same food no matter what classiness is attached to the dish
Please stop calling a bounch of thieves "art" community.
They don't call themselves artists so please don't treat them as they are...most of them will bash artists and their work...They are a bunch of geeks playing with a software. Period.
I agree with Sam because artist work really hard to Improve their art they have to spend a large amount of time and effort on their art works and if people just make Ai models it will be really disrespectful especially without consent
If the Ai artist just ask it wouldn't be bad. I would be better to feed your own art style than someone else work.
@@Alona86 that's why they don't ask. they know that the answer will be "no". so they're sneaky. and no matter what they say, it only proves that deep down they all know that they're simply thieves and wannabes.
Progress is often a double-edged sword and I don't think there's a truer example than this. AI users shouldn't have to cite every source they use but the issue with this is that they are exclusively taking Sam's art.
@@Alona86 That's the thing, many ai artist do not want to learn the study of art itself because the ai does it for them, they don't have any skills in the craft to produce enough pieces to train the ai by themselves so they take a shortcut and steal a lifetimes worth of art from a stranger online. There is no respect, no creativity, no struggles that turn into growth. Yet they share this empty art looking for undeserved validation.
@@Alona86 as well as the devs/corporations behind these ai generators, like don’t get me wrong, prompt artists should be making their art more ethically like NOT using an artists name, but these companies should train their models to focus on hand work and technique instead of strait up names of artists, sure it’d be magnitudes more difficult but it would yield much more creativity in the space and be immensely more ethical
Note: prompt artist as in the kind of ai artists that only uses a prompt, as opposed to someone who paints over ai work or uses ai to paint over their own work
That one comment about Sam being a d*ck and his community attacking the user, then go on to say he has zero respect and artistic integrity is what takes the goddamn cake. Like where was the respect and integrity the user have for artists? Artists don't get along with these AI art bros is clearly from the lack of respect they have for art and artists, never asking for permission or give any credit. Turning the issue around towards artists when they get called out.
That.... comment was addressed to the creator of the AI, not Sam
@@lovelyletterl8515 nah, you have no friends
Creating a ML embedding is not illegal, showing a name to 2 million people, fully knowing they will go at them, even if only 1% do it, to harass someone and send them death threats actually is.
Tbh I think he has no obligation to blur the username. The guy was online acting all high and mighty saying he’s not going out of his way to ask permission. No one told those people to go attack him. I saw the stories too and all I did was like them like a normal person would and sympathized with his situation. Even if he blurred the username his fans could easily find the user.
I think if you act like an idiot online, somebody should be able to call you out despite follower count ESPECIALLY IF YOU STEAL FROM THEM. Like, sorry, but if you went into the trouble of stealing someone else's hardwork, I have very little sympathy once you have to handle the consequences. And even if SamDoesArt didn't fuel the fire, they were bound to get a lot of hate because spoiler alert: AI art is getting a real bad rap. He did nothing wrong.
fr like, you put your words into a public space and platform and expect people to keep it private? Do they not understand the implications of the internet? It's a free public space.
I honestly agree. I'm sorry for being distespectful for the "I do not condone this behavior" type of creators. Those people that shits on them deserves whatever harrassment they get online. I cant believe we even have to go that far for the pieces of shit thieves to stop, and it always works sadly.
Yeah. It's the fuck around and find out energy.
I wanna insert the *fck around and find out* graph
honestly i think he was well within his right to speak out about it. if you’re stealing someones art to make an ai algorithm it’s still theft. the person who made the ai deserved the backlash imo. the problem isn’t specifically the style, it’s the fact that they used his artwork without his consent to create the ai model.
Yeah, that’s what I think too
And the hosting site where the Images were ripped from.
what about artists who use models as reference without consent?
@@angelinachue2410 that's so different lmaooooo
@@roxxi3089 how?
I feel literal pain through this. Physical pain, in fact. This is such a big issue becasue what if they replicate the style exactly and then sell it for money, when they didn’t even make the art?
Not that selling is involved in this particular case - but people selling artworks purely generated by Ai just feels so ... iffy to me?
@@lolaholliday I remember having a discussion/argument with a "fellow artist" somewhere, but essentially they argued that AI art should be sold because it happens all the time in life and "you wouldn't credit the farmer that planted the ingredients when you're buying cereal, would you?"
Yeah, they literally just compared artists to a farmer...it's a really bad analogy too because cereal is mass produced and food/crops aren't of the same unique value and don't even have unique traits to them (besides maybe different colored corn but i digress)
They have also argued that commissions are too expensive for no reason (tbh if they really were an artist who does commissions they'd know prices are majorly based on the time and effort the artist takes to make the art) and have a very "quantity over quality" mentality and view art as nothing more than a business venture
@@lolaholliday Selling stuff for sure counts as stealing art though. As long as they're just using to have fun I don't see any problem with it. People trace art all the time is basically the same thing but a little bit shittier (both morally and artistically). Plus as someone who really appreciates arts and study it, you can clearly see the lack of brushwork quality in all Ai works. it's just not comparable to the real stuff. But of course Sam art is pretty simplistic so I get why he would be a little bit alarmed. Although some pieces he copies the style of WLOP are pretty awesome and those are hard to replicate, I tried multiple times running WLOP's stuff in midjourney the results are never close to anything he makes. Also you have to give some credit to these people who at least are telling everyone what they're doing. If someone just wants to create a Model and earn money locally, they could. And I know a few people who already do that and make upwards of 3k per month working with singers and companies who want art locally.
@@lolaholliday yea it’s so wrong, because they didn’t even make it. I could totally see how people would exploit ai artists to make a bank out of it. I hop that being an artist isn’t going to be one of those jobs that robots or ai take over completely in the future.
@@maysundays1578 "commissions are too expensive for no reason" - I recently paid to have my LG refrigerator fixed - for the second time in 3 years. (it was even the same part that broke) - both times, the repairman was done in 45 minutes, and it was $525. It's literally a part that's held in by 3 screws.
I didn't pay the Refrigerator guy $700/hour for the 45 minutes he was at my house - I paid him $700/hour for the 15 years he's spent working in the field so he CAN do it in 45 minutes. It would have taken me 2-3 days to *maybe* get it right. You don't wanna pay the refrigerator guy $525? Fine. do it yourself. Then call him anyway when it turns out to be a LOT harder then you thought!
That's the Commission Argument - If you don't want to pay $X for a commission...then don't. It's that simple. Why the community brooks any argument to the contrary is beyond me. The price is the price, and if you don't like it...well, really any halfway decent artist (or really ANY sole proprietor of a business, really) should have a waiting list of people who ARE willing to pay the listed price.
Remember guys the reason there aren’t almost any music ai is cause the industry lawyered up and made it impossible for them to even try and step foot into it. As Artist we need to take there example and fight back similarly
Music will eventually be automated, it will just take longer.
ive seen music ai though? a lot especially on TikTok where theres millions of views
There is AI music on my cutting programm wondershare filmora
well AI for music already happen at least for more than 5 years.
The most obvious reason why those not as popular as AI image generators because in music ,their fans invested and connected with people whose doing that art (music) .
Something which comparable with Real Fine art in visual worlds. Not something you produce with any programs which have CTRL Z fearures
There exists AI music see Open AI Jukebox. But to generate good music is (for a AI) much more difficult than to create "art". This has nothing to do with commercial interests. AI music will most likely also be almost as good as real music but it might take many years.
The problem is not with the techology, it's always the people. That is why I can't wait for AI "art" to share the same fate with Ntf's. I don't have any sympathy for these thieves.
As far as I know, NFTs are still very much well and alive (although not as popular in the public consciousness as before). It's mostly adopted by big companies such as Hasbro to release limited-run digital collectibles for fans that are into that kind of stuff. I'm pretty sure other blockchain techs are being used for back-end stuff that lots of regular folks aren't even aware of.
And as such, I don't think AI image generators will completely disappear, since there are scenarios where they'll be of immense use. They'll be regulated to hell and back, but that'll only make them better, I think.
@@HandleToBeDetermined NFT has went into the back burner of the internet. Same with AI ary it will fall in its own niche.
i only feel bad for those that are ignorants about how this affect artists and barely know the IA
Yeah, probably the same people. Just a bunch of grifters, opportunists trying to make quick cash the same way they do with their fancy ponzi scheme. Then cry when artists started to stand up for themselves.
I find AI art fascinating, it's just a absolutely shame the people behind them, and those who often use them are so shitty.
in an artists perspective I don't feel amazed when i see an artwork that i know an AI made. id rather see artwork made with so much time and effort and love put into it
AI art is very easy to spot their is always something robot/out of place/ eerie etc. about it. I wish people would stop posting it I want to see peoples ideas and skill.
I only see non-artists claiming it's "not a big deal" because they don't understand or don't care about the amount blood sweat and tears someone can poor into a single piece! Let alone the copious amounts of time and effort one artist can spend working on their craft! It's honestly disgusting
Just because you put a lot of work into something doesnt mean its immoral for a machine to do it easier and for cheaper.
If you think that, you're likely a hypocrite who benefits off the labors of technology making things far easier rather than buying products from only traditional craftsmen who put a ton of blood sweat and tears into their works.
You buy clothing that was mass produced from machines. Yet it takes a LOT of effort to create fabric and clothing by hand. Do you think its wrong for machines to produce clothing for far easier and cheaper then?
You buy mass produced furniture instead of purely hand crafted stuff despite that hand crafted stuff being incredibly difficult to make. Does that mean mass produced furniture shouldnt exist?
You eat food that was produced on assembly lines where a single person produced the work that would have taken thousands to do by hand without machines. Plenty of people still grow food with nothing but simple tools and their bare hands. Does this mean eating mass produced food is wrong?
Just because something takes a lot of effort doesnt mean that technology that makes it easier to do shouldnt exist. That technology can help tons of people and make life better for a lot of people. You engage in that very same technology every day rather than resorting to enjoying the hard worked efforts of hand crafted or grown products.
And its not like that mass produced stuff COMPLETELY got rid of people making stuff by hand. Just like AI art wont make human artist obsolete. It may lessen the demand for human art as its far easier and simpler to use AI art, but that demand wont go away completely just like the demand for hand crafted stuff isnt completely gone.
But its hypocritical to act like art is somehow different than every other industry that has been automated or improved with technology that you consume daily even though it removed jobs that people who put a lot of hard work and effort into. When technology made these advancements, tons of people lost their jobs in the past as there simply wasnt much demand for their hand made products anymore.
The argument that its immoral because some people work really really hard to make good art just simply isnt a good argument as to why this technology shouldnt exist. We dont apply that argument to everything else in our lives, so why would art be any different?
@@eragon78 what's better? An unemployed person or an employed person.
Working/employed person = more buying/selling activities = working economy = contribute to society and humanity progress.
Unemployed/not working person = less buying activity = slow/sluggish economy = less contribution to society and humanity progress.
