Is AI taking over Art?
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 06. 2024
- More and more people are experimenting with AI. Is this a good or a bad thing? Should artists be concerned with the latest developments? Is AI taking over art?
In this video we'll shortly look at how AI and we'll compare it to how we humans work. And we'll look at why you don't need to be concerned with your job as an artist.
⌚ Timestamps:
0:00 Introduction
0:46 How does AI work?
4:33 How do we get creative ideas?
Share the video using this link: • Is AI taking over Art?
❤️ Subscribe: / drdraw01 .
✍️ Find amazing reference photos: gumroad.com/a/263740531
➡️Couponcode: 'thedrdraw' for 10% off
(Affiliate links)
✏️ Tools I use ✏️
Stabilo Pens: amzn.to/3MBnN8c
Stabilo Refills: amzn.to/3o9C1DD
Sketchbook: amzn.to/3WaFFtu
Colored Pencils: amzn.to/41EkMYJ
Pencil Sharpener: amzn.to/3IhvfTc
Black Flair Pen : amzn.to/455duQP
Sharpie Fine Point Black Markers: amzn.to/3W9xbTA
Wooden Mannequin: amzn.to/3pLnKgU
White Board: amzn.to/3WcN9vZ
Drawing Glove: amzn.to/3OqYh6P
Wacom Cintiq: amzn.to/3MAtzqD
🎥 Filming setup 🎥
Phone Holder: amzn.to/3ByMJGX
LED Desk Lamp: amzn.to/3OkJFpo
White LED Bulbs: amzn.to/41L9uCf
Laptop Stand: amzn.to/45681t3
📚Books I read 📚
Anatomy For Artists: amzn.to/3pThOlS
Figure Drawing: amzn.to/3OcoWnL
How To Draw: amzn.to/3o7YYaq
Creative Confidence: amzn.to/3Ohzsdx
Mindset: amzn.to/3BxBj6f
Animators Survival Kit: amzn.to/3Oe6on9
Understanding Comics: amzn.to/42LNhFm
Imperfection: amzn.to/3OjUQPm
Kim Jung Gi 2016: amzn.to/42GYQ0z
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
📹 In-video resources
Surrealistly: / surrealistly
Stimograph: / stimograph
Bodiechewning: / bodiechewning
🤓 Why?
In this channel we talk about art, psychology & drawing. Being an artist is hard and it's important to create a mindset that keeps it fun! We'll talk about simple techniques you can use to develop your artistic skills and feel more confident.
🔗 Follow me:
Website: www.thedrdraw.com/
All socials: linktr.ee/thedrdraw
👨🎓 Study more effective:
Patreon: / thedrdraw
👍 CZcams channel
Consider subscribing to this channel and be part of a community that chooses a life of confidence and passion in art and drawing.
▶️ Other videos:
How to make money with drawing: • How to Make Money With...
How to draw perspective: • How to Draw Perspectiv...
#aiart #ai #art - Jak na to + styl
Can we really conceive "AI art" as a tool when the companies behind these AI models are quite literally marketing it as a replacement for human artists? I think not.
It is not replacing. Generate a specific image with it by prompt and inpaint mechanisms is a highly creative and iterative process. You must guide it all along the way by making minor changes to the text input. Download some steps, manipulate them in a program like photoshop, reupload to the model and keep inpainting stuff on different areas to finally get something specific that you want.
If it is just about getting some generic motives for an article or website Decoration or random commercial illustration. Okay, you get away with some early results. But everything specific is not that easy and needs skill and practice.
@@samthesomniator Then I'll ask again, why are the companies behind the AI models marketing it as a replacement? You really think that both privite citizens and companies (especially companies) will rather waste more money on human artists than simply using an AI model to get the same or better results? The dangers this technology has towards the jobs of artists is VERY real and must be dealt with as soon as possible.
@@sergiarts because it will indeed replace some kind of workplaces. That is often the effect, when technology comes to place.
