Why AI art is so controversial
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 01. 2023
- You've probably heard about "AI art" - pictures created by simply typing in a few words. These are text-to-image generation tools based on huge natural language models - DALL-E 2, Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, and now more.
But why are they so controversial? It boils down to two big questions:
1. Will AI art take artists' jobs?
2. Does AI art steal artists' work?
#short #AI #AIart #technology
There's also another problem with AI art: is making art even a task we want to automate? Why are we automating things that make us happy? Eventually it comes down what we prioritize in our capitalist society.
Looking at art doesn't make me happy. Making art makes me happy. Traditional art like paintings, illustration and other 2d pictoral media give me almost no feeling at all alone. Give it motion and dialogue sure, but by itself? Eh. And I've felt this way for decades and have found a good amount of people in my life that feel the same way. The reason art makes most people in my experience feel warm and fuzzy is because of the artist behind it or the subject of the art and to a much lesser degree, the interaction that they associate with the art when they received or bought it. All of which can be achieved with AI art. So in the same breath it's a yes and no, but for different reasons.
The real question is does AI art have "soul"? Which, the only way to findan answer objectively would be a double blind study where a litany of art both AI and handmade are randomly portrayed in the same media (most likely flat reprints on a sheet of low gloss paper) and having people go through and pick out which pieces of art they like and which they don't. See if there is an inherent bias toward the art created by the humans vs the AI. My hypothesis is that there will be no clear findings meaning the AI is so close to how humans create art that there is no noticeable difference and it will moreso come down to the the personal taste in subject and style of the pollees, rather than who it was made by.
as long as we have capitalism ai is going to screw all of us over eventually
Thats like saying the power loom has ruined weaving.
The darn things have been around for nearly 250 years and people still do it to relax or express their creativity.
And also: Not everything is about what kind of economic system you like.
This is just called technoligcal progress and occurs in any functioning societal order (and thats good!).
@@angrysealion2259 Exactly. Most of these technological developments are only deeply dystopian because of capitalism. The technology is not the problem, the system is.
@@TheShowdown16 I don't think the comparison with weaving is accurate. Firstly, power looms don't compete with artist weavers, whereas AI generators DO compete with artists. Secondly, the power loom has huge societal value because it provides us with something we otherwise could not have gotten (because weaving by hand is tremendously tedious). AI art generators on the other hand have a negative societal value. This is because they do not solve any problem we have, yet they make art in general worthless.
I do think your comparison is right in one respect though: the main problem being capitalism. The power loom was not inherently a bad thing. However, at the time the working class hated them. Why? Because the machines caused them to lose their jobs. For them, the power loom was a bad thing. I would say, it's not the power looms that are bad, but the economic system that left the workers to starve so that the factory owners could get more profits. If society were to strive towards human happiness instead of monetary gain, most of these technologies people hate or find dystopian would either not exist or not pose a threat anymore.
Your last sentence seems to imply that you think there is just some natural phenomenon called "technological progress" that's completely detached from us humans, our societies and our economic systems. I can't disagree more with that. Technological progress does not exist in a vacuum. Our economic system and societal order have a huge influence on the direction of technological progress. Capitalism incentivizes profits, often contrary to the greater good. For instance, some kinds of medicine are just NOT developed further just because the pharmaceutical companies that fund it do not deem it profitable to do so.
You also forgot that artist don't consent for their art to be used in ai training mechanisms and sometimes those mechanisms even sell products and stuff.
Good point...I have just started doing art projects and I would be mad as all heck if someone stole my ideas and started producing my ideas for free...
@@joycegriffin1290 ai wouldn’t directly copy your work just like I wouldn’t. I would get inspired by what you’ve done and use it to create something new. This is what ai does and this is what every artist ever has done. The work you are currently doing is inspired from every piece of art, every design, every show, every movie you’ve ever watched. Even if the influences are subconscious they are 100% there. Art is a continuous cycle. Creation, inspiration, innovation. Everything is inspired by something else (most times without consent) and it’s innovated on to make something new for your new creation to serve as inspiration for the next wave of artists
@@cirevictor the comments was about getting consent for their art to be used...I made the comment based on that...I do realize that yes people do take from other artists and I myself have influenced..but being influenced and using someone art without their knowledge or consent is not ok ....my apologies for not being a little more clear on my comment..
@@joycegriffin1290You can't "give consent" to a person just looking at your art and getting inspiration from it, so why should the choice be an option for AI?
@@joycegriffin1290This might help explain: there are no images in AI art generators. They are not storing any images, or combining them, or referencing them. The AI just have a knowledge of language and of art, and from that it builds an image.
ai ain't just replicating the artist's style, legit human artist water marks have been found in ai art
Because a lot of humans put watermarks on their art. Why wouldn't the AI learn to do the same?
@jiffylou98 you misunderstand, the ai isn't creating its own watermarks it's straight up copying actual human artist watermarks complete with part of the original human artists art
@@hade666_01 If we're talking about Getty Images, then sort of. It's making a unique image that looks like a getty image stock photo, and then pastes the getty image logo on top, like all the stock photos it reads from have. maybe a legal grey area, but I doubt it.
I was talking about where the AI has a little scribble at the bottom of digital art that couldn't be any recognizable image. Same process, really, but stock photos tend to be from one or two distributors while in digital art, it's imitating the style of a watermark which has to be in the corner, but can be virtually any symbol, i.e. not stealing from a specific person.
@@hade666_01 but I'd be down to read your counterexample.
Please show us the watermarked AI art.
The problem with AI art is that, they become so progressively good at rendering art that it makes us artist lose motivation to do what we do as always. Imagine this, as an artist, my art basically take me between and around 5-6 hours, from sketch to rendering. And seeing people use AI just to replicate the art that I had created for a mere second, it just makes me go crazy. In shorter terms, it's like someone copying from you on a test and they get better scores than you do. It's absolutely just saddening.
True, sometimes it makes us feel discouraged. There must be a regulation for this
One thing AI art can’t do is create something unique. It can only copy, that’s the difference between an AI and a Human, without Human art, AI art wouldn’t be able to go forward, which is why Hunan art will always the be the best form of art
But you don't do the same and compare yourself to the masters and become despondent do you? Many artists create art to express themselves or as a creative outlet. No reason for that to stop no matter how great AI art might get.
It's just a tool. Similar to Photoshop filters or specialty brushes and tools... Artist, at least digital artist, don't look down on tools used to simplify their vision, it just makes their personal journey a bit easier in creating their art.
I'm going to be brutally honest. To me, as a classically trained pianist, that just sounds like you aren't a True Artist®. I enjoy playing music because of how it makes me feel. It doesn't matter how good someone, or someTHING, else is at replicating that -- I'm playing because it makes me feel satisfied. Not because I can do it better than someone else
It is depressing in a sense, but do you do it just for recognition? Isn't the whole soul of art in the process of making it?
The problem is that companies making these AIs are not asking you for permission. I am an artist and I can say that every one of us sees the picture differently than the other might. Of course, there will still be human artists, but AI law has to be updated.
@@Yku30 I get you but image yourself learning a skills that you are developing for years for AI to take it away from you without your permission or knowinh.
@WeedNose Lieutenant being inspired by someone's work is nowhere close to developing a software for sale off of someone else's work
The technology wasn’t created for art purposes, humans have did that themselves. Humans, especially the younger generation, love to find the quick and easy way to do things in life. There’s less emphasis on work ethic and more corner cutting to benefit in some way.
@@marko3034 how does AI takes your skills away??
It's like blaming a person who got inspired from your and hundred of other artists work at the same time and decided to learn the art. AI also took time to analyse all the aspect of drawing and learning to do different things. The only difference is that it can now create art pieces on whim in seconds. But this also comes with cost of AI not understanding prompts many times and messing up in many things, so it ends up in same place.
@@marko3034 AI replacing human is already happening from a ages. Well, it's not completely AI but software. A lot of software make things can be done easily without the need of learning things extensively. We as a human needs to become better than the AI or we can just use the AI to become better. Let's say you are an artist and you need a new inspiration, you can just hop into the AI, generate hundreds or thousands of pictures, pick a few that suits you and make a new one based on that references.
It's soulless, has no vision, and should thus not be considered intellectual property.
A person can generate a bunch of images then select the one that just happens to have "soul"
@@Daniel_WR_Hart A human could even add onto an AI drawing and make it have that "soul" Quality.
@@sagestrings869 Ai should be used as a tool to help artists, and nothing else.
😂😂why does it not have soul when the base material it was inspired from did? Look you wanna argue about it taking data from artists without their consent ok it effecting jobs of artists ok but this soulless thing is ridiculous
And it can't draw hands or darker skintones🤣
nothing is as special as a human being creating art by hand.
So digital artists are worthless?
@@gonzalobarragan8076digital artists are still creating art… and most of them by hand
@@gonzalobarragan8076I do both traditional art and digital with digital I’m sitting in front of my iPad for hours and making each stroke by holding my Apple Pencil using my hand to hold and ,y hand will still hurt after traditional or digital
@@user-mr9zk5dn4k don't you see the question mark? I don't believe that
@@Tornflower_ of course it hurts, but I'm sure that are mediums you can replicate with little effort compared to the real counterpart. Cutting the time significantly, and therefore, the effort it takes.
Don't get me wrong, I believe this is a good thing! I believe that digital art is as valuable as any other medium.
My point with my question was exactly that. Because it's not made with paint on a canvas does not mean it's less valuable.