AI art would only create monopoly of making arts from a single corporations while demotivating artists from creating arts, essentially driving them off from jobs and encouraging them not to contribute to the society.
I think with how things are looking right now. It's not worth to pursue to "contribute" to humanity progress. People really should start thinking about their health and just stop taking part in this world, it's not worth it. A race to the bottom. The lying down culture and quiet quitting culture is a really good thing to practice.
@@banned0404 Except AI art programs are being created by many different sources including small developers.
Its not something that can BE monopolized really.
On top of that, cheap affordable art will spur on other creators in other fields. Small time game developers will have access to cheaper affordable art to make better games with. Story writers will have access to cheap art to add to their novels or books or whatever else theyre making. Movie creators will have access to cheap art they can use for any number of ideas or screenshots they wish to make in a movie.
These things will all get a boost from cheap art.
On top of that, anybody who wants just some generic art piece for whatever reason can get it for for cents rather than hundreds of dollars for a high quality piece and potentially getting scammed by the buttload of scammers who parade as art commissioners.
Will that hurt the income of some artist? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Sure, but I think the benefits outweigh the negatives.
Also, the main issue here lies in the fact we live in a capitalistic society to begin with. A machine that creates art using only a simple prompt is an amazing invention. Its ONLY perceived as bad because it hurts the income of people who work hard because this world is so insanely obsessed with money. All these people are artist for monetary gain is the issue. And I get it, people want to be compensated fairly for their hard work. But thats still why theyre doing it at the end of the day.
Its not that they just enjoy art as a hobby, its their job. They made it about money. And I dont blame them, do what you love and youll never work a day in your life. But the issue is you cant get by in society unless you produce some product that has economic value whether that be an actual product or your labor.
Eventually this issue will go away once Automation is able to automate all human labor. But unfortunately thats still quite a ways off so in the mean time we exist in that awkward period where lots of professions are going to be struggling with getting outplaced by Automation. Its going to happen to EVERY industry eventually, and already is to many. Medicine, Science, Labor, Art, Music, etc. None of those businesses are safe and all of them already have varying forms of automation and AI in their fields. Hell, even the programmers who are creating the AI are literally designing AIs to take over their very own jobs. There are AIs out there which can design simple programs already, or handle the jobs that many programmers used to be needed for. Its effecting every field.
But this is actually potentially one of the greatest things to happen to humanity, the issue is just getting there will be painful due to how society is poorly structured for such a change.
There are good solutions to easy into such a transfer, but due to corruption those good solutions probably wont ever be used.
But anyways, my point is that AI isnt the issue here. AI is an amazing advancement that is going to help a lot of people, even these Art AIs. The issue is society as a whole and the fact we're built on a society of greed rather than one who's primary focus is the prosperity of the citizens within it.
@@eragon78 as an artist myself, that’s a valid point. i think the main concern of artists imo is that creating art themselves will lose its value, originality and meaning when AI took over. Art is usually use as a form of self-expression, being unique and original, and the fact AI can replicate and copy anyone’s work is like stealing someone’s ideas/work that the artists themselves work so much for.
It’s like writing your original best-selling book only for someone to copy em, making your ideas less interesting. Originality and self-expression are really important when it comes to our work, but yeah, it ill make things easier but it’ll hurt artists definitely.
I think the flaw of making art automated is the value of originality and pure creativity will now be lacking since AI will always and always rely on other people’s art work to create art. Without artists, AI cant make new types of artworks.
@@eragon78 🤡🤡
I agree with Sam. I'm not against of AI's but is pretty necessary and strong regulation soon because the problem is the people behavior towards the artists that effort in their work.
People allways will be the problem, not the developments.
You're right. The technology is really cool but the way some people are using it sucks :( It's kind of crazy how entitled some people feel towards using other's copyrighted works without their consent.
I wish I could say I thought bringing in new regulation would help, but I think people will do this regardless as it'd be impossble to police everyone. It's not right but it's the way it is
They are kind of dumbasses tbh..
Cause, If there are no artists or photographers = no AI art
I'm against adding more and more regulations to satisfy people's egos. Haven't we seen enough patent wars? How terrible effects on progress they have? I'm all into freedom of the speach and expression and the free market. Let the best wins: AI vs human.
@@lolaholliday the problem tho, is that taking without permission someone else's work and trying to replace the people who got the artwork stole replace, is a dick move. Like sometimes regulation exist for good reasons, because if they didn't exist we would have serious moral and economic problems
@@lolaholliday “Learn to have configuration to separate the art from the artists”.
Regardless of whether or not it's wrong to replicate another artist's style, it is wrong (both morally and legally) to use someone else's work for your own gain. I've worked for years with AI models in medicine. And one of the biggest hurdles with making them work properly is collecting data that has consent from each and every patient involved. Which is the way it should be. Those patients own the data collected on them, and the artists involved in these scandals own the rights to their art. Even if they are available to easily download from instagram or similar sites, people cannot use them as they see fit. This situation does require a strong and unified response from the art community in order to force clear legislation, or else companies and people without moral are going to take advantage and create precedence for stealing intellectual property.
Sanest opinion I've heard about the ai art situation.
Part of the issue is a lot of this art is publicly viewable.
This applies to other fields too. If you use a public database for example to train AI, thats perfectly legal. You dont have to ask permission to use public data, because its publicly available.
The same goes for art. the artist has copyright protections on their art, but viewing the art is not by any means a violation of that copyright. And as the art is publicly viewable, you're allowed to view it without permission from the artist.
This means it can be used as data.
As long as the AI isnt copying the data or anything like that, it doenst violate any copyright protections. Its merely viewing the image just like anything else does. Your very computer does the exact same thing when its viewing a web browser.
Then that image is used as data to test AI, but again, its not being copied at all, so its not being stolen.
The issue is its not illegal to view publicly available art. It doesnt violate copyright to use it as data which means permission isnt required.
And you cant really change this either, because if you tried to make it the law that permission WAS required, you would have to require humans to ask permission to view it as well every single time.
Or any human using publicly available art as a reference for example, would also be in violation of copyright if you tried to make it illegal for AI.
The issue is you simply cant have it both ways. If a human can use publicly available art as a reference without violating copyright, then an AI can as well.
@@eragon78 how hard is to understand viewing =/= stealing. You can listen to Taylor Swift's album for free on RUclips, doesn't mean you downloading it and then remixing some parts and then claiming it's entirely yours is LEGAL OR MORALLY CORRECT. How hard it is to grasp it.
@@alaskabane5340 Its not, the issue is I am arguing that all the AI is doing is simply viewing it as well.
In fact, depending on how you program your training algorithm, the AI never has to download a piece of art ever. It simply has to view it to get all the information it needs.
It works in exactly the same way a person views something. You looking at something with your eyes imprints an image of that thing within your brain. An interpretation of it. You can use that interpretation to teach yourself skills. With those skills you can create a new unique piece in the likeness of the original and it would be fully not a violation of copyright.
To demonstrate this further that this is pretty much what the AI is doing, if you were to take the source code for one of these art AIs, you would be unable to find a single copyright art piece in its database. The AI doesnt have access to it, it didnt copy it at all.
I think the issue is people are thinking of AIs too much like theyre machines. Their actual inner workings work much like real human brains do. If a human viewing a piece, remembering that piece, and using that piece to learn and reference is ok, then a computer doing the exact same thing is also ok.
Now most of these programs do just simply download the image. But that isnt necessarily required to get the needed data. The image never has to actually be downloaded, Simply viewing and converting the data of that image into another form does the exact same job with just a few extra lines of code.
Lets put a moral question this way. Lets say someone created an AI that was identical to a human in how its brain worked, but it also retained the insanely fast processing of a computer. So basically a human that could think at super human speeds.
Would that AI viewing a piece of art and then creating many unique pieces of art in that style be stealing? Its literally doing exactly the same functions as a human brain, but at a much faster rate.
These AIs are literally that, just on a much much smaller scale as their complexity is no where near that of a human's brain. But the core method behind how they work actually IS very similar to a brain.
These AI are not simply just copy and pasting art. They are genuinely learning what it means to draw in a certain style, and recreating that style with unique works.
I dont think that can be classified as stealing. Unless its also stealing when a human does it.
@@eragon78 You are correct when you say that publicly available datasets are legal to use for training AI, absolutely. But that doesn't extend to trademarked, copyrighted or other kinds of intellectual property, which you absolutely cannot use in that way. Some people will still do it, simply because the chance of being sued is so low. This is why some art is under the creative commons (CC) license which explicitly allows for people to "share, use and build upon" an existing work.
Comparing training an AI to viewing an image isn't helpful or accurate. Especially when a lot of these AI models are used as commercial products. They were posted with the intent to let people see them, not for people to build products that make money off of the hard work of artists who aren't even credited. If you use art that isn't yours, doesn't have a CC license, and you haven't gotten permission for, in order to make money, then you are performing art copyright infringement. This is regardless of whether or not you are tracing it, or using more intricate methods such as AI training.
Also, these models aren't just 'tested' on art, as you said in one of your paragraphs. The entire AI model is built on stolen art, every single parameter. Saying that it is simply tested on these data imply that there were other data being used to build the AI model itself. Data that was somehow legally acquired. But that is wrong, misleading and disingenuous. The AI wouldn't exist without theft.
You can have it both ways; People can view it, but they can't use it for creating products. This is the way it is done with movies, videogames, and art in museums. Art online isn't different.
Imagine someone who downloaded the entirety of Netflix's database and created an AI model for generating movies. How long do you think it would take for them to get sued, or even jailed?
the creators of AI art has already come out and said artists are tools. and that ai art should replace us artists. when all this was brought up to them. fact is, the people behind ai art don't give a shit about people's style or humanity. or how this ai program is ruining people's lively hoods. all they care is now people can make art for free with a few words. it's a horrible invention and as a community i think we need to organize behind a union and fight for our rights over our content and styles.
One problem is that the art hosting sites like danbooru and even DA is complacent in this not just the Developers.
AI art is just art theft. It's annoying that they think they can replace original artists when it's just stealing.
@@yukiandkanamekuran agreed, it's disgusting. if you want to make an art generator, make it with content you paid for and only that. artist are people and have made art what it is now over centuries, if you cut out the artist eventually your ai generator will run dry because humans can't compete with something that can spew out art in seconds. we need a union to organize and protect our rights.
I AGREE!! WE SHOULD MAKE A MOVEMENT AGAINST IT BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!!
The way they say junk like that is incredibly amusing. They're the ones who steal our art that was made from 649393993 days of procrastination while also constantly suffering from art block and so on; and now they're telling us that, we, the blueprint of their bs will be replaced by their very heavily-reliant-on-artists ai thing. It's just so funny.