You know there was a hughe uproar against photography by portrait painters. They feared for their jobs as the camera can produce a portrait in seconds but days or weeks. But that has not eradicated painting in general. People still value painting beside photography. It will be just the same. AI is here to stay, it is naive to believe that some prohibition will take place. That means there will be less people doing jobs when it comes to decorative Illustrations or everything you would stock material at the moment. But for highly specific motives people will need some artist that have either a more professional approach to ai-art or do it in hybrid together with the traditional way. 🤷🏻♂️
@@samthesomniator sorry, I'm just not a fan of giving up and acting like there's nothing we can do to regulate it. As I'm writing this, artist associations are contacting policy makers and telling them about this. My hope is that there will be laws regarding the ethics of the use of the technology in order to protect artists. AI will still be used, yes, but hopefully not in the same manner.
Heyhey, marketing is not something we should take as real. Nike promotes itself to make you an athlete. But unfortunately that only happens when you actually run. Whether you do that with Nike shoes or bare feet doesn't really matter.
I agree it isn't a very charming way of marketing yourself. But I just hope artists don't feel concerned or scared to follow their passion. Because in the end it doesn't matter which tools exist. I matter what you like or don't like. At least that's my opinion.
As others already mentioned, my primary concern is the copyright violation happening with this tech. I'm unshaken in my confidence to survive as a professional artist. And competing with new tech is not new. Adopting new tech to enhance my work is not new either.
But AI is something different. I'm perfectly willing to adapt and compete in the marketplace, but it's still a slap in the face when your competition is built on the back of your own work. I'm very much rooting for the initiatives underway to address the legalities of how AI is sourced.
I'd be willing to use AI, not as art, but as reference material for art. But until this copyright issue is sorted, I'd feel hypocritical benefiting from the involuntary archive of other people's work. Upcoming music AI from the Stable Diffusion company will use opt-in and public domain sources only. I suspect they're more afraid of the music industry's might than they are us visual artists.
I think about it in the same way. Reference art is fine. But claiming it to be your work without mentioning the used work is playing on the border. Although you don't need to use AI to 'steal' art.
I'm waiting for Epic Games to release an AI art generator trained on all the art on ArtStation. That would solve the copyright issues, since all the artists there gave Epic Games a royalty free license to sell all the work they post.
@@waltlock8805 And yet, those same terms, however questionable they may be, still grant attribution to the creator of the works.
Those terms would have to be rewritten to align with the same indiscriminate use of original art that AI currently deploys.
Honestly, I don't think it is a bad thing. Humans learn the same way, just because you are inspired it doesn't mean you are copying.
@@bonnjust4001 Humans do not learn the same way AI learns. And it's been proven multiple times that AI generators can almost perfectly reproduce the images they were trained from. That would not be possible if it were only a matter of the machine being "inspired."
the main problem with it is the art being fed into it is not consensual. AI can be a great tool for artists, but right now its going completely against the art community, producing near copies of other peoples work without their consent. The whole problem is the people in control of the AI arent artists or people who have ever been interested in art at all, just money hungry shitheads who want a quick buck. Its so gross how many people ive seen on etsy making AI art and charging real money for """commissions"""
+ i also feel like the whole point of robots "taking over our jobs" was to take over the ones that no one wants to do.. Not the ones people genuinely enjoy
I agree with you on the 'not consent' thing. Although many copy art without AI so that isn't new.
@@thedrDraw no its not new, but it is being amped up 100 fold by ai art, in my opinion ai should not be trained with shit it doesn't own through loopholes in the law.
@@vaughan2632 you can’t copyright style.
I think that the one difference between A.I art vs human created art particularly with novels is that human typically have morals as well as a moral compass and humans tend to project there personal ideology,agendas and or sense of morality into a piece of art however an A.I or a robot is completely amoral and does not have a moral compass so therefore cannot really do this.
Totally true and nicely seen. That said at the moment it doesn't matter whether it has Moral or not because it's just a tool. It's all about the operator.
I think the biggest problem with the AI/artist relationship isn't the fact that we confuse process with result and whatnot, I think that it's about the fact that the majority of people don't actually CARE about art... or at least not all forms of art. I'll take digital drawing as an example to explain myself since it applies to me: companies and people who used to commission artists might start using AI instead. There will consequentially be less jobs available on the market (which was already a problem, or so I've been told). When you're scrolling through, lets say, instagram. You tend to just look at the finished product that an artist has probably spent a lot of time on. Now, AI art can get so good that you won't be able to tell if it was made by an actual artist or not and since you've only seen the finished product, you don't actually care about the process. Chances are, you won't even take the time to check who made it! (I personally like to check, but I know from experience that most people don't)... All those people who spend hours on a simple comic strip could get replaced by an AI (or more accurately, by an AI operator) and you wouldn't know. What I'm afraid of is that the AI comic strips will have better chances of succeeding than the non-AI ones because of how fast they generate (no matter how much you want to fight it, you probably can't draw faster than an AI). I'm ok with seeing AI as a tool, but I don't want it to become the ONLY tool in the market yk?