-artists work is being taken without consent
-these stolen works are filtered through AI to make commercial products
-AI samples and replicates others artwork, people take inspiration and study them
-its more of an image, not an artwork since it lacks the fundamental process of creation
personally i think ai can be used to help artists colour or animate, but taking over a CREATIVE INDUSTRY is not very creative at all!
> AI samples and replicates others artwork
This is not how it works, AI does study and learn from it's training, it's generative, not remixing or anything.
Also, are you calling "viewing content" theft?
@@NFIVE30Well, they literally take it as a sample.
It’s not photoshop since in that case, someone is actually putting it together in a creative way.
Here, it tosses a bunch of pixels together to look like what it “thinks” the prompt looks like, which is stolen artwork.
Also, Artwork that is claimed to be under the name of someone else and done in their style has been done before and is classified as art theft.
@@Aaa-vp6ug AI does not mix up pixels from different artworks. For example, SD1.5, Trained on a few terabytes of data, fits in as little as 2GB, thus proving it has no access to the dataset past the training step.
AI learns by training at noising and denoising images, then it denoises an actually random "seed" to create fully original artworks. Nothing to do with collage.
@@NFIVE30so thats why ai often simply copypastes stolen art with some style/face changes? Cool,now shut up, ai art is not art at all
@@kittysatanicbelyah AI doesn't copy paste training data because it can't. If it does, the software is fully open source and I'll be more than happy to read about the lines performing such a steal. For now, all I see is a 2GB model trained on terabytes of data, which technically couldn't store the images
Artists are already underpaid and here we are debating on whether or not we could indirectly monetize their work without them getting a cut ... 🤦♂️
OR you can take advantage of this rampant trend to further launch your success as an artist. I don’t see it as a road block but more of a tool that I can exploit and monetize my work from it. Learn the rules and beat the system
@@kello-my-eggo3924How do you think to do that?
@@kello-my-eggo3924Problem is if you're smaller than the system good luck.
@@pauloazuela8488 Everyone is smaller than a system. Bill Gates didn't become Bill Gates because he was bigger than a computer conglomerate.
Artists are NOT underpaid.
A person uses other artists works as inspiration, while AI uses them as samples.
Same thing.
@@pratikghosh9252Not really when that's all AI can do, it has no creativity for itself and thus must essentially steal from other work. It's literally a machine designed to steal. Actual artists would understandably be scolded for stealing...
I use ai art for inspiration
Samples isn't even accurate.
@@pratikghosh9252💀 wow you must be so dumb.
Art and music is what makes us humans . Being able to communicate your feelings through them is only human
Yeah, that is something current ais just can't do. Communicate feelings, the art they create is Elementary surface level, but artists create with depth.
That might be an issue for sometime until a breakthrough happens in the ai world or neuroscience
obviously not, even animals make art and music
@@inanis6707 no thanks. Would rather have the internet shut down entirely or AI get banned 40k style before that happens
@@corbanbausch9049bro thinks he's John connor
@@edward3190okay well animals are living things, ai isnt. You see the difference?
When a human artist gets inspired by another artist, they actually support that artist by buying tickets to see their exhibition, liking their art on social media, buying postcards and posters.
When a human likes another human’s work, they give them something in return.
The AI only takes and never give.
What does the AI take? Your money? What's it gonna do with that?
@@jiffylou98they take mass samples of artwork already existing in public. Yknow,, data collecting cuz no data for them is no output.
@@jiffylou98you are looking at this on the most shallow level of comprehension. The video was 30 seconds. The answer was RIGHT THERE. and it some how went right over your head???
When people (artists) say it's taking their money they mean: big companies who are usually and always stingy can cut out the artists they may already underpay for the robot that can copy and paste together an advertisement, book cover, character design etc. In doing so they are putting many artists out of work because the value the money they can pump out of consumers more than actually telling a story, creating a character, sharing an idea.
Ai isn't bad. It's the people who abuse it to devalue others that are bad. It's the big corporations who care nothing for the true meaning of a story and art and only for what they can get out of it for the lowest cost.
It's very easy to devalue and disregard something you don't understand especially when it doesn't directly affect you yet.
@@-Vague_Hysteria- fair enough. But I would speculate that if the AI produces work that IS derivative and lacks story, compelling characters or unique ideas, then people will get tired of it and move back to human-made works. Or story, characters and ideas are something that can be generated by an AI, in which case artists will have to get more creative. Than a robot. That can do their job for a fraction of the cost.
@@koumieru yeah. You ever make a drawing from virtually no input? I've got a bunch of those sticking out of my printer. The AI does essentially (in a legal, ethical and technical sense,) exactly what you do when making art. It looks at reference materials, assumes a stylistic process, and makes a unique work. Same thing a graphic designer does on DeviantArt, just with a more efficient process.
The only people who say AI learns the same way artists do are non-artist. We learn in completely different ways, its a shame that so many non-artists try to act like they know everything about art
But don’t all artists learn from art in different ways? If so, isn’t AI learning from the art just another different way of learning?
@@cloverberry721 all artist learn in different ways yes but the way AI learns is different from human learning, I take it youre not an artist either but thankfully there are a ton of them you can listen to on this site, its always good to educate yourself on topics such as this from people who know the most about it (artists in this case)
@@adamjoestar2001 Yeah, agreed, I’m not an artist, but instead on the techie end of the discussion. Honestly, I think that the whole problem is more about this video’s first point than the second point. It’s about humans being replaced. People make it sound like AI is just ripping off artwork, moving a couple pieces around, and spitting it out. There isn’t much truth to that; it’s really not that simple (admittedly much more complicated than what I currently understand).
Yk, I didn’t hear too many people complaining when ChatGPT hit, writers didn’t come out claiming it stole their work. Maybe because it was really processing language…in its own way? So I don’t really see a problem here, apart from the issue of technology replacing humans.
Another line of thinking: What if the AI was sentient and could learn “humanly” to build art, while maintaining its speed and volume? Would the criticism still be there? I think that it would, because the actual problem is leaning towards the first issue. But then again, that’s just what I think.
@@cloverberry721 as someone from the art side rather than the tech one just keep this one thing in mind please: art can only be made by humans, it is o e of the most wonderful things our existence has provided us, it is self expression, liberty, happiness and creativity all in one. Would that being “replaced” by computers really serve us? Would it provide us with anything other than big companies cutting costs again? Or would it just strip us of our creativity and out apreciation of it? Again, I recommend people listen to artists this time, or rather try out art for yourself, it is really fun I swear, it’ll serve you well.
@@Twofigo99 Exactly, I am tired of AI bros pretending it is the same
I think it is problematic because the artwork used as "inspiration" is yet under copyright, and it's being processed without consent or payment. Why not pay the artists? The tool is great, but it should pay royalties.
Exactly! A lot of us artists would actually love to use ai to make our jobs easier, but it just doesn't make sense to not be compensated for the work we've basically done for the ai to exist. Ai is cool, but stop using our work for it!
That would actually solve so many issues
royalties to who though? it's trained in data sets of literally billions of publicly available pictures. and how could you possibly ever enforce that?
@@noone-ld7pt not publicly available. They use artwork of living artists without their consent. You can search and read multiple sources of this problem.
@@ste-fa-no do they even need their consent though? as far as i know, using art to train the ai machine is completely legal(not considering the moral aspect)
Getting inspired and creating a new image with your own hands is different from typing a few words and have a machine using image databases to do all the work for you. The person using Ai to create a new image is an OPERATOR. While the person creating his/her/their own art in an ARTIST.
making a painting with a paintbrush is different from pushing a button on a camera too
Just to clarify : there is no image database involved in the generation step.
What is involved with the generation is a model, which is just a bunch of mathematical rules for drawing art.
Image Generation Operator should be a new term! Not an artist at all
A big problem is that they sample our own art without our permission and then use it to put us out of jobs. Also, art should be about human expression. Ai is making the art, not a human. It’s just a disgrace really
Exactly
What people don't realize is the A.I. is doing the same thing to MANY jobs that aren't artists. Corporations can steal the data of everything workers do and feed into A.I. to replace all human workers. What's in the news right now is the Corporations orchestrating this to make people falsely think this whole thing is only about "designers and artists." It's absolutely NOT. It's about ALL jobs humans do.
I agree about the job insecurity being a problem, but not about declaring the value of art as an exclusive privilege of the artist.
If the value of art isn’t in the eye of the beholder, and it’s not in the craftsmanship of the work, then the value would have to be lost when the artist dies.
id reply the same thing a few months ago before actually using it. it still takes intention to create a prompt just like pushing a button on a camera, and almost never does it create something perfect that doesnt need to be tweaked or refined. plus if youre using your own photos to train the ai, which im doing, how is that stealing? am i stealing from myself? am i now a disgrace? there are so many angles and nuances to it that a blanket statement like this is ridiculous.
@@DerekHise I wouldn’t necessarily say that the value would be lost when the artist dies. The artist dying doesn’t undermine the fact that they expressed themselves in the artwork. It solidifies that in time forever which is valuable
Another problem is they're not just mimicking the style of public domain artists who are long dead, they're taking the data from current artists who post online and using their style so now their art can be recreated in seconds by a program and they receive no compensation.
@@patyt1210 every artist takes inspirations but in the end you can still see their personal touch/ a different flavour and they also give credits to the artists they took inspiration from... What ai does is sampling other artists work without permission, no artistic vision, no personal touch... It's just STEALING work of artists and not just one or two... But several different artists
@@patyt1210this is hypothetical: say you put in a specific set of words and post it online and you get attention for it, cool you get that nice feeling of 'people like what I do' but someone else comes in dose that same exact thing finds the picture you 'made' and posts it to a bigger audience and gets more attention then you.