This would be very crushing to me if this happened. I am a young artist, and I spend usually hours, days, even weeks on my art pieces, and I put everything I have into them. For me, and to a lot of people, art is the only thing keeping me from slipping to the dark depths of despair, since I get to express myself and what I can do. My art is apart of me, it IS me, and to many people it may look like a couple splashes of paint or ink, but to me, it looks like all of the success and failures I’ve had during my life that came to this. I tripped, I fell, but I got back up again and made my art the best it can be. My art is my life, and for someone to take all of my heart, soul, and hard work and just put it into a generator to pump out pieces that have no life, no character, no signs of me, just seems so hurtful. That’s my life’s work, and you’re just going to take it and rebrand it into something soulless?
I like this. 👌🏻
Okay? Paint as you will, AI won't take your hobby from you. Paid commisions for your labour will diminish, but those commisons would not enable you to create art - only a product, limited with specifications.
If anything, you are more artistically free than ever. Art for the sake of art, not a petty penny or attention seeking.
@@kozlorog Not every artist is a hobbyist. In fact, most of us are working hard trying make it into a career. Also, I believe in capitalism. In the art community, every artist reaps what they sow. People are putting their blood swear and tears into being able to make a career out of their art, and these people that are using AI art to make money are making just as much. I believe that's wrong. I personally don't have much liking for anything AI, for multiple reasons. But that's just my opinion, and I'm not against anyone that uses it. Used right, it can be a tool.
@@industriousartist I suggest you adapt or die, career wise I mean, find a way to use AI to elevate your art instead of fighting it, it's inevitable. You're an artist, probably, and a new tool like AI shouldn't stop you from creating art.
@@lorenzomizushal3980 Nothing could stop me from creating art. AI or not.
Honestly, the AI artists are scum. I see AI programs like this more like photography than like painting. Imagine a photographer taking a picture of the an artists picture and saying they made it. It would be preposterous. So why is this being permitted?
Exactly. This is a way people trying to move around copyright laws
I'm not into AI, but your take on photography is a bit iffy to me. What about photorealists painters who take pictures off somewhere and paint them? Aren't they basically doing the same exact thing you're condemning just the other way around? Who exactly gets to claim ownership then?
@@Riku_nkmr most photorealist painters actually get permission. And if they don't they are just as scummy as ai artists
@@DONTTOUCHTHEGRASSIMALLERGIC of course they do. Since they're fully aware that they're literally copying something someone owns(reminds me of the obama hope photo to traced vexel thing).
My concern is OP lumping photographers specifically with thieves. Besides, if someone photographs an art, that's usually because they made it themselves. Because guess what? Photographers are just as wary of stealing from others as artists are, because they ARE artists themselves.
Tldr: don't lump photography with art thieves is my point.
AI doesn't copy anything. Taking a photo of a piece of art is a copy of that art. Using AI to create art pieces that are similar in style does not copy that art.
It seems to me that the "He has 2M followers, it won't hurt him" argument looks at this as an isolated incident, rather than something that impacts the entire art community. It may or may not affect Sam, but in my point of view, rather than saying "He has 2M followers, it won't impact him", we might see that follower count as an opportunity for him to speak out against something that might more severely impact smaller artists with less reach. Essentially, shit rolls downhill. Better to draw the line before it does.
I feel super bad for Samdoesart right now. As an artist, that saying of AI will replace art breaks my heart. It discourages people to contribute to creative works, of fear AI will replace them.
Those reddit users are absolutely terrible people, no matter what, because they don't understand the beauty of art which are the thought process behind each work an artist makes. And it infuriates me that they say that it won't affect Sam and continues to do it out of spite.
I hope there will be laws in protection of artists, Universally
I find artists who complain about AI to be terrible people, because the oppose technological progress, oppose culture, and oppose a free and open society. While I do think AI will replace humans as the *sole way* of accessing art for most people, I don't think AI will replace human artists entirely. People will still do art by hand due to enjoying the creation of it. What will change is that consumers of art will no longer need human artists to satisfy that need. To oppose this is the equivalent of opposing factories, or opposing computers, because they make things more efficient.
@@Otome_chan311 The creation of factories was a genuinely horrible event that caused mass death and suffering and is one of the sole reason’s climate change is a thing right now.
@@DogsandPennies And yet it's the very reason you're here right now. Surely, if you hate the product of factories, stop using it? Factories resulted in a lot of good, but yes also a lot of harm. All technology does. That's *all progress in general.* It's important to do what's right with the technology, and not abuse it for financial gain.
@Kafke Apologies, but I do not agree with your statement: "I find artists who complain about AI to be terrible people, because they oppose technological progress, oppose culture, and oppose a free and open society."
Firstly, I wish you wouldn't judge other people as terrible simply because they express concern about a *valid* threat to their profession (and at this point, maybe even their identities as artists).
Secondly, though some artists do complain about AI (which still isn't a fast pass for them to be considered terrible), not all are complaints about the mere presence of the AI. Rather, quite a few are about the ways in which it is being misused, another reason why it would be incorrect to generalize, stating that they oppose technology. Because they don't agree with the way data is used to train these AIs without consent or the monetization of the finished products based on someone else's name, brand and what they stand for, doesn't make them terrible people, or people who oppose tech or an open society.
Advocating for regulations or for something to be done about the questionable practices in AI training and use is not cancelling the tech, but allowing it to be used in a way so that everyone can enjoy it and without it infringing on anyone's rights or their work. Rather, they advocate for an open, yet Free and Fair society.
Yes, humanity has made mistakes with previous applications of technology allowing them to be misused, but that doesn't make it right. And it doesn't make it wrong for people to take action or spread the word so that such mistakes won't be repeated.
Thanks for your time.
@@Otome_chan311 L+ Ratio
The issue is, for me, is that if the AI is able to make art that looks nearly identical to Sam's art, it's because it's directly using his art as a source. It's "accidently" recreated something far too close to, and in worst case senarios straight out copies, its source material. There's a term for this, I forget what it is, but it's actually a point of contention with the developers of these kinds of AI. There's a very good reason why music generating AI's don't source from copyrighted material.
I hate this, because it means that future generations of artists will have to adopt the same aggressive copyright mentality that the music industry has had to employ in order to protect their work from being replicated. Even in this scenario, most artists wont have the power behind them to do so and will be left in the dust. There are no mistakes here, there are no honest intentions, the only reason why artists are being ripped off like this is because they know legally they will get away with it.
It sucks that in this new age of technology, artists are the ones who get the short end of the stick. There are so many ways AI can be used to help artists and instead they chose to replace us. I honestly have no love for these art AIs, and the other generating AI that generate creative work. I don't actually think they provide anything to society and instead rob young and upcoming artists of their futures.
The only way you get a result thats exactly similar to someone's style is basically by asking the ai to straight up steal it. For eg. When you ask the ai for Mona Lisa you can't be suprised if the result looks similar to Mona Lisa.
Sure they look similar, but you can't say that the ai is copying his art using the source, it's learning to recreate the images not copy the images. The ai doesn't use photobashing but actually image generation by denoising.
@@piggi2550 your point? Does that remove the fact that the artworks are still used without permissions to train the ai? No.
@@banned0404 It actually kind of does mean that.
The AI isnt actually copying the art. Its referencing it. There is a big difference.
For example, a human viewing multiple pieces of art, and then using them to get a grasp of a certain style, and then once having a grasp of that style using it to create a new unique piece of art IN that style, that is NOT stealing or a violation of copyright.
That is essentially what the AI is doing.
The Art is publicly available to view. There is no copyright that prevents you from viewing a publicly displayed piece of art. This also applies to an AI. As long as the AI isnt strictly copying the artwork, its not stealing it. Using it asb data does not violate that, because the actual AI generation software doesnt have access to the artwork when its creating its art. It was trained using that art, but the neural network it runs on doesnt contain that art at all, and the pieces it creates it does so from the ground up.
This means the piece was never copied, hence it was never stolen.
And if your argument is that cant be used in a database, thats not true either. It can be. Youre allowed to use publicly available data in a database. If the artwork is made to be publicly viewable, then its fair game to be used in databases without permission as that doesnt violate copyright.
Now, the artwork itself cant be copied onto a database without potentially violating copyright, but you could just represent the data of the image in some other form without actually copying it but it achieves the exact same effect.
So the issue is the AI isnt stealing the artwork, its just viewing it and storing it as data which it uses to train, and then the AI that creates the final image doesnt even have that original data that it was trained on. It doesnt contain it anywhere within its code or files. Thus copyright wasnt violated.
Now you can argue its still immoral or whatever, but the point remains that it simply wasnt stolen. It was publicly viewable which means people are allowed to use it as a reference which is essentially what the AI did.
@@eragon78 but should ai be treated using human laws? Imagine if the same thing is done to your job and you have no money and zero skill other than the job you're good at. And everyone tried to defend the ai rather than helping you get back on your feet, add to the fact that In this art situation, your product/work is used in the ai. Essentially making you are driven out of your jobs using your own work.
Could you justify someone taking an artist artworks, feed it into the ai and then profits off it? While the artist are still alive? Using the artists style? 1 to 1?
And there's another thing. Why didn't the ai music generators use copyrighted musics to train their ai? Why? Music and artworks are the same thing, both are a creation of someone. You could also argue that the ai is just "hearing" the music and not taking it as an input.
But why aren't copyrighted musics used to train ai music generators? Why? Explain.
@@banned0404 That has happened. Literally all the time. Its been happening for decades where AI and automation are taking people's jobs.
The difference is I dont think this is a bad thing. or at least I dont think its INHERENTLY a bad thing. There are solutions to the problem of AI displacing human workers. For example, one such solution includes an "AI Tax" where any labor done by AI is taxed. That income is then distributed evenly as a UBI to all people in society. The point of this is, as AI productivity increases, the UBI all people receive increases to compensate for the lack of available jobs. Eventually, that UBI will be enough to live on once there is a LOT of automation, and most people wont have to work. Some people still will though for even more income. Eventually, automation will take over every field of required human labor, and humans simply wont have to work anymore. Humans can do any labor or job they want to and not because they have to.
Thats a simple way of how that solution works, its more complicated in theory. But the point is, the AI isnt the core issue. In fact, its one of the greatest inventions in human history. The issue is how our society is structured. There is no system in place to protect people who are displaced by Ai.
I dont think people getting displaced by AI is the issue. And the solution to work being threatened by AI is not to ban the AI, but rather to help the workers who have been displaced by that AI.
People fighting against AI are shortsighted. not only is it pointless to fight againt. Once the technology exists, it is far to efficient. Someone is always going to use it to gain an advantage which means everyone has to in order to keep up. We dont ban Automation when it comes to production lines or farming or producing cloths or anything like that. Art is simply no different.
But again, the issue is our society has no safety nets, not that AI is displacing people. The ultimate goal is for AI to displace EVERYONE so work isnt required anymore unless you want to. Preventing that progress doesnt make sense.
As for why AI doesnt use copyrighted music is for a few reasons.
First off, Music has MUCH stricter copyright laws and control to insane degrees.