Now you might say "oh yeah but everything an AI makes always looks deformed haha" or "yeah but a lot of AI steal actual artists works for their pictures so its immoral (and legally chargeable or smth)" which are both valid points. However, I am no scientist, but from what I've learned, we can't underestimate technological advances. These deformities and art-theft problems? those can be sorted out. I mean sure they won't replace us right *now* but maybe in a less distant future than we think... yk?
I would like to add that in the case of photography (and how, back in the day, people thought it was gonna replace art, yady yady yada...) it _could_ only replace realistic art...? (which, btw, I find quite boring usually if it doesn't show any difference with what a camera can do) What I mean to say is that AI art can actually replace any kind of art that fits digitally (which includes photography btw lmao). I've even started hearing about AI that make 3D models and if you print those with a 3D printer, then you also replace sculpting =D (although I have to agree that that last one would take much longer and isn't my primary concern right now).
Ah thanks for sharing your thought. Totally agree, I don't think it will fully replace all art tools. At least not as long as I'm alive.
In a way people like Artists for now don't really need to answer the complicated and nuance discussion of what is art, can A.i generate Art, or said algorithm indeed does learn like us for that matter because these A.i companies for now never argued with that in the first place, they don't care, the ones who do are just the individuals who are using their products of which they created many poorly generated arguments so they can justify it. What we should really focus on is their idea of which holds the foundation of not only their current product but also their future business ventures that is their "axiomatic assumption" of which that they can use any data on the Internet for what ever the time, for whatever its purpose it is at may it be at may be it profit or non profit uses. If the people large enough fight against it and the law eventually sided with us, then it only matter of time for the exploit to crumbling down to nothingness.
If that axiomatic assumption is deem unreasonable both ethically and legally speaking then, only then the previous discussion will be instantly relevant but we have to remember, the clash of formation between two ancient armies is not the deadliest but the route of that will after it. Meaning if we can brake their main justification on court, to the humanity as a whole, its basically much easier then fourth after.
Note: What I mean "exploit" is their cheeky way of gathering data of which they funded a non profit organization of are actually the ones who can actually gather or in other words scrap data across the internet of which they suppose to use it for just non-profit and only research only purposes... of which might be true but the parent company who mainly funded them definitely will, and surely make a profit out of it when the datasets became open, of which should have been illegal in a first place but oh well, a loophole is a loophole.
A simple solution for the "stolen training data" issue would be for Epic Games to release a model trained on all the art from Art Station portfolios, as all the artists there granted Epic a perpetual royalty-free license to modify and sell their art.
Kind of disgusting, wouldn't you say?
0:55 that's not how it works. It doesn't combine anything, it creates everything by diffusing noise.
Yes, and also true to coding, literature, game developments, movies, such and such. If humanity just accept that companies can use our data to do what ever they want, its not really impossible that they can make a machine learning algorithm to make a faster, much more better, and a fraction of the cost we will ever do.
That's true for everything a human can do.
@@Cellardoor_ yess... that's my point. Though if it's ethical and legal then it's ok.
Totally agree, I hope people won't let their headspace get eaten up by stuff that doesn't matter in the end. Thank you for the comment!
I think the best use of ai is concept art, it's not that useful to create a final piece for a client
This will be intense, can’t wait
So did you like it?
@@thedrDraw it was good, it was a interesting take on ai art
If artist cease making/sharing art, artificial intelligence may begin processing their own prompt to generate images which in turn will increase repetition and fill their databank with similar imageries. Consequentially those reference will be broken down more and more, eventually generating infinite amount of noise or blank images
Why can't it simply reference past artwork ? Because for every original ideas, countless variants will be generated which in turn, those will be more likely to be used & generate variants of their own
Once a dataset is used to train an AI that dataset doesn't update anymore, if you give it a paramether like "trending in Artstation" it will take the trendings what was in the moment the dataset was created. when a new version is up (like dall-e 2) usually it involves a new and updated dataset. So can't create anything new really. Still the use of AI needs to be regulated soon or we are going to have serious troubles.
