I really urge you to watch the entirety of this video as I fear parts of it might seem confusing or problematic if taken out of context. This has been on my mind for a few months now, and I hope I did okay at expressing my ideas. What do you think of this topic? Share your thoughts in the comments! Edit: I also want to clarify that not all reposters are bad IMO. It's why I said "a lot" instead of "all". Not sure if that was understood in what I said so I just wanted to point it out.
Not sure why RUclips recommended this to me, but this video gave me a lot to think about. I really appreciated the insights presented in this video (the legal implications and fact that prompters themselves are tools was something I considered, but didn’t give too much thought to.) I am sorry that this is the current state of things and that this video had to be made in response. I hope to see more from Raven. This comment is my contribution to the algorithm, I guess.
There's no difference between an amateur artist doing studies using established art and training ai with it. Both minds are studying the image to see how they are created so they could recreate the style later. Yes, artists will lose jobs to corporations, but consider that corporations exploit artists and often go so far as to steal their ideas. Corporations as 'people' are only interested in making money, they will always stiff the worker or creator if it will make them money. My attitude is let them. There will always be a market for human created art among...humans. We're in a new paradigm of 'content'. AI is not going away, it's best to get used to it and work around and with it.
It's very interesting that you're assuming artists recreate existing styles of other artists and make it their entire brand. If you're an artist, you would know how obsessed we are with finding our own style. It's why videos on finding or creating your own art style do so well on platforms like RUclips. Artists don't duplicate styles. If a machine exists that can replicate someone's entire life's work, what would even be the point of being an artist? I could put in a decade into refining my style and it could be stolen in an instant. Also, artists aren't dumb. We know AI isn't going away. We just want its fair use and its regulation. The point of us wanting regulation of AI, is to not make human creation pointless like I mentioned. I know you think that human artists will always be sought after no matter what, but given the greedy nature of big corporations that profit the most off of art, it's very unlikely that the opportunities that will be left for us will give us incomes we could still live off of. Look at Hollywood and the ongoing writer strike. If we can learn anything from that, its that companies will ALWAYS opt for the cheaper option when given the choice. They wouldn't hire 100 artists if one AI technician can do it for them. It wouldn't be so bad if the AI models weren't built using our own works. What makes the situation so insulting is that our paintings are being fed to machines and those machines are taking job opportunities from us. Our work is literally stolen alongside our source of income. Again, we just want regulation. The only reason AI companies are getting away with what they're doing is because laws aren't being updated to regulate them yet. If we could get everybody on board with the fair use of AI, we could encourage legal action and stop these companies from abusing artists. Also, to say that we should just get used to it is a really unsettling way to respond to people experiencing crisis or abuse. Try saying that to other problems like racism, sexism, t3rror1sm, r@p3 culture. "Just get over it and adapt". Why should we when a solution exists? How about fixing the problem with the simple solution of encouraging politicians to regulate AI?
5:20 I see this perspective a lot but it just doesn't make logical sense. First of all art is subjective, there is nothing to vaguely "surpass" in human expression. The only things that can be "surpassed" are objective metrics, for example the speed of generation. These art generation programs are also fundamentally unable to be "upgraded" to the point where they would be able to create concepts on their own. This would be another type of program entirely, and would essentially be an artificial general intelligence. That's because to create concepts would mean emulating how humans generate concepts, I.E. taking in information that exists in the world and creating novel interpretations of that perspective. Even if this were possible for some future god like AI that can exist in the world, it would be unable to emulate experiences that only life can experience first hand, like death, loss, injury, etc. Personally I think that the belief in an AGI is a superstition, as it is something that has no clear logical progression besides what exists in the imagination of the people talking about it. My position is that the goal of generative AI creations is not to replace artists, but to devalue them, as with all forms of mass production. AI art programs will always still need some human input, to continue being trained and to continue generating content that is relevant to the current moment. However, that does not stop a company from paying people less to edit and put their own important artistic input into mass produced content that has been generated by AI, paying people less for still important work under the assumption that "anyone can do this job."