It's not like you can get mad at them, because it was an idea, you don't own ideas or words to put into an A.I so they make you something, you just now gotta deal with the fact that this bigger person 'stole' from you.
Like sure musicians and artists steal from each other all the time but each time it's different, the beat or drawing maybe be the same but there's obvious differences in them, because someone else decided "Hey imma make this my own and share it"
Not with "imma do the exact same thing they did, either get the same image or something close to it and show it off and get a higher vote for it" because they won't get in trouble for it, or have someone defend you so you get the proper credit for your work because "its A.I, they don't own ideas or words to their work" because then technically, it's not your work, it's everyone's you don't own the rights to a computer made image.
@@aydev2 Don't be pretentious just to support artists.
You can also see the "personal touch" on AI art, which is just so many changes that the AI made to the art.
Also, it's not stealing AT ALL. If you're gonna use that argument then you also must think that artists taking inspiration from other art are stealing
There's absolutely no difference.
@@patyt1210 you can certainly try to mimic art styles for practice or reference, but it's morally wrong to impersonate another artist's style and sell it. That's what people are currently using AI for.
@@peachywas dude, do you not know how these ai program work? they’re not making their own cat drawing after i happened to make a cat too. they’re taking my cat and a bunch of other peoples’ cats, cutting them up and making a collage with our work and saying they drew it. it doesn’t matter what they drew, it’s about how they drew it: by stealing people’s work.
I bet most of us here don't want a future where people are telling us "art is useless" like the past did.
THANK YOU FOR PUTTING IT INTO WORDS
Well in the grand scheme of things it is pretty much useless
@@izzylevi. True, but that's just like saying religions are a waste of time.
@@0reo261 which is pretty true
@@izzylevi. art is incredibly important to the human experience and society at large but it has to be spontaneous. It's better for ai to drive all the talentless artists of today who make such souless art that they fear a thoughtless Ai can take their jobs.
As an artist, this entire situation scares me.
Same
Don't worry skynet isn't happening
@@atheistman-mt3cg I’m more worried about it taking away art from us
Me as well
You skipped the biggest controversy- the fact that pretty much every model out there trained on real artists’ work without their consent. These models only do what they do because they’re copying stolen human work. Often they imitate the artist they’re copying’s signature.
There’s being “neutral” or “optimistic” and then there’s sugar coating and avoiding, and this is verging into the latter.
Let's say you trained a kid on replicating his entire world : Trees, forests, ponds, lakes...
Now, you put a strong emphasis on one artists' work in particular. You don't tell the kid anything, but you give him 100 tries per arwork (this is what AI usually takes). However, every piece of art from this guy has the exact same watermark.
Therefore, the kid starts to learn the watermark perfectly, although he doesn't copy. And once you ask him to give you art from the guy, he'll replicate the watermark, even though he doesn't copy from artists' artwork.
That's what happens with AI. there is no big database of artworks in it's model, it's only learning how to draw by looking at inspiration.
However, it CAN overfit signatures, if they are present in HUGE quantity in the training data.
as an artist, I would like to point out that the "stealing from artists" argument honestly has very little to do with AI being able to replicate our art styles, and more to do with the fact that our art was used without our permission in order to program the AI.
Almost every artist I've talked to about this is more angry about the fact that our art is being stolen by random techies and fed into these programs without even bothering to ask us for permission. They're straight up just taking art from independent artists and using it for their own massive profit whilst the artists who poured hours of blood, sweat and tears into their craft aren't seeing even a single cent... even though, without the work of all of those artists, the AI would be have nothing to learn from in the first place and would be completely useless.
@Dani your use of the word "y'all" implies to me that you are not an artist... So I'm not sure you are entirely qualified to make such confident statements on our opinions.
Listen, I'm not against AI art, I think it could be a great tool for animators to help with tweening and for artists in general to help speed up tedious processes and therefore be able to focus on the parts of creating art that are more enjoyable to us, but the way these AI programs have been created is extremely sketchy and extremely distasteful.
There's a big difference between an artist looking at another artist's work for inspiration to create something, and an AI directly USING that work to create something, especially when the people who created said AI did not ask for permission and are now profiting from it. It's like the difference between an oil painting on a canvas and a collage of magazine clippings, both can be made into whatever image you like, but any imagery in the painting had to be created by the artist themselves, whilst the collage directly utilises the photography and graphic design works of someone else to create its imagery.
I know this tech is new and exciting and seems super futuristic, but if we don't slow down and really examine *how* and *why* technology is being developed, it can only lead to serious issues in the long run.
Tbh, I probably would've gladly turned over my work to help program something so cool, and if it was an open source kinda thing, I'd probably have done it for free, so the stealing thing is just so unnecessarily mean-spirited, and really shows the true intentions behind these AIs... they weren't created as a helpful tool for the advancement of humanity, they were created to make a profit.
@Dani eh, I tried to help. have a nice day, i hope your vitamin d deficiency clears up soon and your crypto project goes well, I hear it's going to space or something? sounds pretty cool.
Spoken like an emotional liberal artist
Adapt or get left behind
Welcome to capitalism
@@brockrock2359 tbh i can't imagine being such an intense proponent of capitalism that i genuinely believe that calling someone an artist with human emotions is like... an actual insult???? these are two factual statements about me yes?
although, the liberal thing is debatable since im australian and the "liberal party" in this country is actually the one that loves capitalism and hates human rights🙃 I'm guessing you just assumed that i was american and so defaulted to using american political terms, which is an easy mistake, no hard feelings!! I'd suggest that in the future, when dunking on strangers online, try to use words like "socialist", "capitalist", "communist", etc. instead of the more american terms like "liberal" or "conservative". This will make your dunks a lot more understandable to a global audience! and will help you avoid any potential misunderstandings~ I hope that's helpful
Getty images is suing AI software for stealing licensed work. So there is that
A very important part of art is the process.
Museums dont just talk about the appearance if the finished project .but the symbolism,construction and more
AI art also has that (arguably more than some modern art, like Jackson Pollock).
A lot of time has been used in training these models, and it's not easy.
In fact, this dilemma about the ethics of AI art is really just adding to the context and meaning of AI art in my opinion.
That also depends on the type of art. And there are many different types of art galleries
AI art also has a process.
A human provides the AI with a prompt, and a human makes a selection from the various different products provided by the AI.
The best AI art generally comes from people who know how to write good prompts, and how to make the best selection from the images the AI spits out. It takes skill and an artistic eye to do that well.
In my opinion, it's the human element in this process that gives AI art meaning.
@@raizin4908the entire point of AI is to make that process shorter. the whole point is to shorten the distance between ideas and results. there may be somewhat of a process now, but we're moving away from that more and more as these tools get better.
Very good point. George Seurat spent months painting individual dots of color and then painting over them because they weren’t quite right to him. Van Gogh painted a deep sense of melancholy in his works which reflected how horribly depressed and unwell he was while still being able to recognize the beauty of things around him. Frida Kahlo painted images of deep loss and sorrow as well as fighting against that and fighting against oppression and societal norms and images of rebellion and empowerment. Plus you can ask an ai to make a picture of sadness or of happiness, love, anger, etc. but it’s just going to sample a bunch of different things and give you an average; it can’t depict what those emotions feel like for a specific artist. It’s like using an emoji like 😊 for happiness, but that is the generic “happiness” and can’t really depict what happiness looks like when emotes by one individual’s face. It lacks that depth and nuance.
In my opinion, art isn't just about the end result... It's also about the story, and what went into creating the piece...
Let me explain - Consider the Starry night by Van Gogh. Now if we look at the painting for what it is, many people will sya that it isn't something particularly attractive or interesting.
But when you learn about what went into making the painting, the artist, his life, his reason for creating that painting, the fact that the distortion represents his teary vision etc(you get the point) you will definitely start to appreciate it.
Even if an AI creates a visually similar piece thats "equally as good" as the Starry Night, it still wouldn't have much value... Because it's just a bunch of pixels lightning up in a specific pattern mathematically calculated by an insentient algorithm.
But the algorithms generate pictures based on language prompts, and language inherently has meaning and sentimentality. It can show you what "heartbreak" is without having arteries. It doesn't understand physical systems at the moment, but there's nothing stopping that except time.
@@jiffylou98 Then this essentially boils down to the Chinese room thought experiment...
@@alphabetagamma4142 true. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, I'd say it has a duck's creativity
The problem is when vast majority of art people see from birth is A.I. art that is so much cheaper for corporations to make then that is all there is going to be and people won't care about any human story because humans have been dumbed down to not even understand what you're saying. That is the future of this A.I. Anti-human nightmare.
@@jiffylou98 but if it can’t feel, think, or experience, then does what it brings to the table matter? So much of the meaning of art exists because it took a long time to create, and the emotions and opinions behind the decisions.
No emotions. No opinions. No experience. Not art. Simple as.
Trust me we don’t need AI on this earth but we truly need more humanity
You're absolutely right.
I see what you mean for art and stuff and I agree but ai is literally doing things like helping cure cancer.
We seriously need ai in life, by this we can have more to enjoy life
Ratio Lil bro 😂
We are getting ai to do the job by finding tumor and as such
Ai art should remain purely a novelty and not a substitute for the actual thing
This I think is a very important viewpoint. AI art is obviously very impressive technology but it should never replace art
@@sarchiba yeah Because it’s simply principally unjust to substitute real artists for AI.