Haha that is a nice way of looking at it
@@thedrDraw I am taking it back. We are screwed, time to off myself!
(click)
*Delete his twitter*
You didn't really describe the whole training and generation process correctly. I think your explanation may actually do far more harm than good, since it perpetuates the false information spread by the anti-AI art movement.
The generative AIs don't collect the image data, and they don't choose which pieces to take from images.
The image data is collected beforehand and used for training the AI - just like how you can buy a book on art history and the contents are already curated. The difference is that the AI needs A LOT more images - or else it will over-fit, meaning unintentionally reproduce inputs at near perfect copies (which is a no-no from an AI ethics perspective).
Then the model learns patterns of features, which are not the same thing as "pieces of an image". It learns things like "what does an apple look like?", and "how do you draw an eye?", and "what do Van Gogh's brush strokes look like?". Then it associates those features with a text representation "apple", "eye", "painting by Van Gogh".
When prompted, the AI will then take an input consisting of pure noise, and try to re-create those features based on the text prompt (this is called "conditioning"). But the recreation is a probabilistic function based on feature prevalence in the model, the condition strength, and the noise seed. In simpler terms, if you trained the model on 4 images of Starry Night and 4 images of Irises, then the model has a 50% chance of reproducing the Starry Night brush strokes and a 50% change of reproducing the Irises brush strokes when prompted with "painting by Van Gogh". However, that probability is distributed spatially (in roughly 8x8 overlapping pixel chunks from Stable Diffusion), where each chunk can have a different combination of the brush strokes to create something that didn't previously exist.
Note that if you instead only trained the model on Starry Night, then it would only produce features in Starry Night when prompted "painting by Van Gogh", which is a form of overfitting. Sometimes this is also called "burn in".
Thank you for the elaborate answer and sharing more insights in how the system works. While researching I should have reached out to you! But while going down the rabbit hole myself I kinda thought 'what does it matter'. I don't want to sound rude or anything but how it works eventually doesn't lead to a different point of view of the use of AI.
I truly believe it's a tool, just like when the camera or photoshop was developed. People were totally against it because it took jobs and what not. But we don't choose to be an artist because we can do stuff quick (at least I do), we choose it because we love to do a certain activity. Which is more important in my opinion.
What do you think?
@@thedrDraw I completely agree regarding these generative models as tools. But it's important to not misrepresent the technology (part of the current lawsuit argues that the AI pulls from a database of images stored within the model, which is not true and makes the models seem far more nefarious than they really are). Though even that statement has some nuance to it, so I know it's difficult to find clear explanations of how these things work - it will probably come to a point where the gist becomes common knowledge, like the general knowledge of how cars work.
I think the raw outputs can be used to create "art" when recontextualized. For example, I recall seeing one example where generations were used in a collage, and another where the lyrics of Bohemian Rhapsody were interpreted into images. In both cases, the act of arranging and contextualizing the outputs transformed the output into art.
There was also an example where outputs were photo bashed to create stills in a low budget indie point and click adventure game (that opens the door for expression through story telling for people who may not have strong drawing / painting skills but still want to express themselves).
But in general, the models have the strongest potential when used as a tool for generating references, getting inspiration for composition / details, and suggesting color palettes. I've also used SD to help create textures for 3D art (something that's always been a tedious process for me).
And there are other similar use cases outside of the art world like generating synthetic images to train object detection AIs.
I know that the generative AI will eventually become good enough at 3D to be a serious challenge there as well, and that's not going to stop me from enjoying the creative process. But it will mean that I may not have to create boring models in the future because they were needed in the background of some scene. Instead I can focus on the aspects that I find the most fulfilling.
It can take away some jobs, but it can never take away the feeling of creating and being in the zone.
My favorite artist will still be my favorite artists, even if someone starts making copies of their art style.
There is more to human creations than just replicating their technique. I'm not that worried about AI
Exactly! Some, might be scared but I don't think that's necessary.
Ai art is just really uncanny to me
The definition of art in it's creation and total expression comes from a human. Not a machine Ai that ironically has a database of human art.