Second, Its much easier to accidentally stumble into existing copyrighted music by pure chance. By this I mean, many copyrighted aspect of music can be copyrighted in as few as 7 notes or sometimes even less. Even if you count sharps, flats, several octaves of range, or even weird in between pitches and tones, there are not really all that many notes that humans can distinctively pick up. this means there is a lot higher likelihood that AI generated music stumbles onto copyrighted segments. Especially if its trained to play similar music as copyrighted music. its much more likely to stumble onto something that can be copyright striked.
Basically, the actual end product itself is what violates copyright. If a human were to create that same exact piece the AI did, it could be copy right striked.
Because of this, when making AI generated music, using copyrighted music isnt a good idea because its way too likely to end up producing some segment of music in a song that can be copyright striked. Even if the majority of the song is fine, it only takes a small piece.
Art on the other hand is MUCH different. There are VASTLY more possible combinations of how at can come together to create a unique piece. There are infinitely many ways you can rearrange things to create a completely unique drawing.
The art produced by these AI bots are NOT in violation of copyright. If a human produced those works, they would NOT violate copyright. That is the difference. The work itself is what does or doesnt violate the copyright.
Its not how the work was produced, but rather if the end product itself is copyrightable, regardless of if it was produced by a human or AI.
When it comes to music, there are just not that many possible combinations, so training AI on copyrighted music greatly increases the chance that you end up with a piece that has a copyrightable segment in it. And that would be copyrightable even if a human independently created that same piece. this chance is vastly reduced when the AI doesnt use copyrighted music.
With art, there are infinitely more possible ways in which an art piece can exist which means its far far far less likely for something that can be copyrightable to appear in the final product, even if its trained to imitate a specific artist's style. These art pieces would NOT be copyrightable if a human produced the exact same works.
So thats the difference. Its a numbers game. Art just has far more possible permutations than music.
Its not about how the final product is created, but rather what the final product actually is. Doesnt matter if a human or AI made it, what matters is if the work itself violates copyright or not.
I feel like artists should have a say in whether their art can be used to train AI. Because art and your art specifically is created by years of practice and life experience and personality and passion, it's like a slap in the face when someone uses those works of art to make a machine, which CANNOT replicate your entire life and personality, to just pump out stale copies.
oh nooo, the art theft got harassed! who would know that making absolutely poor choices would lead to that?
You have no idea how bad having thousands of people attack you could feel. A single mistake, and suddenly it feels like the whole world hates you, wants you to not exist. Humans are not made to deal with that kind of stress.
@@descai10 it true that it's bad for them. but it's just karma. he disrespected artist, stole their art, did not give credits and also did not even take the art down when called out. if nothing is done. things should gone way worse. i do not know much about the drama. but i do know that. if i were sam. and got my years of art get stolen all by a person who used ai and did nothing. i would have also been mad. it was not a mistake. they know what they were doing. who would have not thought feeding people art to ai without asking is not gonna give them backlashes. and i doubt asking them politely would do anything. it best to just kick them out of the internet.
@@Elenor.fleurr I agree
@@Elenor.fleurr Disgusting. I hope it happens to you and than you for something that is not illegal and you think of that comment you made. Absolutely disgusting and vile.
@@anonnymous7009 I completely understand why you think like that. And honestly, I did worded harsh and a bit heartless.
Of course no one deserves that, but he did it to himself, and it’s just karma for what the person did. Every action has it own coming. I don’t hate the person.
But you just also have to understand Sam action. That person was in the wrong and should face his karma. And I guess change for the better. If it kept going, he should have ruined a lot of artist job. As a lot of people do art as a in-come. If the a.i thing keep going, it’s going to kill off many artist from the internet.
Saying that you hope it happen to me won’t fix anything. In fact. It won’t happen to me. Because I didn’t do anything wrong ‘yet’.
Not only after the person been called out. Instead of apologizing to the internet, he decided to be disrespectful instead. That is already the last red flag. The comment telling him to die may be too much. I won’t say whether or not the person deserves it. But I will say that he did deserve to be called out. He should have stopped all of this just by apologizing, but guess what. He didn’t. He should have gotten a second chance. But guess what? He didn’t take it. So what happen is what happen.
It’s like a killer getting death penalty for killing many people. And then you say that the killer didn’t deserve that. It’s not exactly the same as one is way worse. But it is comparable. As the punishment is not death. But hateful comments. That depends on how you view it.
If your going to ague with me. At least bring in the reason so we can talk it out nicely. Instead of calling my comment ugly. And hoping the same thing happen to me darling.
Besides that, I was not even being rude not hateful. I just explained why Sam did that. I didn’t said he deserves to die. I said he deserves to be kicked out of the internet, in other words, get banned.
bro, THANK YOU FOR POINTING THIS OUT! i mean first of all, you shouldn’t just make an AI generator off of someone else’s art, second of all, HE HAS A RIGHT TO POINT THIS OUT, he never said to “attack” you guys with his followers and you’re also stealing his art, he has a right!
SPEAK THE FACTTS
imagine putting time and skill and years of practice into making art just for somebody to take it and make it into an Ai without your consent.
@@Walkion L take
@@user-xq6cn3xx3e You are more of a loser for dismissing a detailed opinion with a reddit template answer.
Mindless sheepy you are.
@@Walkion you are dumb. ai cant create any art without human artists. no humans artists, no ai improvement. if humans halt on making art, ai will also halt. because nothing will ever replace the human brain. you probably drool over NFTs 🤮
@@Walkion wall of text cope
@@Walkion the biggest problem is that ai are taking people's artwork without permission as their database so they can "learn"
The problem with AI generated "Art" is because it uses our actual REAL art to be "Trained" It can replicate on a level different then a human ever could unless they were specifically attempting to copy that artist. In general to take Sam'sa art and purposefully try to feed it into an AI generator they are saying. "Fuck you, I like your art specifically enough to have an AI copy you and learn from you but I don't want to commission you or support you" It's another bit of entitlement. It's his art, no one has the right to try feeding it into a program and this should be severely regulated.
Ikr
I think it’s so stupid to blur names out. They be stealing your art not crediting you, then people expect you to let them get away with this. By not blurring it you will show people that that person does not have good intentions, and that they should do something about it.
The only part about the Ai art trend that bothers me, is calling it art. Real artists don’t need an algorithm to create for them. And our skills won’t disappear the moment we lose access to a computer.
The Kim Jung Gi situation is heartbreaking. His poor family 😞 shouldn’t need to deal with this
I don’t feel like artists would get replaced, I just feel bad knowing that those blatant thieves without any regard or respect for the artists their whole AI is based on will make money and get more arrogant the more they get away with this
Great Leader only speaks the truth
Honestly, copying someone's style is not plagiarism or theft of any discernible form, if you're creating a new artwork based on another artist's style, that's called improvisation. Whatever you put out there as public information, be it texts or images of your work or photos of yourself, anyone can learn from and copy, Ai or not, has 0 relevance to the situation.
ruclips.net/video/tjSxFAGP9Ss/видео.html :(
I feel like the argument that human artists copy other peoples' styles, too, is irrelevant when discussing AI. Yes, people copy other peoples' styles, or draw inspiration from them, copy, and trace, but eventually, a young artist will graduate from simply copying another person's art to developing their own style. There is no shame in that, as artists frequently cite other artists as their source of inspiration. But no one has ever risen to fame by just being a copycat of some other great artist. One has to create their own unique art eventually, unless they plan to sell their copycart art under the original artist's name.
This is so frustrating, and these "AI artists" get incredibly cocky getting away with stealing from other artists that put years into perfecting their pieces
And then they have the audacity to say "☝🏻🤓 actually artists have to copy others to develop their style too"
what a shitty excuse, it pisses me off
I've got a ton of personal drawings now from the samdoesartsai, and im super happy, they look even better than the originals!
@@DoppsPkin must be so fun beign such a loser, nice bait lol
Even if artists "copy/steal" the art of others, it still requires a large amount of skill on the artist's part. I'm sure everyone can copy art but not all of it will look good.
AI art prompters just type into a machine and get art. But bot before using a database of stolen art.
When they make that argument, they forgot that these artists copy for the sake of analyzing and learning how to do art, and then develop a completely different style, not to claim it as their own and profit from it.
Well they go as far as like comparing the original to the AI with like 90% similarity, then they say "BUT BUT ITS TOTALLY ORIGINAL, SUCK IT UP DUUDEE"
artists need to take note, it not just some pro AI people but majority of them dont value art or even respect artists to that degree and wont care what happens to us, just because a few artists use it in moderation doesnt mean the remainder of the other users would do the same, most of them just dont care at all, we've been seeing this more and more as AI sees more use
some people even seem to hate artists
they are complete scum
All artist/art students including myself be like, “We went to school and get taught how to improve making art, payed expensive tuitions/ prices for art supplies, practice our butts off- to hear about this bs happening? Unacceptable.” 💀
I'm not supporting the AI artists, but this is a poor argument. It's like saying "I had to pay a bunch of money to go to school, so you should have to as well." No, school should be free.
Think of a world where everyone gets what they want. The real artists get money, and get to keep making art, while the AI artists still get to generate art and make variants using their favorite styles.
Is this possible? And if so, what is preventing us from getting there? The answer is yes, it is possible. What is preventing us from getting there is the current economic model most of the world uses, capitalism. Just like art, pretty much every field in existence is eventually going to be automated. Jobs are no longer going to exist, so governments are going to have to do something if they want to prevent riots. What is needed is UBI, Universal Basic Income.
@@descai10 then anybody can claim to be an artisit to get the ubi
@@Tanikundraws You would have to have evidence of income from an artistic profession which got replaced by AI.
Sam was in the right to do what he did these people didn’t ask for permission thus making a MAJOR taboo in the art community which is reposting or use of one’s artwork in the public square without explicit permission
I absolutely hate that there are people who see artists as nothing but stepping stools. Tools to get what they want without the artist being compensated in any way. This is exactly what I was afraid would happen with AI art, because people have never cared about artists to begin with. People will take your art and make AI pictures using your art style as a base. No need to commission the actual artist, no need to ask for permission, don't even give them the slightest bit of credit. I feel bad for Sam, but it really sucks that he won't be the last one this happens to. It'll happen again and again to bigger and smaller artist, and that future scares me. AI should be a tool to help artists, not to rip them off
I also feel like the idea of “he has so many followers so he shouldn’t react in a human way” is a bad belief to follow. Sam reacted the way I feel a lot of people would react. He, while influential, is still very much a human, and while he may have not made the best choice, it was the way a lot of people would have reacted (and they wouldn’t have received no backlash from it)
I absolutely hate Ai. Especially as someone who has put so much work in my art journey. I want to go in an artistic field in the future. My dream is to be a concept artist, and the thought of me not being able to pursue my future bc a bunch of aholes are using robots to make an piece that they dare to call art just makes me sick to my stomach.