Yes, you are correct! it would be an entirely different program. The point though is that it is not impossible to make something like it. AIs like ChatGPT are very capable of generating strings of text that can be used for art prompts. With massive data scraping online already happening for art generators and targeted ads, what makes you think an AI won't be able to pick up on trend data and personal info to create strings of text to match these info, creating art targeted for specific people or matching trendy topics to get clicks. And even if your point will be correct about AI needing people to handle it, just imagine the amount of artists that could get laid off as a result. I imagine companies will not be needing many to feed info into their machines. An employment opportunity for 100 artists could just turn into a job for 5. Taking away employment opportunities in the name of art is wild, and is why I highlighted employment as a major point in why AI is concerning. Also, the part of the video you tinestamped very specifically included words like "possibly" or "probably" because I do not think it is a definite path this technology could end up in. It is just one of the possibilities of what might happen if AI companies gain legal support for their schemes. You also mentioned that AI will not replace but will just devalue artists. I also completely agree with you. I think it's pretty obvious that AI will not conpletely replace artists. After all, the machines are not out there assasinating artists who still make paintings lol. Artists will keep creating no matter what. That's kind of not the point though. The point is whether we will allow arts to be primarily a moneymaker for big companies or whether we will fight to keep it a profitable industry for individual creators. Just like what you said, AI will just devalue human artists. I alluded to this during 12:40 and 16:56 but probably didn't say enough to make the point clear, but yes I totally agree with you with this. Thank you for your input on the video btw. I agree with most of what you said. Just wanted to clarify some things.
@@prismraven all I can add is don't underestimate just how much information from the real world is required to generate an artist's taste, which is our most valuable asset. As much information can be scraped from the internet it is an extremely shallow scraping compared to what a flesh and blood human can get from experiencing the real world. Dig a deep well and you will always find water.
8 months after a video... this... 40 min about AI. You are right when you say that this is capitalism! It is! Real big money are being applied on AI art and its evolving exponentially fast! The thing is, we can't make anything to stop it! Look at artstation for example, we united and posted the "no AI". So they created a hashtag for Ai and other for No AI... Broh, it sucks, and the stupidest thing, we saw it and we accepted it. A lot of companies still contracting digital artists to do the work, but it only covers a part of artists, comissions have being so hard to get for example. I didn't get any in months... Real broken now. In the other hand, traditional artists seems to be fine, An argument is that in early digital art, people was complaining about it, saying digital art isn't art at all, as if the fucking drawing tablets and the programs would do something like the AI art programs are doing now. There, we, at least, do drawings with our own hands. Now we just need to know how to type words. Another argument is that in future, it will be just another tool, but it won't. It will reach something like perfect art pieces (whatever it means) and the artist (that it stoles from) will be ended, there will be no space for us, We going to edit over an AI art at the most, it won't fufill our artistic souls, and, at least for me, won't bring me any joy, and it won't pay what we deserves now, as artists, as if we are receiving that deserved value before, but you get the point. I was going to argue about the thing of us being terrified of AI, we shouldn't be terrified, but we should know the right things to be a little scared. Being an artist is hard as hell, we all known it! being terrified would just make it harder... Still doing your art guys, we don't know what the future have for us... maybe we are doomed, but, maybe, we aren't. Great video btw Prism Raven, we miss you!
Yeah, art businesses have been ROUGH recently. It feels like all the companies are in support of AI, it's actually scary. The only fighting chance artists have are the lawsuits and Glaze. We can only hope things will get better from this point on. I just want to let you know that pretty much all artists are feeling this panic right now. Heck, even the big artists are taking down their art on Twitter and glazing them. I know it's difficult to stay optimistic but still take care of yourself. Teaching others about this topic is important but don't forget to live your life outside of art. Exercise, rest, go outside, watch movies. It has really helped me a ton recently, especially after making this video for an entire depressing month lol. We are right here with you! Stay safe and keep learning. ♥
@@prismraven its complicated, I feel I can't make people change their thoughts about AI art. Like, its obvious for me that its not that cool, but for some people, it is that cool. And what about animations generated by AI? Texts are the minor thing and I bet we are consuming it without noticing in some level. Being artist is hard by itself, but was never that scary! And I don't know about the laws, it could change things, but its already a little late for it (being pessimist). One thing that still give me some comfort, is that AI ART IS COLD! LACK OF FEELINGS! LACK OF HUMAN MISTAKES! and even if you ask them to do a really emotional scene, and ask it to mimic the mistakes, it would still cold as fuck. Our biggest difference against them is that we are humans, we feel, we can interpretate things in our way and translate it to our art in our way. Everyone does it differently, cause EVERY FUCKING PIECE OF HUMAN OUT THERE ARE FUCKING UNIQUE! We are unique in ourselves, the machine isn't. It is cold! And even, if it could reach the perfection, our imperfection can't be reached by them. Its a little philosofical, but that thought give me a little hope! (Also, it doesn't have a process, besides the prompt texts to generate the image, we, in other hand, sketch, we plan, we draw roughly to refine it, enjoy the process guys!) Sorry something about my bad english and yes, please, selfcaring its essential!