Totally agreed
ok i guess painting houses it is, atleast thats a job AI cant take, for now.
Haha well there's more it can't really take, like come up with ideas. It still needs a human to activate. When that changes I think terminator will become real.
Eventually it will take over every job. It will be like the movie Wally we're AI does everything and we don't work anymore. It's already replacing jobs in animation and alot of companies are laying off workers because AI can do things faster and cheaper. It not just about art alot of jobs are in danger of they don't regulate it. @@thedrDraw
with a i image generators , no one will pay artists to produce illustrations for book covers or posters .
I’m not sure about that. Some authors might want hand made stuff, it’s more authentic. The fact a tool exists doesn’t mean other tools become obsolete
@@thedrDraw highly unlikely
Capitalism has never cared about authenticity. They care about the bottom line. We live with a fucked up system and it's time to demand change.
1:00
it's not how it works though. It doesn't suck up images and sorts what it takes and what not.
There are two parts to creating an AI image generation app.
1. The crawler, an algorithm that looks for publicly available images. It "looks" at them, it doesn't download the file - and than changes a few weights in the second part based on what it saw. (What we call Machine learning).
2. The neural network (the second part). A file that is in it's creation roughly 4.5 GB. The crawler does it's thing and sends the neural network commands to change, a few billion times. After completion, the neural network is ... 4.5 GB large. Its filze size doesn't change, there is no compression, sampling or gathering new data - just the changing of weights.
The file can than be used, OFFLINE if you chose so, to create new pictures. From what it learned. At no point after the ML is it necessary to be connected to the internet. Even if it wanted to - it CAN'T combine images because it doesn't have any image file in it.
Interesting take on the rest though, not antagonizing at all. Thank you. Really appreciated. Hope my explanation helped.
Yeah I didn't really use those words but isn't it close to what I'm saying? It's a metaphor I know. But I like talking in metaphors. Thanks for sharing though :)
Right, this whole AI "art" situation brings up a lot of philosophical conversations. But art has always been about human expression and skill. When you take that away you just have a product to sell. It's pretty soulless. I have no problem with the technology but it's catering to the ugly side of humanity that wants things and "wants it now." It empowers entitled people who are too lazy to learn a craft. It's like someone who achieved a fit physique from working out naturally VS someone who uses steroids. But honestly, assuming copyright laws get enforced, the true skilled (not talented) artist who worked hard on their craft will rise above. Even if AI gets advanced, the true artist will be able to do things the mediocre pretend artist won't be able to do.
Spoken like a true philospopher
(I wont correct that)
Factss!
Can't agree more!
Uman / human
Maybe A.I get smarter in the future or skynet come true.
Haha SKYNET WILL ROB OUR JOBS AND KILL US
AI’s a tool that will give more people the power to create, so I think it’ll be great, stumbles and all!
Ah thanks for sharing, yeah I totally agree. We shouldn't be afraid of tools, they only bring opportunities. Yay!
You call ai prompters "artists" on this video. I'm curious. Is someone who commissions from an artist also an artist? After all the process is identical. You give instructions to the source of the "art" change it with further instructions if you are not happy with the result and you end up with an image that you requested. Are commissioners artists too? And why can't we compare humans and AI? On this context, while their path is differenth, the end result is the same: An image with desired characteristics. Can't we compare other things then just because they work similarly? I don't disagree that it can be a tool but that doesn't take away the fact that is a tool that has the purpose, at least to a great degree, of replicating what an artist can do. Don't get me wrong, I think AI has a lot of potential as a tool, just like you do, but I also think you said a lot of stuff that are just plain wrong and are stretching the meaning of the word artist to it's outmost limits. Which is not fundamentally wrong, but it does put mediocricy on a pedestal, albeit unintentionally. An AI generated image can be more than that if edited by human hand, but I still wouldn't call the piece art, just it's edition, which is the reason I also believe AI can't be copyrighted, but the editions you make to an ai image can.
Love your vids btw.