I don’t know what I’ll do with my life because this scares me so much
Us real artists can work at jimmy John's
It honestly sounds a bit pretentious to me to claim that AI art isnt real "art" simply because it wasnt produce by a human.
Art is something to provoke emotion in people. Something people can find beautiful. People can feel that way about AI art, so why is it not art then?
And in fact, if it was somehow fundamentally different than "real art", then why would you even be upset by it as by your own logic it would be incapable of being a replacement for human art which is real art?
I think you're being irrationally angry here about AI art.I mean, you can feel that the methods are scummy all you want and thats fine, but the art itself here isnt the issue. The art can still be beautiful and thought provoking regardless of how it was produced. That doesnt change just because an AI produced it.
To me, the art AI produces does look fantastic at least some of the times. Its art that I could easily enjoy. And yea, I get it can be frustrating that a computer can do something so easily that takes humans a lot of effort, but there is no reason to be irrationally angry at it. Its just how technology is sometimes.Computers do a ton of things far better than humans all the time. But that doesnt mean Humans cant still enjoy those things.
If you enjoy art, and you enjoy making art, thats simply all you need. You dont need to compare yourself to what an AI can do. The greatest chess player of all time is absolutely nothing compared to what a chess engine AI can do. Yet people still love watching professional chess with humans even though AI are SIGNIFICANTLY stronger.
People will still be able to enjoy human art even if AI art is fantastical. Especially in a medium like art where enjoyment of a piece can be extremely subjective. There is always room for humans to produce beautiful art regardless of how much amazing art an AI can produce.
And I also doubt you ever got into art to be the BEST artist in the world. There are thousands of artist better than you, but does that stop you from making art? I doubt it. There are potentially millions of artworks that you may see as better than anything you will ever create made by human artist. But does that stop you from making art just because you think yours isnt as good as theirs? Again, I doubt it. You make art because you have your own unique vision, and you want to share that vision. It doesnt matter if a bunch of people have better talent or skills, you have your vision and your own unique personality you put into your art. Its unique to you. Just because an AI can make a lot of really great art doesnt mean it stops you from making even more great art. The quality of art better than yours or the volume of art better than yours didnt stop you before, so why would it stop you now because an AI is doing it?
It honestly doesnt change anything. Your enjoyment of art shouldnt be effected by an AI at all. It doesnt prevent you from creating art whatsoever, and it doesnt prevent people from finding enjoyment in your art.
@@eragon78 why shouldn't I get scared of doing arts if an ai could just come and replicate my Artstyle (which is a part of you, because an Artstyle is associated with someone's personality, experiences, life experiences, preferences and are essentially, a part of someone) and then profit off it (even if I don't profit off it.).
It's like being who you are, and a person just come and then replicate and mimic your whole existence. Why shouldn't you get scared of that? What's even the point of creating arts if ai could mimic you anytime the more you create arts?
From my point of view, ai communities trying their hard to drive off artists is more like an irrational emotional response rather than a logical one. What would you get for driving off someone off their jobs and their whole life purpose? Ego satisfaction? Relieve your sadist side of you?
There's no respect and understanding from the ai community. From my entire life experience, compared to the music and theathre (Hollywood) industry. The visual arts industry is the most lenient and tolerant out of them all, you could get away with anything. But because of this, they're being exploited off their works. Just look at how the ai communities justifies that they're entitled towards the artists artworks.
I don't understand. I don't understand. I don't understand. Corrupt heart, disgusting and really ugly.
@@eragon78 Firstly, Ai takes pieces of art created by people to mix it together, so i dont think its right to say its not made by human
Secondly, its not just about OTHER people enjoyment of art, its also about artist getting what they deserve for their hard work - money and simple appreciation. With Ai its most likely gonna be harder for artists to find a job. Did not think about that?
And thirdly, NOT being angry about that as an artist? Really? I mean i agree - this person is taking it a bit too far, but no reason to be angry at all? You said it yourself: it takes machine literal SECONDS to create something me and dozens of other people took YEARS, YEARS AND YEARS to achieve, and i should not be angry about that? Include here my previous point about artists getting properly paid. I get it, you dont really understand how artists feel about that, but isn't that so obviously incredibly unfair?
Also, straight up telling a person "you're not good enough as someone else and never will be"? Damn, what did he do to you to hear that? And its also regarding the fact that art is really, really, really different and subjective and you cannot really compare it and say that someone is better then the other?
@@wellidontknow1941 People have their work displaced by automation all the time.
Do you use any mass-produced products? clothing, food, any packaged good, etc. All of those things used to be jobs that required a large number of people to do. Then automation came along and most of those people lost their jobs. However, cost of clothing and food and everything else went down for everyone else.
I dont think you would suggest we eliminate the automation of clothing and fabric production and go back to handmade stuff only right? even though tens of thousands of craftsmen who made fabric and clothing lost their jobs over it?
I dont see any difference with art. Yea, it sucks that people may lose a source of income. Its unfortunate. But it helps a lot of other people out by providing a product for much cheaper. I personally wouldnt like to go back to a time where mass produced goods dont exist, and if I think that about other goods, why would I not also think that about art? I feel my view is the one that is logically consistent here.
Also, yea, its going to be harder for Artist to find a job, but there are still quite a lot of things the AI isnt good at doing. Plenty of places where artist can find more specialized work. For example, the AI is not good with very specific prompts. It may create something vaguely like what you had in mind, but if you have a very specific image of what you want to have an art piece of in your mind, you arent going to get an AI to generate that image. You're going to need to go to a human artist and describe the piece to them. A human can much more easily interperate your desires and actually create the piece you have in your head. And AI is probably not going to get much better at that for a long time, because that skill of understanding intentions is something more akin to the very problem preventing us from creating General AI. If we can solve that problem, then we've probably solved General AI and the world is going to vastly change anyways.
Other things AI struggles with is things like animations.AI also struggles with consistent coherent stories and character design. If you are an artist, making stuff like comics is a good way to keep fans engaged in something that an AI cannot easily replicate. Good luck trying to get an art AI to remember how to exactly replicate a unique character you made from previous artworks.
There are plenty of things the AI art is good for, but plenty of things it just flat out isnt good for. Any artist who makes like webtoons or comics or animations or high quality specific commissions, etc. None of those people have to worry about anything.
Any artist who DOESNT do that stuff and simply relies on selling individual digital art pieces are in trouble, and probably need to adapt their talents to include things AI isnt good at so fans continue to support them.
Like, even with all this AI art, artist are still pretty resilient compared to MANY other fields getting automated right now. Only a few small subsets of art are really getting outsourced to AI here. There is still so many things AI is not good at that real human artist are needed for.
It doesnt matter if the AI can make really good art, if that really good art isnt the specific art you need for some work, or if its not the thing you subscribe to an artist for.
Like I said, anybody who loves an artist for their comics for example, AI art cant replace that. You love bluechair? AI art cant replace that. Merrywether? AI art cant replace that. Jazza? AI art cant replace that.
Plenty of people cant simply be replaced by AI art because they provide other forms of art or creativity that AI art cannot simply reproduce with a good looking stand alone piece of art.
Art is already undervalued and paradoxically in high demand by "non-artists". This is going to further damage the client artist relationship but actually literally take from artists the one thing they always had
If they didn't have anything else. It was already bad when people on insta stole work and made merch without permission now, it just is going to make it 1000x easier from them to engage in that behavior.
I find some AI very interesting, I've used MidJourney myself but I do think the absolutely disregard for Sam or other artists in this was abhorant, and also when someone is frustrated they may not realize they didn't blur it or what have you, we are responsible for our own actions, tbh even if he blurred it people could just google part of what was said and find it...that's not on Sam. We need to take responsibility for our own actions not point at someone frustrated about getting their style stolen as an AI. Sam encourages and love people who emulate his style, while would not like tracing for example, it's p crappy.
I agree that people would've probably found it even if he didn't blur it, but I still think he should have to soften the blow as someone without fame isn't going to be used to receiving so much hate. Not blaming him for ranting and getting emotional at all - he has a right to. I think it's just difficult to navigate a situation like this when you have that much influence because some fans will go after them regardless :/
@@lolaholliday honestly they got that coming. It should be basic at this point to always ask for consent from the artist even if the artist has a huge following or not. Sam knew how it feels to start at the lowest and it's shitty but the audacity this people have and putting their names on the art is just ridiculous and disrespectful. They literally use his name to feed their ai, it's basically his. It would affect him because art is personal, you spend so much time with it that it becomes a part of you and it hurts when someone tries to claim it as not your own. So i'm really on Sam's side here, i don't have any remorse to the other party.
Actually why anyone should soften the blow of consecuences for somebody who does bad things? You reap what you saw. Would you like to soften punishments for thieves, murderers, pedophiles and so on, so they don't feel bad and be ostracized by others? If someone is a kind of a person who couldn't stop themselves from doing bad by the sole reason and humanity, they should be afraid to recieve punishment for doing that, so it could lessen the possibility the bad things would be actually done. For their own good... Would the person mentioned be so eager to keep that behaviour if it was signed by their full name and photo? I do not think so. The person feels unpunished because of being anonymous, I mean anonymity could sadly promote impunity and lessen the brakes for some people..
@@kasiako355 it's like trying to tell "it's okay" to a literal murderer for murdering someone, and then feeling all "victimised" because people call them a murderer because of what they do.
@@banned0404 right?! People should start taking responsibility for themselves, for what they do and say. It won't be possible if they never feel consequences of their actions and are being protected from feeling bad about them. They SHOULD feel bad when they did something bad, so they'll never do it again in future..
I think the heart of this argument is that it's abhorrent and wrong for someone to take an artist's portfolio, without consent, just to feed it to the AI so it can spit out callous reproductions with the original artist's name attached, when they had absolutely no involvement in the creation process. Imagine how violating it would feel if someone went through your social media scavenging for your photos, videos, and voice clips and started creating very unflattering deep fakes of you. That is pretty close to what these people are doing.
As an artist myself this AI recreation is one of the most disrespectful and dehumanizing things I’ve seen towards artists. One of the most basic concepts about art is that art is meant to convey the emotions of the artist and reflect their experiences. Everyone’s art style is polished and refined from the moment they start drawing for years. And for someone to just take your work without consent and feed it through a program to reproduce? That’s disgusting. I’m repulsed that they so easily disregard the artist and think that it’s okay. Imitation is not the best form of flattery it’s just disrespectful. And this is probably controversial but I don’t think Sam was wrong for calling out the person who made the AI. He shouldn’t be responsible for making sure someone’s feelings aren’t hurt. He didn’t send his fans to attack them he called their name just as they called his. Saying he’s responsible to censor their name is stupid. They picked a fight with a large creator and he responded. That’s all. I love AI generated art in general. I think it’s really cool to see what comes up from prompts, but to literally steal someone’s brand and turn it onto a tool is so wrong. And saying sams style is just like the Disney style just goes to show how little some of these people know about the art their trying to imitate.