I don't even think it's a should. It just CANT. it cannot replicate what a human could do. Getting inspired by is an inherently human trait, and until we get into Android territory, AI art is theft. It can't contribute anything new.
@@crab5862 stay coping, AI art will only keep getting better. Same shit was said about chess bots beating humans and now theyre vastly superior
@@schierkeAnd yet, people still play and enjoy chess!
A lot of artist are happy to have their work give inspiration to others. If they see there artwork created by someone who appreciates their art, it can feel rewarding. Generally, a robot doing this is not appreciating the art and is simply doing it as a task, and even the person giving the robot instructions is often doing it for financial gain or trying to find a cheap alternative to getting something designed by a human artist. Artists payment is partly appreciation, robots have not learnt to appreciate so it feels more like stealing. Thoughts??
If we think like that then how should software engineers and AI engineers progress in future?
These are crucial stages of AI development, if they don't get data for study then it would stop development of AI as whole.
This is saying like we should stop aliens from accessing our libraries to study. Because they don't understand what our history means to us and because they might steel our jobs.
Id compare ai art to photobashing more than taking inspiration, you know? Because a human would still use their brain and process the art they've seen in their own unique way, and create something that's individualistic.
Good. Who wants to pay for a painting anyway?
@@afailedabortion a lot of people
@@afailedabortion people that care about art
ai takes away anything that makes creating art fun. the problem isn't just that they're taking data and sampling an artist's work, but it can also be falsely marketed as that artist's actual work. programs like chat gpt have already done this with books. we should focus more on having ai do jobs that are tedious, unrewarding, and dangerous. art can be one of the most rewarding jobs out there, we shouldn't give it to machines.
Just how the invention of a photo camera didn‘t erradicate art, ai won‘t erase art. Before the Camera, artist would try to immitate life as „real“ as possible. But with more access to cameras, painting like „life“ wasn‘t really necesary anymore. So artist began to try to capture a „feeling“, „sounds“, variations of light etc…. Voila, Modern art was born.
As an artist myself, I find ai a very helpful tool. I use it more as inspiration and reference rather than „the final piece“. Ai can do a lot of things, but it can never replace the hunan mind.
Why automate jobs that are quintessential to humanity? Automate jobs that humans hate.
it's aa text to image generator. Anyone can now use this machine to generate an image from text, it helps majority of people
I am not against you, but I assume they already are trying, they just managed to make AI art generators before they could manage to make other types of AI...
You could say they could've not even tried to make AI art first and focused on other AIs because of the point you're making, but the companies don't really care about the ambiguous ethical issues that spur out of this so they don't stop.
Although this is based of off speculation, so I could be wrong.
@@mifarland mann fuck companies, they’re even trying to profit off of it by adding subscriptions and shit 👩🦼
A lot are automated. Some are just far more complicated or expensive than ai art. It’s basically *just* computing and memory. With no physical dangers involved. A lot of the jobs humans hate have dangerous things that can occur if they operate incorrectly.
ah yes, artists the quintessential component of humanity LMAO learn to code and stop coping
It isn't just replicating the style, a lot of A.I art is actually a collage of bits and pieces of other people's artworks, meaning they are _literally_ taking pieces of an artist's work and using it for an image. Sometimes you can even see a wobbly or distorted watermark/signature! It's art theft.
Not to mention the deviantart ai that automatically had artists opted IN to allow ai to use their artwork to train them which ended up allowing ai to train itself on the work of a dead artist who couldn’t consent…
My whole concern is how do copyright laws regulate items in the public domain from being ripped off or worse... altered falsely
Question: with this line of thinking, how are human made collages that have been done long before AI, not art theft?
@@kiaturunen because real people know when to draw the line, where it’s no longer an homage but just straight up art theft.
Honestly this whole ai thing seems a lot like a repackaged version of the issue of tracing just this time it’s tech bros feeding your art into an algorithm without your consent
It's funny how wrong a person could possibly be while sounding this confident. Lmao, do your research kid.
The problem that I see with ai "art" Is that it's generally pissing off artist. An artist have to train and practice for years to perfect their style and techniques just to be disappointed in themselves when they see that a machine can make arguably better "art" and faster without putting any effort.
it’s not just copying style. it’s just straight up copying. the original artists signatures are often found in these AI generated images
Let's say you trained a kid on replicating his entire world : Trees, forests, ponds, lakes...
Now, you put a strong emphasis on one artists' work in particular. You don't tell the kid anything, but you give him 100 tries per arwork (this is what AI usually takes). However, every piece of art from this guy has the exact same watermark.
Therefore, the kid starts to learn the watermark perfectly, although he doesn't copy. And once you ask him to give you art from the guy, he'll replicate the watermark, even though he doesn't copy from artists' artwork.
That's what happens with AI. there is no big database of artworks in it's model, it's only learning how to draw by looking at inspiration.
However, it CAN overfit signatures, if they are present in HUGE quantity in the training data
Most of those watermarks tend to be gibberish
no. it's creating original works based on the _style_ . Sometimes it incorrectly interprets the signature as part of the "style". Despite that, it's not copying the art pixel-for-pixel.
Its the human factor that worries me. People who dont want to learn the craft and spend time perfecting their own style. They just took years of learning curve and style improving from other people to make so call art and sell it
@@anothermuslimahat's completely untrue. There are plenty of full time artists working in animation, making posters and other marketing tools, setting their stuff online and in person, ECT. Art is a very real and valid job and degree. If 'almost no one's studied art there wouldn't be nearly as many art schools as there are
Then why does it show up in every list of the bottom 5 or 10 degrees to get. If you do art AND advertising or Art AND a marketing degree, that's a different skill set. You need the appropriate computer skills to be an animator, web site, or game designer. If you stick with only one aspect such as painting or sculpting, you may be limiting your opportunities.
@@anothermuslima im talking about those who do work as an artist, illustrations, paintings, designs etc. Those who established their style of work.
@@anothermuslima Who told you that? That's simply untrue.
Why does that worry you though? We've been automating art making forever. How many artist nowadays still wait for paint to dry between layers or learn to draw the perfect circle by hand, or spend days planning their work because there's no undo? Nowadays we have undos and filters and content aware fill all placed on layers we can rearrange by drag and drop. It's all about abstracting away the boring stuff so people can turn their idea reality quicker. AI art generation is the next step. Instead of using arbitrary commands to tell the computer what to draw, you just write it out in natural language. It's pure creativity. Now people can spend their time honing their creativity, rather than spending years to home their muscles memory to draw the most realistic looking egg.
Here the thing though (as a cartoonist):
When a human makes art, it's not just inspired by the works of the people they admire, but also has influences from their life, their experiences, their opinions and perspectives.
If there was a human who was somehow born yesterday into an adult person with only knowledge of motor functions and things relating to existing art and they made a piece, it'd be difficult for me to call it the same as a human who went through even a short real life before that
Then can't you say ai art has inspiration from countless artists so countless lifespan combine to create a single piece?. And the person giving instructions can make changes to such art as well again giving it “inspiration”
@@_A.t.g While I do see your point, art and text isn't literally the only thing artists perceive over the course of their life to influence their pieces. At a certain point, the originality really comes from having experienced things that other artists haven't, or at least not in the same way, giving you different preferences, different perspectives, different outlooks, all influencing the decisions you'll make when learning and using your skills.
If just the clump of text was enough to say it wasn't just sourced from other people's art, then I'd say all you need to make a pizza is cheese, sauce and crackers
You may call ai art as "less inspired" and thats fine. But saying that ai is infringing on copywright or should be banned is not smart imo.
@@xxxprogamerxxx5909 I didn't say it should be banned, but there's no way to ethically use or post anything you make with it without explicit consent from any and all artists whose work contributed to the particular piece, because it's literally just composed of a selection of that curated and arranged with a set of identifying words.
At best, they're curated art like in a museum, because museums only showcase existing art. But do you want to know what museum do? Credit people. As they should.
@@xxxprogamerxxx5909 it is infringing on copyright, not because of the way AI learns from art. It is infringement because companies are using people's art to develop a product (which is the AI program).
As a teen artist, I am worried more people will be using AI art to make art without any effort and being an artist is a journey which is kinda cool. Making art takes time and practice. Trial and error. You can use AI art for inspiration just not to do the work for you.
I actually lost my job as a designer the other day because of AI but I'd love to hear more AI stuff
So sorry!
Art and music should be left to humans and not AI. It's what makes us navigate this thing called existence easier. They make life and existence more beautiful
And writing!
@@shinyeeveelution789 Absolutely!
and shitting..
i wouldn't AI shitting and replacing me
AI isn't taking away art, it's taking away the clients. You're free to keep drawing, just not paying rent with it.
@@hamzasultan96 😒... if you want to go into the specifics of it then yes...
A machine isn't "replicating the style", the AI does not draw a single line or paint a single pixel. It just mashes together different bits of existing photos and uses an algorithm to smooth over the edges. That's why it's stealing, not because it's been "inspired" by an actual artist, but because it literally steals part of their work.
You are right. And we all do it. See, I didn't invent these words that I'm typing. I'm not even the first to put them in this order. But I'm influenced by those around me and various media to use these words in this order to express this thought. The exact same formula is what a painter does. Ditto for all artists. And it is ridiculously similar to what the AI does.
@@FlatOnHisFace but the AI does not express thought. That's the fundamental difference. Sure, you're using tools that have been developed by other humans, but you're using them in an original way to express an original idea.
please inform yourself about how diffusion models work.