Hehey and thanks for your elaborate answer. You raise a couple of fundamental questions like 'what is art'. Which is really hard to answer in my opinion. Maybe I don't say it correctly in this video, which is a few months old now. But I just see so many scared artists because of AI. And I just think it's another challenge, but nothing more. The same thing happend when they invented the camera and tablet to draw digitally. It's a recurring fear and in the end we just need to find a way to deal with it. And if you're really good at something (which I think is what it means to do art) you don't need to be threatened by a machine making pictures. But maybe I'm wrong.
you missed the mark on this one, you literally compared someone who types a few words into an AI to an actual artist, we need voices to back us in this fight and you're doing the opposite, i hope you reconsider your position
As someone who supports AI "art", I agree with you in regards to the comparison. Prompting isn't a sufficient amount of work to constitute the title of "artist".
But I think using AI as part of the process can be sufficient, such as generation, cutting out and combining (like collages), redirection (by using image prompts drawn by hand), and then improving cohesion with subsequent passes. All of those steps require much more effort by a human, putting their own creative identity into the process.
I don't think that's the only way the tool should be allowed to be used, but I think that's the minimum necessity for the output to be considered "art" rather than simply a "pretty picture".
@@hjups i agree
So, writing isn't art? How long or good does a text need to be? Who are you to decide?
@@mifster83 you can't fool me with your mental gymnastics, you know exactly what i mean.
i can't believe you actually compared it to a Photoshop brushes bruh i never seen a brush do a full drawing in the style of kim jung gi .
im actually disappointed with this vid .
Bummer! can't make everybody happy. What had you rather seen?
@@thedrDraw
idk dr draw maybe something about how they actually used our love of drawing to replace us . those models are made using the work of millions of artists and photographers that didn't know that there work was because used without consent in the making of a program that was created to compete against them.
it's actually ironic it's like hunting a dear and using it's teeth to eat it .
i hope you understand my English.
u got slammed as dino omg
With all due respect, you seem to be confused by how AI works. AI doesn’t merely combine images, it discovers patterns in the the input images, identifies these patterns in images of random noise, and refines the noise to create the kind of image the user asked for in the prompt. That’s a huge oversimplification, but it’s the gist.
I also disagree that AI is merely a tool. I think too much of the creative work is being done by the AI for the user to claim ownership over the final image. It gives the AI far more control over the final image than the prompter, who can only guide the image in a certain direction.
Honestly you might be right. But in the end I don't really care how it works or all the details. I could say 'if you like making art then do it' but that's a bit short. But that's what I think.
You have no clue how this technology works, wow.
Absolutely 0 sense
Ai is only useful to increase game fps, banned ai from internet, without internet ai is like potato pc.
What a narrow perspective... AI is used all over the place to improve the lives of humans - AI in games is probably the least relevant place for it.
Text to speech and speech to text AI is used to help the blind.
AI is used to help photographers and camera operators focus lenses.
AI is used in photoshop to help select elements to manipulate (how do you think smart selection works?)
AI is used in the medical industry to denoise and identify tumors.
In fact, AI is actually used in your very computer to predict how instructions should be executed (branch prediction), without it, your computer would probably be about 20x slower.
@@hjups ai is simply peice of shit. Don't trust ai, these ai stole your info, sell to biggest company.
so this means there's no future for newbies in art industry!! :\
Noo! I think there's more future, just more tools to experiment with
@@thedrDraw that's a good news then ?
Jup, that’s my perspective though
If it's yours then it's a good news for newbies
You're the tool, not the AI. I don't mean that as an insult, I mean all the AI needs is a little input from you and then it has learned and spits you out. This will not create jobs, it will create corporations who own the rights to the program that everybody, including art industry companies, buy.
ai is the great equalizer. now its in arts but soon it will be in almost every domain like writing, movies, games, teaching, health... I would tell people to not worry since this is inevitable, just enjoy your time
A simple yet attractive mindset
It's attractive to just enjoy life until's it's pointless? To me there is no point living in a world where 'art' is generated rather than created, and we all just buy into it and watch our generated movies and eat our McDonalds. People don't realise that there is no reward without a struggle. If we can just generate everything we will become unfulfilled and lose our hopes and dreams. Sorry if my pessimism cramps your style but I and many others will fight this as soon it may be all we have left.
@@cloverbun2574 how brave and noble...nobody cares about your juvenile "fight" against ai art. 99% of people have bigger fish to fry like wars, affording food and shelter. there was never any point or purpose to anything. its all a blank canvas.