I seriously hope artists stand together against this, because being passive about it is seriously pathetic
LETS BE AGRESSIVE *INFINITE%*
it's really disappointing to see the passivity of artists online and the naivety of the argument that ai is just a tool
Yup I generally hate AI art it's just copy or ripoff or I can say bootleg version of real artist
( Recently devianart sold all the accounts on thier Ai learning.... )
The strong reaction AGAINST someone using your work without permission is warranted. It's stealing someone's work in my opinion because they have a say in how their work is used. Maybe if people see the backlash then then they'll be less likely to do it because for sure the law is so grey. We have to take care of ourselves as artists.
I agree with how Sam did it. Because when people are that lazy and shameless to steal other artists’ work, then have the audacity to claim they don’t ‘own their art style’, they should absolutely be called out without hiding their usernames. Every time.
Because if artists just sit and say nothing, then they’ve silently given permission for this to keep happening.
i don’t think most people realize the amount of effort and hard work making art like this takes. you have to spend years learning and understanding techniques just to be faster and more efficient and to find your own unique style. something that takes 2 hours, also took that artist’s entire lifetime of drawing to get to that point.
I think some ppl forget that the fact that you can learn from someone by studying their style or from life to improve your own that doesn't mean you can copying and stealing that exact person's ORIGINAL CHARACTER(S) and STORIES. This is not only about a stlye and a study rather this is an intentional disrespect towards someone else and that person's work. There's no meaning behind how many followers do you have, stealing from someone and disrespect someone and his/her own work should never be acceptable towards to anyone. These are not studies, these are not fanarts or else, these are just copies with intend to disrespect the original artists only for their own good. (my main language is not english so sorry if there are some mistakes in the sentences)
It will sound cruel but sometimes it is the only way to stop people who use art without the consent of others, they think they can do it just because it's on the internet.
that's very disheartening, gotta say I doubt that most AI ''artists'' respect the artists they reference since most of the discourse from these people I've seem online were about replacing artists with AI, very sad that there's people trying to automate and remove the human elements of one of the few aspirational careers that are out there.
Gotta love how the person didn't consider how they were stealing his work and then turned around and cried about it when they got hunted down by his fans. Like I'm sorry but if you're excusing your actions because "artists don't credit the people they reference" as if they're blatantly stealing the style whilst *you* blatantly steal a style, you deserve it. "people with followings have a responsibility" goes the same as "people who are making ai art have the responsibility to ensure they aren't stealing art". So weird how people try to play the victim after doing such things.
Also anybody who was defending the dude training the ai by saying "you can't copyright an artstyle" very clearly have never drawn a day in their life. It takes a lot of work to build such a unique style, they would know that if they had any experience in drawing whatsoever. Their excuses are stupid, just because you didn't "create" the art style doesn't mean it should be stolen?? The ai can be used to make controversial things, and on top of that people could entirely stop appreciating the original artist and just go to the ai despite the fact the entire ai was made off of that art?? Copycats could use the tool to make art, then post it while pretending they poured their heart into it despite the fact it was actually made off the hard work of a real artist and without their permission. Altogether disgusting
In the end just like how digital art was frown upon by painters, AI Art generators would just become a tool for artist to expand ART as we know it.
We want a judicial law for saving our art from these AI 😭
nobody will steal ur "art".....how entitled you and others feel. Ure not that big to be stolen from
@@Jennifahh i don't know about how small or big i am but here it looks like some one for a "none artist" group are f@#ked up bcuz reality is outcoming 😈
@@Jennifahh what? I think they’re speaking for artists in general. Not necessarily them. And what? Maybe they’re a huge artist, maybe one day they will be.
@@Jennifahh you don't know what you're talking about
@@Jennifahh Why would anyone continue to create anything to share when they know people like you will treat them as entitled and less than human while parading around a Frankenstein amalgamation of several peoples hard work and claiming it as their own when it was created by a machine and they put zero effort in? It's not about the art itself, its about the drive it removes from people to create their own work for the purpose of sharing when they're afraid it's just going to be fed to an AI and not be considered theirs anymore. Is it really so hard for you to understand why people are upset by this?
Most artists are not entitled. They spend years mastering their craft to share with others, often for free as they put the art up online for others to see. Now one of the only rewards they get from that action: actual respect for their hard work; is being stolen because an AI can crank out a similar piece in seconds in an almost identical style. Perhaps you don't see an issue legally because you believe the AI is transformative, but the removal of respect for effort and the flood of images that will be created reducing discoverability of human made art removes much incentive for an artist to share their work.
How would an office worker feel if they worked long hours on a project only for their coworker who did barely anything to take all the credit because he entered the data into an excel spreadsheet? Do you think they would continue to work as hard if the certainty of their work and effort being attributed to someone else remained? AI won't kill artists because they'll always feel the need to create, however it will kill willingness for artists to share their work online with others for fear of it being fed to a soulless machine invalidating their hard work.
tl;dr: Artists aren't entitled, they're demotivated to share their effort with people who resent and disrespect them.
Honestly its not Sam's responsibility to blur crap. And he does own that art. He owns his personal style.
You can own art but not a style.
Im not trying to be an ass here either, thats actually a big deal. There have been a ton of laws and court cases over it. People do not own a style.
And this is actually really important too, because people mimic the styles of others all the time. Its a big part of what makes art an expressive cultural phenomena.
Once you say someone can "own" a style and copyright it, you kill art as a medium. Almost all art that exists is inspired by someone else's works in some way, and any techniques you learn to draw are all from someone else's style. Nobody would be allowed to make basically any art if styles could be copyrighted, assuming you could even strictly define someone's style to begin with.
So you really cannot own a style. People can recognize you for your style, but you cannot own it. You can own works that youve made, but you cannot own the style you made them in.
@@eragon78 stop replying everyone in the comment section with your GPT-3 tier replies it's getting kinda pathetic
@@medaizeh2401 What a monster giving out factual information.
@@chaosmonkey1595 nice alt.
@@medaizeh2401 hes right, you literally cant own a style or steal one, in fact, individuality is so strong that when you make something there will always be something about YOU in it no matter how hard you try. However, ai "art" does none of this, it flat out steals artwork and there is no individuality just a computer being told what to do. What I mean is people find their own artstyles trying to be like others and eventually ending up with their own thing. You cant gatekeep an artsyle but AI art has nothing do with art anyway, it's just stealing. I doubt you're an artist if you think otherwise, or just an amateur beginner one.
as an Ai engi, even if there is a law protecting artists the problem is the data can be feed to the model and then the data will be deleted like nothing happed and now u have a model have the same art style that can't be copyright claimed. its hard to trace someone screenshotting art. The only solution is every artist have a fan base that like his art that was made by emotions, any Ai generated art don't have emotions in it. For the fans out there stick with ur artist and yes, it's gonna be hard for new artist to compete in the market and get some credibility between people. 'bad marketing is a good marketing' so more hate people generate to this tech, more attention they will get.
edit: The problem not in the tech(Ai) itself, the one who is using it wrong is the main problem.
i feel as though people on the internet do not quite understand the severity of their actions. they do foolish and harmful things and become shocked and upset when they actually face consequences for their actions. i don’t think most people deserve to be kicked off the platform, but the anger and backlash that came of this ai “artist’s” behavior was, in my opinion, completely justified. how do you commit such a fraudulent, arrogant, and entitled act and genuinely not expect some anger from the creator you’ve practically spit on? to say that they didn’t need permission from the artist, and that it’s practically the same as real artists using references was incredibly stupid, and it wouldn’t have been long before they had to face the reality.
imagine if someone was actively stealing from another in real life, using their work to create inferior copies generated entirely from a machine also not created by them, and then on top of that say that the person does not own the work they create and claim that therefore it’s perfectly fine to blatantly steal their work. how long would it take for that person to get decked in the face? how long would it take for others to shun that person away from their once relatively sacred community? did ai “artists” really think they could do this forever? it’s an issue entirely involving legality and morality, and this really wouldn’t even BE an issue if the generators didn’t allow for just anyone’s artwork on the internet to be used.
@@lovelyletterl8515
lmao, 'gatekeeping' 'elitism' 💀 you guys are so insanely delusional. maybe the point is that the artist CAN recognize their 'soul' within it considering its a model trained to create images that look exactly like sam's artwork? and with that, the ai prompter refused to ask him for permission, or give the guy any sort of benefits. you believe you're ENTITLED to our artwork and you're not. theft to this extent for the sake of exploitation and profits actually is illegal. and with that, no he could not recreate the tech and neither could you considering MILLIONS of dollars was put into this tech. you didn't do anything, all you do type in prompts and feed the programs, don't act as if you genuinely created the tech. last thing, no one is gatekeeping. you want to pick up a pencil and learn to draw in someone's style everyone would welcome it and give you the tools and free tutorials to do so. but you're not doing that, and the entitlement is laughable.
@@lovelyletterl8515
"better than i am" okay pal💀 this isn't an "art movement" this is tech bros spitting on real artists to create generic and bland paintings to post on their reddit forums. nothing new or original is happening here, this is not comparable to impressionism and abstraction, movements created by real artists. ai art and historical art movements are certainly not one in the same. remember one is innately human and created from inspiration, while the other is not?
@@lovelyletterl8515
ai is not enhancing art, in fact its done nothing new or revolutionary considering its created based off pre-existing works from genuinely innovative artists. and no, it can actually be incredibly harmful if not regulated.
@@lovelyletterl8515 lmao, now you’re deflecting the argument by bringing up something completely unrelated. who’s to say i’m not worried about both issues?
私は英語がよくわかりませんが、これが深刻な状況であることはわかります。 :( アーティストが無事であることを願っています。
The problem with this AI art thing is that at the end of the day Ai 'artists' are benefitting off other people's work. They wouldn't be able to create those results without using actual artists' names in the prompts to mimic their art style. I don't know why that's allowed in the first place, why are they allowed to just put any artist's name in the prompts? And they have the audacity to sell these works too. It's like stealing wheat from someone's farm, making bread using it and selling that bread. The wheat farmer was robbed and received no benefit from the bread that was sold even though without their hard work of growing the wheat the bread wouldn't exist. In this case artists are the "wheat farmers" and AI artists are the "bread makers". One is unfairly benefitting off the other.
The problem is that comparing it to a human artist that copies his work just doesn't hold up, even if someone copied his work 1o1, that person would get a lot of backlash and probably would benefit much from it. But an Ai that trained of someone's images without the consent is able to to really endanger the artists career (especially if it's a small one). I'm already loosing a lot of clients to AI generated imagery which only exist because they could train with unlicensed imagery.
It's sad to me that many people still don't care about this subject, because this isn't just about Visual art or art in general, writing and music is also not far from having a similar thing happen to it. And this time it's not like the industrial revolution, were not automating terrible labor jobs that are horrible for the workers, these are jobs that people really want to do.
Well, it has to happen eventually.