Completely and utterly wrong. Well done showing that some humans don't have to worry, because some humans don't have any intelligence.
Actually, AI recognizes patterns and tries to match them to a field of noise that's randomly created with the prompt. It takes the prompt and tries to essentially find those patterns in the noise field. I'm not an expert, though, so maybe the people who explained it to me were wrong. But it's not just "mashing pixels together to make a collage", and no part of the original art was used to do anything other than allow the AI to recognize patterns. The reason you see things like the Getty Images logo replicated is because the AI "sees" it as a pattern associated with other stuff.
To all people who still think that AI work is "just doing what artists already do by taking other's ideas as inspiration"
Are chatbots sentient just because they reply to what you write to them?
When humans create art, it has a purpose behind it and their life experiences impact their final piece but when a computer program does it, its nothing more than just a fancy form of replication.
So all digital art is not art.
Not any of the great pieces made since photoshop are art.
Only physical media.
But wait no, a human cannot make a painting, it's just the brush creating lines. Why humans have always needed some sort of tool to make art, so I guess art doesn't actually exist
@@group555_ digital art is literally just a different medium for art, people use the tools to create art. You feeding a sentence into a machine and it shitting out a picture on the other hand isn't art.
@@ryanpriye1402 me drawing a smiley face in photoshop and making it glow slightly also isn't art. Ai is a medium, tool.
If a word sitting out an image can replace your art then you weren't making art, just pictures
@@group555_ that's precisely where you got it wrong, the image it spit out isn't art, it's an illusion of art.
I think what makes art “art” for me is the fact that someone drew/painted/coloured all that with their actual hands and they put in the work and the time to create something. The patience and creativity that it take to make art can’t be mimicked by an AI. It’s just not the same 🤷♀️
Theres definitely some sentimental element there
Well, yes.. just like how jewelry is valuable based on its provenance. Humans like stories, and things are valuable because they have some story to it. I'm going to guess that AI art will be somewhat valuable as AI-assisted art though as long as the artist can weave a story into how it was produced.
Our 1 sec is equal to few mins for machines. They are quite patient too ig
Art is something people make. AI generated images are useful for an artist to turn into art, but on its own, AI generated images are no more artistic than a Photoshop brush.
I think the same, AI "art" is superficial, is "made" by people who don't care and just wanna be cheap or just want to say "i did it" when they actually just wrote a text, it's infuriating and shallow.
as an artist, im not really worried. art is, always has been and always will be, a craft of love. it takes time and effort to make something yourself, and to me thats the value of art. click all the buttons you want, have an ai make 1000 pictures, that doesnt decrease the experience of having someone sit down and *make* you something, paid for or not. i compare it to food: fast food tastes good, its quick and easy and it gets the job done; going to a restaurant is nicer, youre sitting down, having a meal that someone made for you; having someone that cares about you make you food feels *amazing*, they didnt have to do that- there were the other two options, maybe it was as simple as opening a can of soup and heating it up or maybe it was goin out of their way to fully make something, regardless it feels really nice. just like fast food doesnt erase homecooked meals, ai art doesnt erase human art :)
I agree with this, its kind of like making music nowadays where musicians will often use drum samples in their computers so they wouldnt have to hire a drummer. But people still appreciate drummers more than the computer, and drummers are still getting hired. I really dont think it will take over art, but only time will tell.
good argument, as an artist also, there are still many other flaws of AI art that damage the art community in many ways like instead of people commissioning real artists, they go to AI instead which decreases commission sales, AI also steal peoples art styles and replicate it, and people claiming to be artists but really they just use AI and either sell the art or claim it as their own. i see where you’re going with what you’re saying and it’s a positive way of thinking things but I think AI is more harmful then you think it is which is why it stirred up such a controversy.
Portrait painting used to be an enormous industry for artists. The camera destroyed that - but it didn’t destroy art. There were more commercial domains for art to survive in, and art became more about expression than it had been before. Cameras are lovely and I personally think they were a massive benefit to humanity (quickly getting an exact image of reality is amazingly useful). In fact, entire artistic industries only exist because of photography (movies).
AI art will do the same but for illustrating easy-to-describe concepts. People will lose jobs. It will be rough. But art will not die. Visual art will lean more and more towards pure being about expression, and a new artistic medium might even be created. I think humanity will benefit in the end (being able to instantly get an image of a phrase that you thought of is amazingly useful), but it might be hard to see now.
Many people still prefer to eat at fast food chains though because it's easier, cheaper and convenient. Some can barely even afford to go restaurants so much, but can eat at fast food chains BC it's cheap. See the issue? Ai is going to be the preferred option over hand drawn things in context of buying
@@smuglumine9379 is that really a problem though? if someone can't afford to pay for something, they were never going to pay for it even if cheaper options weren't available. if they always pick the faster, easier option, they never valued the other, slower and passionate option in the first place
This is so similar to when years before the shawls and garments were woven by hand but now machines came in, thus increasing value of hand woven garments. Human made art will revive more value according to this.
The thing with artists mimicking styles is that it’s very rarely sold. It’s usually a study based on someone else’s work that teaches you about art making and makes you think about art differently. But you don’t sell that stuff, because that would be dodgy.
Also AI isn't just learning from images online. It's being specifically trained on work that's copyrighted or stolen from artists and these days even the data from artists drawing in Photoshop is being fed to AI. (There is a wat to turn this off in your Photoshop settings, but if you've been drawing in Photoshop lately and didn't know, AI has potentially been observing every doodle you make in there.)
Now I have a better position than before.
I've never been a fan of Software as a Service. If I'm paying for a piece of software, I want the media so I don't have to be online to use it. But now Photoshop is a service I will have to pay hundreds of dollars a year to subscribe to.
I could care less they're continuely adding new capabilities and that the version I purchased will need to be updated in 3 to 4 years. If I want to upgrade I will and if I don't then I won't. But now commercial software requires I have a live Internet connection just to use it. That opens me up to being hacked and my subscription being reassigned to someone else who was able to hack in and steal enough info to kick me out of a service I'm paying through the nose for.
And human artists don't learn from those works? How is it any different from someone looking at the paintings and copying the style?
Also, Photoshop don't leak your drawings. Saying that shows you know little to nothing about data processing. Please, don't make a fool of yourself.
@@gonzalobarragan8076human artists DO learn from other artists, but they can never replace that artists art. When ppl say AI can, that's what's wrong. The ai is stealing job offers, and that's the bigger problem.
A friend of mine advertises their art, and people pay her to draw. On her blog, someone asked why people would pay for that if ai does it for free. They wanna do art after they finish uni, but if ai takes it over, they will be jobless. That is a very real problem.
Wait, really? I don't use photoshop but I do use gimp and clip studio...what other softwares has AI been spying on?
very stupid
hayao Miyazaki opinion on ai art is absolutely perfect " I believe it is an insult to life itself "
Exactly this. Would you automate away the act of creating something simply because it's easy?
@@TheTrueUlfhednar because paying a talented artist takes a lot of money and even though they do deserve it it’s much easier to just type in “insert company name” “insert logo design” boom 3 seconds later ur done. When it comes down to it it’s all about money and always will be
@@TheTrueUlfhednar We automated factories, which is one of the easiest jobs.
@@TheTrueUlfhednar the ultimate goal is to make an ai good at everything so basically It could do everything a human can but better. Making art is just one more step towards that goal.
@@whannabi the bigger question is, what will happen once ai becomes as good as humans or even better?
I wanted AI to do my dishes so I had more time for my creative hobbies. Not vice versa.
As an artist I don't feel is different from what we do (taking inspiration from others), but I also think human artists should be able to decide if their art is used to train AI or not.
If you can't train AI ethically then just... Don't train it.
When artists argue about art theft it isn't just about "taking inspiration" it's that someone could be getting paid for something they didn't make.
An ai artist is not an artist and should not be paid for anything they create. Their ability to type a few words and receive something forged from the creations of those who worked for hours/days/months does not make them equal to the artists they borrowed from.
a photographer just clicks a button and creates photos, they had the same resistance in the past as being categorised as art. perhaps photography, ai art, and art should all just be in separate categories
@@timf5613 exactly. And before that the printing press. It took up to a day to write a page by hand. Only seconds with printing. And calligraphy is a very serious form of art. 🤷🏻♂️
@@timf5613 apples and oranges
Everyday new technologies are made that make others obsolete. Before people used to write books page by page. The printing press changed that. Before computers were invented computing was litteraly a job. This is just another tool that would change how we do that exact job.
@@Geminisparkles How is it different?
I think when a human try doing art with inspiration from other artists they will always try to add something of their own, where as ai doesn't it is trained give results resembling the artist it is getting data from.
the image presented by the AI is completely new so it adds something 'of its own'
@@germansniper5277 no, what OP means is that actual artists take a small part of another artist's style, and mix it in with differing characteristics to create an original style. For example, one artist might draw people with Small eyes, big hands and narrow torsos. Another artist might be inspired by that artists way of drawing eyes and incorporate it into their own style. But not the torso or hands specifically.
On the other hand, an AI will completely replicate an artist's style. The only differences are the natural blemishes on the artwork that is caused by the AIs innate inneficiency.