@levigore hmmm, I'm not quite sure myself. But its important to remember that the art generators that produce good looking art needed BILLIONS of copyrighted images to reach that level. Removing even half of those will deal a massive blow to the quality. Yes, AI surpassing humans in quality can still happen with ethical production but at the very least, the contributors of the training images will be compensated. If AI would pay the artists who contributed to their databases a fair amount, we would have no problem. But of course, why would they want to pay if they used billions of images they need to credit? They only want the money. That's kind of our main problem. As much as we want to say it isn't about money, it truly does play a big role in the conversation. Artists are also just regular people that need to earn to survive. The issue is that these programs are replicating them and is taking away opportunities to earn money. As long as the artists aren't going bankrupt over AI and the wealth it generates will be shared fairly to the contributors, I doubt it would cause much of an issue. Many artists themselves are fascinated and would be willing to use AI if it is ethical. The topic of fake news and identity theft is another can of worms tho. Wow I should've added this to the video lol. Thanks for mentioning this. I've never even thought of this before you commented.
I really urge you to watch the entirety of this video as I fear parts of it might seem confusing or problematic if taken out of context. This has been on my mind for a few months now, and I hope I did okay at expressing my ideas. What do you think of this topic? Share your thoughts in the comments!
Edit: I also want to clarify that not all reposters are bad IMO. It's why I said "a lot" instead of "all". Not sure if that was understood in what I said so I just wanted to point it out.
Not sure why RUclips recommended this to me, but this video gave me a lot to think about. I really appreciated the insights presented in this video (the legal implications and fact that prompters themselves are tools was something I considered, but didn’t give too much thought to.) I am sorry that this is the current state of things and that this video had to be made in response. I hope to see more from Raven.
This comment is my contribution to the algorithm, I guess.
Thanks so much for the support! Yes, you will be seeing more from me soon. I have lots of less depressing ideas for upcoming videos lol.
That was a lot of information nice work ! compiling that much in one video
Thanks! It took me a month to make this 💀
More people need to see this video, thank you for sharing this point of view
Very in-depth and thought provoking.
Thanks so much!
Yess she is speaking finally
You nailed it. I love the speed paint!
Thank you! The hands were a nice step out of my comfort zone.
There's no difference between an amateur artist doing studies using established art and training ai with it. Both minds are studying the image to see how they are created so they could recreate the style later. Yes, artists will lose jobs to corporations, but consider that corporations exploit artists and often go so far as to steal their ideas. Corporations as 'people' are only interested in making money, they will always stiff the worker or creator if it will make them money. My attitude is let them. There will always be a market for human created art among...humans. We're in a new paradigm of 'content'. AI is not going away, it's best to get used to it and work around and with it.
It's very interesting that you're assuming artists recreate existing styles of other artists and make it their entire brand. If you're an artist, you would know how obsessed we are with finding our own style. It's why videos on finding or creating your own art style do so well on platforms like RUclips. Artists don't duplicate styles. If a machine exists that can replicate someone's entire life's work, what would even be the point of being an artist? I could put in a decade into refining my style and it could be stolen in an instant. Also, artists aren't dumb. We know AI isn't going away. We just want its fair use and its regulation. The point of us wanting regulation of AI, is to not make human creation pointless like I mentioned. I know you think that human artists will always be sought after no matter what, but given the greedy nature of big corporations that profit the most off of art, it's very unlikely that the opportunities that will be left for us will give us incomes we could still live off of. Look at Hollywood and the ongoing writer strike. If we can learn anything from that, its that companies will ALWAYS opt for the cheaper option when given the choice. They wouldn't hire 100 artists if one AI technician can do it for them. It wouldn't be so bad if the AI models weren't built using our own works. What makes the situation so insulting is that our paintings are being fed to machines and those machines are taking job opportunities from us. Our work is literally stolen alongside our source of income. Again, we just want regulation. The only reason AI companies are getting away with what they're doing is because laws aren't being updated to regulate them yet. If we could get everybody on board with the fair use of AI, we could encourage legal action and stop these companies from abusing artists.