The issue isnt so much the automation, but rather the capitalistic nature of our society.
The issue is that if you dont produce a product that people value, then you work isnt valuable. And if AI can do your work effortlessly, then your effort isnt needed.
You act like those labor jobs meant nothing to people. It ruined tons of people's lives when industries were automated. You act like its different but it really isnt. Its the same phenomenon. People had a talent or skill, but then that skill became obsolete because machines could do it far better and cheaper.
The issue is not the technology though. Like you said, technology makes life better, and that includes stuff like art technology which can create amazing pieces of art at the click of a button for people to enjoy. Thats awesome.
The issue is due to the capitalistic nature of our society, this puts artist out of jobs as their labor is no longer nearly as valuable when AI can do much of the same work for far easier and cheaper.
But again, this is an issue with society and not technology. ideally, in a perfect world, technology would be capable of doing all necessary labor and human labor would be completely unnecessary as well as the need for money at all. In a world like that, people could do whatever the hell they wanted to. Whatever hobbies they had, they could do without barriers and they would never need to worry about making money doing it.
But unfortunately technology is still too far away for such a reality, so we live in the current reality where we're in that middle stage of many jobs are quickly disappearing, but not enough where people can stop working or relying on money.
its a very unfortunate transition phase with not a lot of great solutions. (there are a few but its hard to get them implemented due to slow governments and corruption.)
But yea, the ultimate issue here isnt the technology. the technology is awesome and an amazing tool. The issue is the demands of society to produce work that must make monetary value in order for a person to sustain themselves.
I wouldn't have a problem with AI if it mixed several artists' styles together to create an unrecognizable new style of its own. Essentially that's what all artists do IRL. They combine things they like from all the work they've ever seen and that comes out in the work they create. I don't see an issue with that, especially if no money is being made off of it and is being used more as a tool for artists to help brainstorm new character designs, environments, that sort of thing. The issue I have is exactly this, where AI will emulate a particular artist's style, learn how they do their exact lighting, brush strokes, even flat out rip backgrounds that they painting themselves, etc. That is NOT okay. No one in the past has liked tracers who have claimed the work as their own intellectual property, so it's not any better when an AI does it. I personally wouldn't want my name attached to a half baked AI version of my art.
nobody will use ur shit in their modelos dont worry
@@Jennifahh bro why are you so angry lol
This is interesting to me because it begs a new question. Do AIs really mix many artists different styles? I had my doubts, but the way some datasets are trained with targeted artist styles in mind, tells me that's not really something that would produce good results. "Mixing" things to excessive levels, after all, tend to always produce uniform blobs... Whether it's paint, sounds, words, food ingredients, with too many different thing the result is always a consistent blob. So is this the case with ai art too? I always thought AIs like midjourney had too much of a distinctive style, and that's probably due to the few, targeted styles that were used in the dataset. In other words, it is probably correct to assume that AIs need to limit their input to a specific style to get the best results. And if this is truly the case, problems like this will never stop occouring.
No, I think Sam was in the right to use the resources that he had to force the model to be taken down. So what if some jackass was harassed? The way that Redditor treated Sam wasn't really the nicest way either, so why would Sam treat him nicely in return? ╮(. ❛ ᴗ ❛.)╭ In addition, Sam may not own his art style, but he owns the trademark to his name, Sam Does Arts, and could definitely file a DMCA to have those images taken down. At least that's what I would do.
You can just get around this by changing the names of the model and the pictures, this is how it's already done when it comes to styles. (aka if you use classic Disney animation just call it something else and legally, you're fine.) He can maybe prevent his name being attached to it, but not the actual model or pictures themselves (right now).
Re-upload because there was a weird glitch happening in the corner of the screen so I had to re-render. Been having a lot of problems with my video editor lately smh :)
00:00 - Intro
00:30 - The Sam Does Arts Ai Drama
02:24 - The Backlash
3:52 - The Kim Jung Gi Ai
04:18- The Hollie Mengert Ai Situation
05:10 - Do Ai artists respect the artists they reference?
EDIT: Hi guys, I would just like to say thank you so much to everyone who has been adding to the discussion here! It has been very interesting and moving to see all the comments from so many people on various sides of the debate.
I'm considering covering some more Ai/artist news such as the recent Deviantart situation to help inform some people who might be out of the loop about these things, or maybe individual videos discussing the different concerns artists have in more detail. Or, perhaps covering the latest updates in Ai art developments so people know what to expect in terms of how quickly this technology is improving. Please let me know if you'd be interested in more videos like this, and if so, what you would like me to focus on :)
Also, I'd like to just say a quick thank you to all of those who've supported my channel! I was on 160 subscribers before this video blew up so much (to 100k??) and now I'm at 800 subscribers which is only 200 away from the 1000 that I would need to apply for monetization on this channel! Being able to make a living off my artwork and video creations has been a dream since I was young so I'm super grateful to everyone who has helped me get closer to this goal just by clicking a button. Thank you
I’m out of the loop and this has been helpful for me to catch up with the drama going on, thank you
lola talk about how AI is also Messing with not just Painters and photographers but also musicians and Videographers WTF is going how can we be replaced by a robot after all the hard work and tears we put in this
@@C12omega People have yo accept to reality, AI can generate better images than the majority of people (except artists) it can drive better, translate better, and many more things.
Totally support Sam against the AI machines. I'm blocking every AI account in all social media and many artist are doing the same. FUAI
There's so many ai supporters on social media it's hard to block them all without getting tired
I have years of my art online, and since I've been at college for the last few years I have not posted as frequently and was not aware because of this. But the last thing we need as Artists is to get the little bit of freedom we have taken from us..I'm outraged
Thanks for covering this issue. I was curious about what went down between sam and the AI community. I've got my answers now.
Hope this was helpful! There's also a similar situation happening to artist Greg Rutkowski that's worth knowing about. He's an amazingly talented fantasy artist who's become a really popular prompt word. According to the website Lexica, which tracks over 10 million images and prompts generated by Stable Diffusion, Rutkowski’s name has been used as a prompt around 93,000 times. www.technologyreview.com/2022/09/16/1059598/this-artist-is-dominating-ai-generated-art-and-hes-not-happy-about-it/
honestly the audacity these people have for being mad at the fact that he does not want people to take something he invested years and years of time and effort in and use it for their own benefit
even if he can’t legally forbid them from doing that, he still has every right to hold them accountable if it hurts his feelings
I feel for everybody who wants commissions and losers are dmjust typing keywords into a bit that cranks out the art instantly. I also feel for background artists. Luckily, ai will never be able to make iconic character designs and use them to tell cohesive stories, so comic artists will still have a way to express themselves without being outdone by a machine.
Background artists definitley have a contender with this tech!
Interestingly - I don't remember which Ai model it is - but some people are working on consistent character creation right now. There's a case where one Ai was fed four images of this one corgi and then was able to recreate the likeness of this particular corgi across many images. So cohesive characters might be coming soon! As for creating new, iconic character designs, I reckon a human could do it better as an Ai can only really base a design on all the designs it's already seen.
sadly, it will soon. People who are now using AI art generator such as midjourney, dall e and so on, they're training the AI while they're using it. Also, imagine the Ai feeding them with stories out in the internet :(
Calling an AI "artists" the same as actual artists is like calling a script kiddie a hacker.
You know. This is not actually the first time I heard this comparison. This is one I especially love.
The problem is with Ai creating the artwork in his style.
The style is yours, as much as they copy, it's yours. You are you, you are original, even if someone copies you.
The question of someone copying the style is often overlooked because someone who learns drawing starts by copying. When someone doesn't have their own style, they try several, copy several, choose different points in a style they like and mix everything, creating their own. That's why it's ok to copy a style for a while. The problem with this is basically taking ownership of the style, as AI is doing.
Well, you cant actually claim ownership of a style.
It is not possible to copyright a style under any copyright law in the world. And it would be ridiculous to do such a thing because the idea of "style" is pretty broad, and it would mean that basically any art in existence today is violating someone's copyright of their style of someone who came before them.
Basically nobody alive today has a truly unique style. They all have elements of styles from other people who came before.
This is why you cannot copyright a style. its like trying to copyright a genre of film or a way of speech. They are just far too broad and over-restrictive, while also being incredibly hard to define in any legal sense.
Thus, images or specific pieces of art are copyrighted, but styles cannot be copyrighted, nor should they.
@@eragon78 How much are you getting paid to shill
@@medaizeh2401 Ofc someone actually pointing to how the actual law works is "shilling". Also, who would even pay him? The evil AI art lobby? Lol
@@eragon78 I have noticed you have commented on so many of these comments with these takes. They are so bad I'm thinking about training an AI with them to create worse ones.
@@thecreativeducky5781 Great rebuttal of my position.
Lots of people like you out there calling my takes bad but with absolutely no argument to back up why. Why would I just take what you say at face value? Im not going to think you're right simply because you said my take was bad, youve dont nothing to convince me at all.
I dont think im wrong here. Im trying to have an actual discussion on this topic because I do legitimately think my position is correct. If you disagree thats fine, but leaving a comment that basically equates to "lol, you're stupid" isnt helping anyone. All you're doing is being toxic simply because you disagree with me.
My biggest problem with AI art is that some of the people who use it actually consider themselves artist. Lol, if you can't draw, you ain't an artist.
ai users: you don't own a style
also ai users: I will do everything I can take advantage of this artist's name, style, and popularity and use their art without their consent and attach their name to everything I generate in hopes of getting attention look at me
Ai art is such a massive kick in the balls to artists man and people are being disrespectful this ai art thing wouldn't even be possible without artists
I think the main problem here is just how... sterile it is. A dude didn't admire Sam, he just wanted artwork like his, no love.
The reality is that companies won't necessarily need to hire people unless they want to create specific art references to train their AI with. The future will be fascinating to see, I still feel discouraged, since my dream wasn't to be in the back room feeding a software in my 40s but I can't ignore innovations or that the thinking will be different, probably even just a year away.
Scary how these AI "artists" can just put "*art prompt* by samdoesarts" and boom, you draw like Sam now. Definitely a big insult to someone who spent his lifetime studying art.
No, it doesn't work so. You must really know what do you want at the end, you must experiment and try again and again to get some success. Ai don't know composition rules or how light is really... lighting? It's you who must know all of these "art theory". It's not about "Wright right words and get perfecto imagion", it's about how to speak with another and learning like the artist from another. Ai is a tool like photoshop, gimp, camera or your own pencil. It's like unreal or unity, blender or Maya. It's just a tool, instrument. And ironically - it's a very good instrument-timesaving for artist.
@@r1manah Don't kid yourself ,comparing prompting an text2img AI to legit tools like game engines and 3D apps is complete overkill. The two don't even compare and I'm familiar with every one of the tools you mentioned. Well not Gimp, but you get what I mean.
It is simple: without permission you are not allowed to use the art of someone else. No matter if you want to feed an ai or print a book cover.