@@germansniper5277 Ai just copy pastes. I pick apart the techniques and replicate it. Then take what I learnt, mix it with other techniques and I apply it to my art
Then the person putting his text in can give his own twist can't he? It's not that it copies 1:1
@@elvingearmasterirma7241 The AI does not copy pieces of existing images. Otherwise all the generated images would look like a collage of magazine cut outs. The existing images is just for the AI to look at and trying to figure out how words relates to different colors and shapes. eg. Maybe after looking at thousands of images, one of the pattern the AI notices 'banana' is often associated with the color 'yellow' somewhere on the page. After the AI is trained, when it receives a prompt, it just follows the rules it derived to create new images. So in our example, when the word "banana" appears in the prompt, It will put a splotch of yellow on the page. And will millions and billions of rules like that the AI is able to create a cohesive image. There is no copy pasting.
I forgot when was the last time I heard about a human who could paint since birth without any data of any other artists' works in his brain to reference to
i need this girl as my teacher, i would actually pay attention literally because she doesnt take forever to explain why things happen
Another problem with AI being able to replicate a certain artists’ style is that it can replicate the style of an artist who’s currently trying to make a living off of their art, and now the AI will put them out of business.
So? It’s called a risk that you take when starting a business. Anyone can make art without AI and mimic the style
Literally no different than 8 billion other people ready to become an artist and copy your style because they see you making money off of it.
It wont stop your original fan base from supporting you if it's good and made with your soul put into it.
@@Mad_Catter_ There is a huge difference, because AI can pump out images at a rate just COMPLETELY outpacing any human capability. A new 20hours worth of work drawing every day? sure! 5 of those every day?? Also possible!
It's completely different from other humans.
@@nightfallreviews1533that was never the problem before. Ai has never been able to replicate art as well as now and the point is the reason behind Ai art. It's not "letting non artist create thing" it's "mega corporation choosing to hire Ai instead of an artist for work", do you want movies in the future being generated by Ai and so does the character design was generated and the dialog with the writing? Go ahead. Can't wait until there's no artist, writers and director in the future until all entertainment becomes repetitive and boring since AI is stealing from each other's work until no new interesting plot, character or story ever gets created.
Basically imagine magical girl spice (that crunchy roll original) as the future of animation if we continue letting Ai take jobs that involve creating smth new and creativity.
It's not that hard to understand
he needs to find a job
As an artist it's just disappointing to see this..artists still have to work really hard to get credit for their art..the industry is really tough on artists who are not rich..this is just making it worse..and the people who say it's the same are obviously not artists idk why they pretending like one
You can use it as an ressouce, these AIs with their latent fields can visualize what different words mean to people. Art is often a hard field because one has to convince others that their work is valuable and often the top 1% gets 80% of the attention and the 80% least successful artists get 1% of the attention. So on the one hand a few artists are extremely rich artists and most artists can't live from their work.
@@leonfa259 do you mean like use the rendering as like a first draft of a piece you plan on physically actualizing upon further development
Well i am an artist in the hand-drawing sense, and to be honest i think of machine learning models learning from artist and human artists learning from artist to be equivalent. And people trashing the creation of diffuser models that mimicks artist have to remember that people have always done that to people. Both of them are just plagiarism, humans or not.
From my experience working with Stable Diffusion i can tell u that at this point, art creation with “””AI””” vs art creation by hand is just a different thing, none of them are actually superior to the other if we’re talking about building a cohesive body of work ( if its just a one-time illustration “”AI”” is more superior. ) And I’d say people in general underestimate the workload of creating a body of work with ML models, the amount of trial and error spent to create a model that caters to a style might be not worth spending resources on vs. “just draw it bro”
@@1savannahlegend247 Since the image generation AIs are based on labels, On can use them to get a deeper understand of what those labels contextualize. Also for general Brainstorming these models are useful.
I meant was your statement originally saying the ai could be used as like a drafting instrument, if so, I completely agree. Because I think if Leonardo Da Vinci would've had this technology way back then he would've absolutely used it, after all he was studying actual cadavers so this alternative is a lot less invasive, or morally unethical in my personal opinion. I'm pretty sure he had a general concept of direction and had he converted that into a prompt, instead of 15 years to create the Mona lisa (which he still felt was incomplete) that initially idea could've been completed in seconds and enhanced and elaborated and expounded upon for 15 years worth of near perfect early drafts
As an artists, for me one of the biggest problems of “ai art” is the removal of humanity from the work, art is not just a pretty thing you can look at or listen to, but it’s also being able to understand it, and for the fact that it’s made by a human makes it more interesting and motivating, but for “ai art”, it’s only really to stare at and nothing more, which is why most artists aren’t the biggest fans of “ai art” (also the “ai art” art style doesn’t even look that great half the time)
The controversy is that we didn't teach AI to do dishes and laundry so we, humans, have more time to express our humanity by creating art.
We automated those tasks decades ago
It's immoral to use an artist's life work to train a machine to replace that same artist without any form of consent or compensation from the artist being affected.
Anyone who puts ifs and buts to that is an idiot tbh.
it is very sad tbh. While artists say "they could have asked our permission", this type of machine learning/neural training probably uses millions of images to train but its not like companies cant ask permission so idk
When they replaced machinists with automation, you did not shed a tear. I'm sorry if your cries of immorality fall on deaf ears.
@@FlatOnHisFace "Look at me, I use fancy words, Im so smart"
All while you completely ignore the crux of my entire argument. Maybe youre blind? Here have some help.
TO USE AN ARTISTS LIFE WORK TO TRAIN A MACHINE
can you read it better now? Is your hamster wheel with a thesaurus of a brain capable of processing it?
The artists work is being used to replace them. They are taking advantage of other's hard labor.
There is no training to tightening bolts and cutting a piece of metal. You arent kidnapping machinists and welders to teach factory robots to do their work.
But AI bullcrap IS. These machines would not exist without churning through hundreds of thousands of humans worth labor, copying their hard earned skills and mimicking them.
Its a violation.
Oh, well if YOU say it's immoral, then it must be, despite the fact that you have provided no argument whatsoever.
@@philsurtees Read it over and over until you find it then
They shouldn’t even call it AI “ART” it’s literally AI-generated images.
Thank you
Technically that is true. AI doesnt even understand what the human concept of 'art' is. It just learns patterns from what it was fed.
The question is, 'what constitutes art'?
It's not a concept that only artists can solve since all of humanity is an artist. They may not be professional artists, each of us can produce what you deem as 'art'.
And digital "art" is just human generated images. You draw pixel on the screen just like the AI does. At the end of the day, wether you like it or not, technological progress will go on.
@@whannabi Sure, and lots of jobs and small art businesses too. I think you cant understand how the situation is so fricking shítty. I've putting all on my art for years, i've been learning new techniques, i gave my blood and sweat for my talent. And boom! A robot can simply replace me. Tell me, do you want a robot to replace your place? I dont think so.
@@whannabi are you comparing ai with digital art, because you literally cant
go make digital art yourself, and make it look good like a pro! go on, im waiting
The problem isn’t the “taking reference” of the AI. The problem is the lack of credit and reference to the original artist. When artist replicate or get inspired from other art, they usually credit them, the name goes around, greater exposure, connections are build.
This isn’t happening with AI and it’s happening too fast.
No artist out there is going to replicate another artist’s work without crediting them, or if they do, there are repercussions.
AI “art” has none of it and that’s a problem
art tells a story. it’s a medium for expression and is the culmination of the artist’s feelings and skills.
ai art is an amalgamation of existing art with no emotion or depth whatsoever. it’s like if you asked a chef to make a new dish but they just blend indian curry and french onion soup together
The thing is, the same people who made AI for music carefully bound off copyrighted songs from artists, yet they do not do the same for artist's works.
From what I know (correct me if I'm wrong) an artwork that is copyrighted will remain under copyright 50 years after death. So even if they pass away, their work will not be in the public domain for another 50 years. The late Kim Jung Gi was an amazing artist who passed away last year I believe, but as soon as he did multiple Ais popped up that replicated his style.
Sure, the copyright part may be discarded as being used for "research" purposes legally, but isn't this just morally wrong?
I do not think its morally wrong. If a person was being inspired from a painter would you call that morally wrong aswell. If the person is telling the ai to generate images in a painters style to gain money from it then you may call it morally wrong.
@@xxxprogamerxxx5909 kim jung gi was against ai art and as soon as he passed, these muppets started feeding his art into their models. It is wrong, imagine after you died, your corpse was used as an art installation by someone you disliked.
When an artist displays his art publicly he consents to human analysis, praise, criticism, mockery, misinterpretation etc. The artist does not consent to a company using his body of work to train their AI into being able to mimic his exact work. It's worse than a copyright infringement since AI kidnaps the artist himself.
And this is absolutely unethical even if the artist is long dead. You can use a specific artist's work to produce for example pornography, adverts or political propaganda that the artist would never have agreed to work with. It is not art but vandalism.
Contrary to what optimists predicted AI is entering the public consciousness as an merciless abuser.
I will agree with you, if you've never said, in whole or in part, a phrase ever uttered or written by another. Or is language not a medium of art?
Do I need to seek permission from the estate of Dali to study his works and paint in the Surrealist style?
@@CaliMeatWagon no but you cant steal someone's art and pass if off as your own.
@@FlatOnHisFace language is art and you arent legally allowed to plagiarize Shakespeare but you can quote him and give him credit.
@@firefeather9999 can you write a new play using Shakespearean styles and imagery? Because that's closer to what AI does.
I’m already losing customers to AI. I draw pet portraits and nowadays there are apps that can turn a picture of a pet into art. People want something fast and cheap. They don’t care about how much time an artist puts into a portrait, they just want results. That’s the sad truth.