Also, to say that we should just get used to it is a really unsettling way to respond to people experiencing crisis or abuse. Try saying that to other problems like racism, sexism, t3rror1sm, r@p3 culture. "Just get over it and adapt". Why should we when a solution exists? How about fixing the problem with the simple solution of encouraging politicians to regulate AI?
@@prismraven yes, thank you for gatekeeping me, I do understand the need to 'find your own style', but nobody does that without help.
Nobody is saying we did it without help...
There is no "mind" when it comes to ai is just a data laundering machine that so far has done more harm then good.
5:20 I see this perspective a lot but it just doesn't make logical sense. First of all art is subjective, there is nothing to vaguely "surpass" in human expression. The only things that can be "surpassed" are objective metrics, for example the speed of generation. These art generation programs are also fundamentally unable to be "upgraded" to the point where they would be able to create concepts on their own. This would be another type of program entirely, and would essentially be an artificial general intelligence. That's because to create concepts would mean emulating how humans generate concepts, I.E. taking in information that exists in the world and creating novel interpretations of that perspective. Even if this were possible for some future god like AI that can exist in the world, it would be unable to emulate experiences that only life can experience first hand, like death, loss, injury, etc. Personally I think that the belief in an AGI is a superstition, as it is something that has no clear logical progression besides what exists in the imagination of the people talking about it.
My position is that the goal of generative AI creations is not to replace artists, but to devalue them, as with all forms of mass production. AI art programs will always still need some human input, to continue being trained and to continue generating content that is relevant to the current moment. However, that does not stop a company from paying people less to edit and put their own important artistic input into mass produced content that has been generated by AI, paying people less for still important work under the assumption that "anyone can do this job."
Yes, you are correct! it would be an entirely different program. The point though is that it is not impossible to make something like it. AIs like ChatGPT are very capable of generating strings of text that can be used for art prompts. With massive data scraping online already happening for art generators and targeted ads, what makes you think an AI won't be able to pick up on trend data and personal info to create strings of text to match these info, creating art targeted for specific people or matching trendy topics to get clicks. And even if your point will be correct about AI needing people to handle it, just imagine the amount of artists that could get laid off as a result. I imagine companies will not be needing many to feed info into their machines. An employment opportunity for 100 artists could just turn into a job for 5. Taking away employment opportunities in the name of art is wild, and is why I highlighted employment as a major point in why AI is concerning. Also, the part of the video you tinestamped very specifically included words like "possibly" or "probably" because I do not think it is a definite path this technology could end up in. It is just one of the possibilities of what might happen if AI companies gain legal support for their schemes.
You also mentioned that AI will not replace but will just devalue artists. I also completely agree with you. I think it's pretty obvious that AI will not conpletely replace artists. After all, the machines are not out there assasinating artists who still make paintings lol. Artists will keep creating no matter what. That's kind of not the point though. The point is whether we will allow arts to be primarily a moneymaker for big companies or whether we will fight to keep it a profitable industry for individual creators. Just like what you said, AI will just devalue human artists. I alluded to this during 12:40 and 16:56 but probably didn't say enough to make the point clear, but yes I totally agree with you with this.
Thank you for your input on the video btw. I agree with most of what you said. Just wanted to clarify some things.
@@prismraven all I can add is don't underestimate just how much information from the real world is required to generate an artist's taste, which is our most valuable asset. As much information can be scraped from the internet it is an extremely shallow scraping compared to what a flesh and blood human can get from experiencing the real world. Dig a deep well and you will always find water.