I'm dying for an open and shut case like this to go to court to make some legal precedent to protect other artists
How am I supposed to pay for my bills??!
I'm a minor I can't a afford a car, I can barely afford my phone. I use to do digital art comissions to help my parents pay for our monthly bills, more often then not I was the soul reason we could keep up with our phone bills.
But as soon as my mom heard about the AI thievery she made me delete all my art off if my social media's becuase she didn't want it being force fed through a computer and stolen.
I'm gonna be without electricity and water, I'm going to starve, we won't be able to afford gas or firewood. I'm going to freeze.
I might die this winter.
Holy shit I might die this winter.
I don't want to die
lmfao mc donalds hires ppl, u know?
@@Jennifahh I live in the middle of nowhere. The only business is 20 miles away, and there's no McDonald's anywhere near me. I aslo don't have a vehicle or a way to get myself to work and back.
You do know how poverty works right?
The fact that these ai "artists" can steal art and fuel it for their ai just scares me alot. It's just wrong, I wish we had laws protecting our art from people who do stuff like these
Considering the sheer maliciousness and spite of the people doing the AI art, I don't think Sam was in the wrong at all to call this guy out publicly. It's not like going to him privately would have fixed the situation, this dude PUBLICLY announced his intent and literally said he "refused" to talk to Sam about it. He deserved to be forced to shut down his Reddit and Twitter given his stated goal was to steal Sam's work and basically force HIM out of the art space and his career in general.
Ai/Tech communities saying artists reactions towards ai prompter stealing Artstyles as "Emotional" is the same thing as a killer killing someone's daughter and telling them that they're "Emotional and overreacting" for just a daughter. Artists put their everything into their arts just like how parents put their everything in raising their children's, it's obvious to get really emotional for something that is essentially a part of you. The time, resources, effort and dedication to develop a style is equivalent to a parent putting their time, dedication and resources into raising their children.
Feels wrong to use people’s work without permission. They will get sued at some point for using people’s names.
When I was younger, we used to call these people "biters", because they bit off a piece of your style. They see something great and want to copycat. Buy no matter how advanced the technology has gotten. They're will always be something missing in a copy. You really don't know what it is, but, you know there's something missing. It's the essence of the original artist, whether it be drawings, music, poetry. Only the artist who created it, can pour their essence into it. Its something magical. And you can't copy that!
Fortunately or unfortunately I don’t think this type of thing will properly be regulated until big companies realize their paid for commercial work is also being gutted to make these AI generations
Its not even really possible TO regulate.
The art is viewable publicly, and the data of the artworks does not exist anywhere in the actual AI itself in any files or the code. This means no copyright violations were ever commited.
Even if you wanted to try and claim that they were, you wouldnt be able to prove it whatsoever unless the person flat out admitted to using that art as training data.
But since none of that training data actually exist in the code of the AI, its not possible to prove it. The AI has the ability to draw in the style of the artist, but it doesnt actually copy the art, it makes unique artworks in that style which isnt illegal.
So the only point in this whole process that COULD POTENTIALLY be made illegal is the process of collecting public works to be used as training data. But thats pretty hard to make illegal, and even if you DID make that illegal, it would be nearly impossible to actually prove as you would have to have access to that training data which can just be simply deleted once the AI is made.
And again, the training data does not exist in the AI itself. It is simply used to train the AI to draw in a specific style. The AI doesnt keep copies of the art, it has an intuitive understanding of the art style itself.
So you cant just simply find the art in the AI's files because it simply does not exist in there.
As someone who is both and artist and a bit knowledgeable with AI, I find the whole AI art thing saddening. Yes, AI is groundbreaking. Yes, there's a lot of potential uses for it. But to see it used on something people really worked hard on for years is a bit unsettling, disgusting even. This shouldn't be the case of "he has 2M followers, he's well off he won't be affected by it". That sounds dumb. Numbers or not, the action itself still feels unethical for artists. It's like stealing. Stealing whether or not from people who are well off or not is still stealing.
I do think there should be regulations and stuff about AI in the future, not just for artworks but some other aspects as well that poses kind-of-the-same-but-not-really problems with AI usage, most especially with using stuff as model/datasets. While it won't eliminate the problem completely, it could still help in some ways.
I think you have it all wrong from what you say you disagree about what Sam said. He was only asking them to not do that because of how it makes the artists feel, he never said what they did was against every moral, he meant, it would be against the particular victim/artist's morals(basically that artist would find it offensive). I don't see any wrong in what he said.
Obviously Sam chose a peaceful way to deal with the situation, and even went on to speak on behalf of other artists.
It was basically a peaceful request and expression of displeasure.
He didn't say that what they did was against every moral. He said "the blatant copy of one single artist's work or style crosses a moral line for most artists." I'm sorry if you feel I didn't summarise it well!
I didn't take any issue with what he said, or him talking about it at all, just a bit of an issue with him not blurring the model creator's name
@@lolaholliday oh okay. Sorry, guess I misunderstood it.
"Just because you can, doesn't mean you should," is something that these AI enthusiasts need to consider. Sure they're able to do it but it, again, isn't morally right to do so. Just because one has a big following doesn't mean it won't affect them, they're people too, and they put effort into making art. One thing they definitely lack is empathy.
If I were to put it in this way: You made a bot, and the process you used to make that bot/program it was analyzed so another AI can learn to make bots like you and replace you, how would you feel?
I really don't understand how else to put it.
I did a report on AI art, through my research I learned that more and more companies are starting to use AI generation as a replacement for real digital artist. I hypothesize that there will be no laws that will protect artists from copyright. AI-generated art is far less expensive than paying a human, we all know at the end of the day money is the main priority.
What about riots
@@kittygirl0872 Artists rioting will stop automation? In all other fields, which got automated which had a much bigger % population wise than artists, this did nothing.
@@chaosmonkey1595 artists rioting will stop hoes
This is absolutely Infuriating at the least. These Ai model creators act like it's ok to do to this just because a artist dosent own their style. But not only are they stealing the artists actual work WHICH THEY DO OWN and feeding it into a Ai which just uses that artits work and patchwork it into a different image and not something totally new. This is just daylight robbery that isnt yet illegal. Ai needs to get stricter regulations soon.
i wish ai art never existed, it’s just tearing our community apart
I believe any who use the artwork of an artist to feed a model must pay for it or get sue and call to court and be in jail; because people are doing it not for the love of art or for the sake of artists they are doing it because of MONEY, to get money or to avoid pay money, I truly believe all this AI MUST be shut down if the developers don't show implicit consent of the artists used to feed the AI, the AI is not a person then is not guilty of anything but the one coding the AI must be responsible for all the actions made by the AI, let's be honest once, an AI CAN NOT CREATE anything new, all these models are just stealing the hard work of artists without any consent, the only way a model could be acceptable is if I myself feed it with my OWN artwork, but of course NO ARTIST will do that because we CREATE then we don't need an AI and I am actually about to check stable diffusion because is a paid service and if I get any closer result to my style with my real artistic name I will use all my money and social power to shut it down because they are taking money from people in my name without my consent and I believe SAM was to gentle to manage this I will go after them because twitter and reditt must provide all the information if a court request it and I will follow the treat until I find them I will not even say a word in social media I will speak in court and make of this thieves an example to force authorities to create legislations that can set rules about this
When an artist spends their time pouring their heart and soul into their works, they are trying to connect with their audience. Art is used to express one's thoughts and feelings, and as a way to communicate with others. Thus I find it critical for the artwork to be made by an actual living individual.
When a soulless AI, makes it. They are simply making something that looks good to people. It is devoid of meaning, and serves only to satisfy the audience's desires. There is no creative expression or communication from the artist's own heart. And that is such real damn shame.
Honesty, I think whoever made or an ai art enthusiast, is a lazy person who failed at basic drawings, and decided to take a shortcut instead of not giving up, and then proceeds to tell how much it helps them to not feel bad about it.
I think at the end of the day, you really just have to get ahold of the artist professionally (via email, discord, etc) and ask the them. The two artists seemed to have differing opinions on their names being included (or not) in the AI situation, so it really just depends on your and the creators own moral standards. The artist should be shown an example first, who knows? They might even give you tips on how to make the AI *more* like their style. If they’re ok with you using their name you should. If they feel the art isn’t quite like theirs and they don’t feel satisfaction, don’t. If you plan on selling the art you should also work out percentages. Don’t post/advertise unless you speak with them though. That’s just the cowards way out. I’m sure many people would publicly harass you if you don’t ask, and to be honest I wouldn’t blame them.
Artist name should be removed from the prompt as a valid input. Like NsFw tags are not allowed in some AI tools.
@@triggerfairy4070 okay, gate-keeper.
Laws surrounding ai art need to be made asap. It’s getting out of hand. I do think ai and real/human made can coexist, but in any given situation Art thieves are always going to be there, just like how to this day there are fake Van Gogh paintings but they can’t replace the real ones. So Sam’s Art will still carry value even with the ai replica’s.
Exactly like you know it’s bad when AI can copyright so many art styles from very big artist. Like I saw someone use AI to make an art piece that had the same style as THE MONA LISA!
@@_z1pporah but do u realize many ppl now3adays has the style as lets sayb wlop? ur display pic for example...lots of ppl has that style. In art school they teach u many styles so u can pick onee...smh....so this argumnent about styles is stupid.
@@Jennifahh doesn't matter ai should never exist to begin with
@@kittygirl0872 You do know the vast majority of modern technology runs on AIs right?
@@Jennifahh no artist can copy another Artstyle 1 to 1 everytime consistently. Because they're human, they will leak their own personality into their arts. And there's no artists that wants to be a copy of another artist. They all have their own unique variations.
A machine? Yeah, they can copy 1 to 1 consistently because they don't have emotions that restricts them from doing so.
i don’t understand ai “artists”. it’s so dehumanizing that these people take work that we have worked so hard on and took time to make only to be like “ah yes i am going to feed one artist’s style into this machine and it’ll produce MY art works because it is now MINE even tho it copy’s the artist’s EXACT art style. “ and then they get MAD when we get mad and call them out! they should be asking artists for permission and CREDITING them for the style if they absolutely MUST create an ai.
There's a term I like to use when working on art, "fighting with the canvas". This implies that art is always a journey of decision making, lighting, color, subject, mood, emotion- the list goes on. The art we as artists create aren't just blobs of color and scribbles with no intent, they were thoughtfully crafted out using the experience and knowledge we studied and practiced for years. AI is taking the work we grinded for and benefitting others, with no compensation to us, the artists.
It's daunting because just this year I decided to turn my hobby of art into a sustainable business. Art has always been a luxury and represented by how the artist created the piece, but now it's at the mercy of a search engine to steal.
I really hate people that do this shit just because they're "fascinated by the AI" or smth idk if thats what they say
I know right oh it's never their jobs and livelyhoods on the chopping blocks it's always the ones already taking a crap already