Personally , I think if we ARE on the topic to discuss it's pros and cons I might have something to say , as a budding artist myself who has been practicing for a few years I think that each and every category that comes under the arts just as fine arts and music should be left to humans, arts are a medium through which a person can understand someone's personality just by seeing how they draw or sing , and well creativity always comes appreciated , so the question is why give up something you enjoy doing to machines
AI art is not art. Art is human. Art has feeling. Machines don't have feelings.
But the artist has no control over the feelings evoked within the audience anyway. Often audiences have a completely different emotional reaction than what the artist intended, but that doesn’t diminish anything. Why does it matter that the AI artist has no emotion if the art still makes the audience emotional?
@@willjackson5885Because usually as a human you can tell when the artists has put their thoughts and feelings into a piece of art, maybe you wont be able to tell the exact feeling the artist was going for but you always get an idea of it. Meanwhile ai art doesn’t tend to convey any type of emotion, its pretty but normally it looks soulless to the public
@@sopademacaco5785 Oh yeah, you think? So if thousands of people were to look at human and AI art in a blind test, they’d be able to tell which is which? Maybe that’s true for now since AI is still in its infancy, but the more it trains off emotional art, the less “soulless” it’s art will feel. It’s all just pattern recognition.
I love using AI but I would never use the pictures that it generates and claim them as my own. I think one solution to this problem is that all AI companies should be obligated to watermark the pictures as AI generated and the generations should be copyright free regardless if someone has generated the image for free or paid a monthly subscription to generate them
I believe AI should be a tool for inspiration to support artists instead of a replacement for artists to do a faster and cheaper job
I think it's impossible to think it won't effect the jobs of artists at this point. Forget about making single works of art the anime and web designing industries can definitely use it. Their source material is their own and with this ai 1 guy can do the job of 50. And you can't expect them not to with the sole reason of it effects their job. The machines are effecting jobs everywhere. It'll just bring us closer to UBI.
AI wasn't supposed to create art in first place. It was supposed to be used to automate jobes we, humans don't want to do. It was supposed make difficult tasks/jobs easier so we focus on creative part of life. Make art, music, better architecture designs and enjoy life
But what if someone likes farming. Should we then not create more advanced farming equipment that makes it easier and faster, just so the person that likes farming can keep doing it?
AI doesn't credit the artists whose work it's pulling from, either. So it's not like it would generate that Lady Justice image with the original designer(s). And let's face it, even if we somehow had the technology for that, it would get it wrong a lot and credit companies often when they technically owned the intellectual property, which does not solve the ethical issue. Meanwhile if I go to an art gallery and want to remake a painting I see there in my own style, I pretty clearly (can) know who painted it.
In art class we took 90 minutes just to discuss what art is. What we ended up with is that the intention matters, the thought behind makes it special. AI art can't offer that. Even with a person telling the machine what to do this person isn't able to do it. So this is why I don't consider AI 'art' as real art.
Artistic authority.
Sounds nice, but heads up that having certain “intentions” is completely arbitrarily as a criteria and doesn’t seem to have any logical rigor connecting it to the art. Maybe you’re fine with that, and that’s cool.
For example: A dead artist doesn’t have intentions, or you might not know their intentions. Does that stop their work from having meaning after they are dead?
If you consider the value of intentionality to survive (after any intentions themselves are missing), then you must assume the value from their intentions must somehow be transcribed into the painting to survive after their death. Mood in the viewer color scheme style etc. This important part is that it would have to be a physical property or characteristics to survive.
IF it is physically part of the painting, then another artificial process producing the painting could be equally capable of transcribing the same signature effects as intentions.
At the end of the day, claiming “intention is a property that matters to artistic value” relies EXCLUSIVELY on your belief of who made it.
If you don’t know if the artist was a human or as an AI, you won’t be able to judge if there was intention. Your rule wouldn’t help you distinguish if it was even art.
You’d have to say identical work from a robot is less valuable than work from a human, even if you can’t tell the difference.
“Intention” is code for your own internal rule for when you personally judge art: That you like it more art more because you THINK a human made it, but that rule isn’t really about the art.
That rule is about you. 🤷
AI isn't only about txt2img though, for example you could have it follow your intent by training your very owm LoRA, and then using ControlNet to get what you want according to your vision.
As a programmer and Artist myself, I find it really fascinating and frustrating at the same time. I’ve been practicing for years to hone my crafts, then an AI just comes and masters it. The problem is bow you can’t tell who is a real artist from the fake ones online. People can just be posting the AI artwork as their own..
😒 you're a programmer and artist who edited your comment but still left the phrase "The problem is now you can't tell.." . How do any of us know you're an actual human and not a glitchy AI bot posting random comments?
Kostabi has been getting other people to create the art he releases as his own since the 80s; Koons hasn't actively been involved in creating his own artworks for most of his career..many of "the great masters" works were actually done by their apprentices or helper: .AI has just streamlined and mainstreamed what certain artists have done for centuries.
@@_cloudface_ lol you are either very sensitive about spelling mistakes, or your low self esteem made you feel jealous just because I confidently stated that I am an Artist and programmer. 🤷🏻♀️ I don’t think my comment would have bothered you that much if I left out that part.. lol
Humans take their entire lives to create the art you love, Cleo. It took them decades and countless hours of work and sacrifices and pain and love to get to the level where they could paint a picture and give you goosebumps and speak to your soul. AI is stealing this.
However, artists steal from each other literally every day, some famous artists will actually just strait rip off another famous artists work, so that’s something you also gotta consider
Personally, AI is already taking over my job, literally whilst I work. As a full-stack developer, I'm writing code, whilst an AI helps to fill in code that would only take me a few more seconds to write. Ultimately in the future, AI will continue to extrapolate, making it more than capable of solving larger problems.
Yea but you still need to guide it and keep it specific to your use case. It's a tool in your hands, not a replacment. As it gets more advanced it will be no different than downloading the latest deployment of and then you shaping it to your needs with a few guiding lines.
I'm pressing X to doubt big-time on that one. I use tools like that and they help hugely with common things, but they can't understand at all how it fits into a bigger picture or why you're choosing to do it. They also very often aren't exactly right because the best guess isn't exactly what you need right now. I genuinely do not believe it will ever fully replace actual development, because ultimately all programming languages are for is having a really unambiguous way of telling a computer what to do.
@@krombopulos_michaelcopium
That's not replacing. Yes their assistance is getting better but yea they aint replacing us for now.
@@karazakiakuno4645 Yeah "for now" meaning the next 3-5 years. AI will be replacing most software engineers' jobs in the near future. The CS bubble is soon popping
The thing that makes me personally angry is how they steal works from modern artists on the internet without their consent
AI isnt stealing anything as its not storing any Art. It only saves it temporarily during training (just like a human looking at Art online.) The Training material can be deleted afterwards once the neural network is sufficiently built.
Steal? LMAOO
I mean to be fair most of the time when it's "stealing" it's because someone purposely tried to get it to manipulate something, like you give it the prompt "women in the style of Leonardo davinvi" to create Mona Lisa
it's clear nobody knows how ais work, but op is right, it is literally stealing - a computer doesn't "know" or just "interpret" how an art piece looks and works, it just sees data, pixels, and copies them (and their relationships) one by one, looking for consistencies - but if you manage to prompt it something super specific it cannot assign to anything but 1 specific artwork, it can't pull anything new out of it's ass
You really got mad of a robot
Well as an artist I can tell you that's not art but just an image maker. Confusion comes when ppl think they know what art is and what's worse when an industry controls its own definition for its own benefit, not the real practice of art by ppl, community and artists
I would like to know the lapse in time between the making if the top image, and the second. If the first was made, we'll, first, then the second image was obviously possible because it simply re-rendered the first image
When a human replicates another artist's style they inevitably differ from it, they end up adding their own uniqueness so it's more "inspired by" than replication...It leads to a new style. When AI does it, it is mindless replication. It's not the same.
A robot would do mindless replication, yes, but an Artificial Intelligence is far more sophisticated than that.
We're talking about a non-human intelligence that is more than capable of replicating the creative process that allows human beings to do "art" in the first place (when given enough practice or 'training' of course).
It is in this way that AI "art" becomes fundementally distinct and unique. Of course, when prompted to, it can be made to replicate someone elses "style" to the best of it's ability, but the quality and similarity of those images to the original works vastly differs owing to the input and specifications of the prompter.
AI doesn't do 1-to-1s, it only interpolates.
@@jghifiversveiws8729yeah that's bullshit. 9 out of 10 cases ai has only copy pasted mindlessly. One eg of dat would be the samdoesart case
How do you reach this conclusion?
Is a copy machine a piracy device? They make perfect copies after all.
Also, there are people whose job is to match someone style perfectly. Have you ever seen how a manga is made? The main creator only draws some characters. Everything else is filled in by other artists. The rest of the characters, objects, the background... Everything done by human in inhuman conditions.
AI would not only make this horrible job stop, but also will make doing this much more accessible.
Imagine a world where anyone can create a comic book or manga. Imagine how many stories we are losing to lack of artistic talent.
@@gonzalobarragan8076You think artists being employed to do the "horrible job" of using their skills to support another artist is a bad thing? But having talented artists who'll gain the experience necessary to one day be the creator of their own work while working under someone else being replaced by a machine that can do nothing but generate images based on other artistic creations is a good thing? Do you think musicians who play backup or sing backup are doing horrible jobs too? If the person with artistic vision can't put a pencil to paper to bring it to life the world isn't missing a thing. You might as well say people who can't write should use ChatGPT to do the work of actually creating a story they can delude themselves into believing is their own.