8 months after a video... this... 40 min about AI. You are right when you say that this is capitalism! It is! Real big money are being applied on AI art and its evolving exponentially fast! The thing is, we can't make anything to stop it! Look at artstation for example, we united and posted the "no AI". So they created a hashtag for Ai and other for No AI... Broh, it sucks, and the stupidest thing, we saw it and we accepted it. A lot of companies still contracting digital artists to do the work, but it only covers a part of artists, comissions have being so hard to get for example. I didn't get any in months... Real broken now. In the other hand, traditional artists seems to be fine, An argument is that in early digital art, people was complaining about it, saying digital art isn't art at all, as if the fucking drawing tablets and the programs would do something like the AI art programs are doing now. There, we, at least, do drawings with our own hands. Now we just need to know how to type words. Another argument is that in future, it will be just another tool, but it won't. It will reach something like perfect art pieces (whatever it means) and the artist (that it stoles from) will be ended, there will be no space for us, We going to edit over an AI art at the most, it won't fufill our artistic souls, and, at least for me, won't bring me any joy, and it won't pay what we deserves now, as artists, as if we are receiving that deserved value before, but you get the point. I was going to argue about the thing of us being terrified of AI, we shouldn't be terrified, but we should know the right things to be a little scared.
Being an artist is hard as hell, we all known it! being terrified would just make it harder... Still doing your art guys, we don't know what the future have for us... maybe we are doomed, but, maybe, we aren't.
Great video btw Prism Raven, we miss you!
Yeah, art businesses have been ROUGH recently. It feels like all the companies are in support of AI, it's actually scary. The only fighting chance artists have are the lawsuits and Glaze. We can only hope things will get better from this point on. I just want to let you know that pretty much all artists are feeling this panic right now. Heck, even the big artists are taking down their art on Twitter and glazing them. I know it's difficult to stay optimistic but still take care of yourself. Teaching others about this topic is important but don't forget to live your life outside of art. Exercise, rest, go outside, watch movies. It has really helped me a ton recently, especially after making this video for an entire depressing month lol. We are right here with you! Stay safe and keep learning. ♥
@@prismraven its complicated, I feel I can't make people change their thoughts about AI art. Like, its obvious for me that its not that cool, but for some people, it is that cool. And what about animations generated by AI? Texts are the minor thing and I bet we are consuming it without noticing in some level. Being artist is hard by itself, but was never that scary! And I don't know about the laws, it could change things, but its already a little late for it (being pessimist). One thing that still give me some comfort, is that AI ART IS COLD! LACK OF FEELINGS! LACK OF HUMAN MISTAKES! and even if you ask them to do a really emotional scene, and ask it to mimic the mistakes, it would still cold as fuck. Our biggest difference against them is that we are humans, we feel, we can interpretate things in our way and translate it to our art in our way. Everyone does it differently, cause EVERY FUCKING PIECE OF HUMAN OUT THERE ARE FUCKING UNIQUE! We are unique in ourselves, the machine isn't. It is cold! And even, if it could reach the perfection, our imperfection can't be reached by them. Its a little philosofical, but that thought give me a little hope! (Also, it doesn't have a process, besides the prompt texts to generate the image, we, in other hand, sketch, we plan, we draw roughly to refine it, enjoy the process guys!)
Sorry something about my bad english and yes, please, selfcaring its essential!
None of this would be a problem under socialism.
And there's nothing we can do about it. Ai is already doing better than humans faster
True, unless the law will start protecting art against data scraping and reproduction.
@levigore hmmm, I'm not quite sure myself. But its important to remember that the art generators that produce good looking art needed BILLIONS of copyrighted images to reach that level. Removing even half of those will deal a massive blow to the quality. Yes, AI surpassing humans in quality can still happen with ethical production but at the very least, the contributors of the training images will be compensated. If AI would pay the artists who contributed to their databases a fair amount, we would have no problem. But of course, why would they want to pay if they used billions of images they need to credit? They only want the money. That's kind of our main problem. As much as we want to say it isn't about money, it truly does play a big role in the conversation. Artists are also just regular people that need to earn to survive. The issue is that these programs are replicating them and is taking away opportunities to earn money. As long as the artists aren't going bankrupt over AI and the wealth it generates will be shared fairly to the contributors, I doubt it would cause much of an issue. Many artists themselves are fascinated and would be willing to use AI if it is ethical. The topic of fake news and identity theft is another can of worms tho.
Wow I should've added this to the video lol. Thanks for mentioning this. I've never even thought of this before you commented.
a ia never would be super creative like a human
Ai is not doing better. It already rea-credință the point where it just learns from its own generations.