@@gonzalobarragan8076 it all comes down to a little something called "consent". Copying machines can be helpful, but If you use it to generate copies of a material without the owner's consent, it definitely becomes a device for piracy. The same goes for making mangas, those artists are paid and permitted by the main author to replicate their artstyle for the sake of uniformity.
the people who cannot see the differences between an artist work and AI work, cannot tell if the artist's job is taken by an AI.
THANK YOU I'm so tired of these people trying to police my work when they barely know what's behind it
Computers and automation were supposed to make our lives easier and free up time for us to do things like make art and be creative. Now, we work harder than ever while the computers make "art".
I think that the point is that the new art work is not created out of creativity rather it is made put of data from outher pictures and that's not something that should be considered art
A recent situation on twt had a digital artist discuss how their art piece got stolen from their art stream before it was finished and the thief put it through an AI program before they could finish the original drawing. The thief then demanded that the original artist credit THEM for "inspiration".
There are a few things missed
1. Its not just public domain art, and some Ai tools have even been found with peoples medical records in their data
2. When an art piece is inspired by someone else, most artists will give credit to the original creator. AI tools don't even give you the ability to give references
3. Due to a monkey, an image without a human creator technically doesn't have a copyright to my knowledge their is no case law on AI art being included in this
4. People use AI tools and claim it as their own hand drawn art. This makes the stolen art issue even more complex and also really makes legal issues because they are claiming that it's something copyright protected when the current law says it isn't
"most artists" certainly do not give credit for the inspiration of their work, even when it is obviously derivative.
people lie on the internet? scandalous! no, the only people who could suffer from that are employers who would soon realize their mistake.
@Sorenkair
1. Alot still do give credit, and not giving credit can be seen as bad faith in a lot of art groups
2. People lie, yes, but the legal issues these could 100% cause is serious copyright is already abused and misused, so copyright issues with AI art could become very serious.
AI art itself is not evil but the misuse of it IS
There is a lot of progress that's needed before the issues with AI art is fixed
Much like photography today compared to when it was invented
There’s undoubtedly going to be some way to counter it.
I’ve heard suggestions such as transforming pixels on your artwork to trick the AI into making a jumbled mess (would only work for new databases, unless the old ones get deleted due to the law)
I’ve seen people talk about making a sort of digital lock that only the user can scan
There’s also the social aspect to it, doesn’t matter if the law says it’s ok.
If people see it as a scumbag move to use it, then companies will try to avoid it because it would give them bad publicity and could jeopardize business.
(That last one is something that a lot of people forget. A company can make all the products they want, but if the public doesn’t approve of it then they will most likely not buy your product (unless it’s a monopoly, in which case that’s a whole separate issue))
is point 2 even true? when an artist puts out a new piece do they just list out the other works that they were inspired from even the majority of the time? i dont really draw, but whenever i see artists on twitter post a picture of what they made they just kinda post the picture with a caption. they dont really say "oh i saw this painting by frida kahlo and wanted to emulate the way she drew her flowers." maybe if you ask them i guess
For me, in the right circumstances, AI art can be art, just not as a 1 sentence prompt, if someone is willing to put in the time to figure out how to direct the ai, that should be considered at least a form of art, only thing I would do is call AI artists something else, AI Directors is a lot more fitting to what they actually do
It's literally theft, with less thought than a collage of work stolen from artists and mindlessly mashed together. It's also mostly used by companies to pay less or nothing to artists while demeaning them and dismissing them and their skills. Just look at ai 'art' biggest supporters.
AI replicating a style is NOT the same as a human getting inspired by it. A human who wants to mimic a style will inevitable add their own experiences, technique, emotions, and style to what they are trying to copy / get inspiration from. When AI does that, its more like literally cutting out a piece of an existing artwork and pasting it together with with a mix of other stolen artworks. There is no creative process behind it. No human experience. Just math and theft.
Humans are just math too though, and ai can definitely put it's own spin on the artwork. Also it's not cutting anything, it's learning how to draw stuff based on the inputted data
Said bunnys9704 the neuroscience expert and is an Artificial Intelligence major.
@@justaneedlessboi6710first phrase, mind if I question you on your two points?
"Human are just math": can you expand on this argument? It seems like a proofless statement.
"it's OWN spin": how can we say that it's its own, if it does not possess consciousness (and therefore self-conciousness, as demonstrated by Fichte)?
@@gabrieleferrari9383 Question OP on their points, as I don't see any evidence for them
@@justaneedlessboi6710It does not learn simply because it does not understand the contents. It doesn't give a spon for the same reason.
The machine doesn't create new pieces through inspiration or even imitation. It samples existing images and mashes and blends them together to compose an image. Thus the original material still exists - just with modifications.
It's like cutting out the Mona Lisa and overlaying it with some other pieces of art while filling in tiny details with more tiny pieces of existing art until you make a "unique" image.
Nope thats not how it works lol
@@Nhn1460 That's how the results are. It's many permutations and combinations put together from thousands of copyrighted sources which simulates 'inspiration' or whatever people are comparing it to.
@@Hello-hello-hello456 if we look into how these AI work they are made to partly emulate the human brain. Fx when we humans draw aren't we also just taking in everything we know and mixing it together on a page?
@@benjamin1313 "AI" is not true intelligence. Algorithm and permutations are not equal to thought. This is fundamental knowledge to any AI developer.
@@benjamin1313 No, it's not how it works. Please look at some art classes or excercises and you'll know that that's not what's happening.
No, they will never replace artist because what we value of their art is their originality, the human’s gift of creativity and their name. In fact, it will only make their art more expensive. But, it’s different for architecture, design graphic, or any practical art field. I do really hope that ai can make under-previledge people to afford design for their small business packaging, their house, and many more. ❤️
There is very much a debate there to be had, but on the topic of “doesn’t both humans and AI copy artists styles” I think very important differences can be made. The big difference between humans and AI in the art space is, that humans might take inspiration from other artists, but they create their own style through their journey, and AI simply copies every single detail about the style of the artists they were trained on.
That is at least my current thoughts, please tell me what you think
It is important to note that the government does not recognize copyright on AI art. Companies ultimately might choose not to use images they don't control, since a competitor could use the same image to slander the brand.
This is definitely important to note, but a lot of the ways companies are using these are by using them for concept art, or they use it to generate basic designs and have artists touch them up so that there is still a work unique to them in the end (and i would assume copyrightable). Despite AI Art itself not being recognized to copyright, it definitely can affect (and already has affected) the jobs of artists.
As an artist, there's not really a thing such as "stealing a style", since I found out that everytime I find new inspiration and learn from it, some minor details from my style will never be gone, like details on eyes, how to shade, body proportion are something that is hard to change even if you do find art style inspiration. Sure maybe the first one or two art you make inspired look like you copied the style, but after a few more artworks you will see your own style incorporated into the style you are inspired by, and that just continues and continues until we find our stable style.
yes but you have a personality while ai art just merges more art. and they arent making art, theyre using existing art by people and editing it. kinda reminds me of those i fixed your art for you xoxo people. and finally, if youre and artist, i dont understand you cuz id be mad if ai used my art and smushed it, to be truthful, but maybe i got something wrong
@@hanabananasmilana If you merge an art style with another, is it still the same art style or is it a new art style?
@@Lanay_ it is a new art style, but there is a line between art theft and inspiration and ai art crossed that line long ago
@@hanabananasmilana Isn't it only art theft if you take the original piece and claim it to be yours?
@@Lanay_ yes and they are doing that.
i think it’s raising the value of artist made work because the AI took less time, materials, work, and talent
Most art is investments owned by people who don't care about the piece, they are only concerned about it's value.
i would treat AI art as like a wallpaper but like nothing else. I'm always gonna support our small business painters. At least they have meaning, passion and soul in their painting
And that’s exactly why AI imagery shouldn’t be called art. It has no conscious intention behind it.
@@CommanderCodyCc--gh8zhArt is subjective, and I believe AI art is art, and does have soul to it. (No I don't believe in digital sentience, I'm not a crazy person)
I believe that, yes, effort is put into it. You try training a neutral network to create artwork. It's hard.
And it gives access to people with no artistic ability or money to express themselves.
I do, however, believe that it's not a replacement for artists, but rather a tool that can be used, and it should be seen as such.
I think it will end up been distinguished from human art the same way replicated food is distinguished from real food in Star Trek.
I'm not sure you will be able to tell the difference in many cases already, let alone in the future.
Passion... Meaning... soul are all very personal interpretations and we might all see different things. I've seen plenty AI art that fits all those and while, yes, they are trained with human artist many create wholly new creations that are beautiful and inspiring. Look at a few of the ones who have won art contest and then revealed they are AI after the fact.
I know some friends who used it to get a general idea on what they want their D&D characters to look like. They asked me to draw them and they sent around 3 images saying “keep this, but remove that, and combine them” etc.
As a tool used for brainstorming and testing looks, I like it a fair bit.
it is quite good to help getting a basis, but thats it really, the fact it steals work still pisses me off to use it as much
This is how AI actually should be used
Regarding the theft of art, the artists rarely consent to having their work used, nor do they they get compensated for it.
Also, it's not the same as artists being inspired by other artwork, as artists will usually RESPECT the original artwork and change it to make it their own, while machine usually does not so this.
I swear watching pro team analysis is far better than watching agent/map guides
It's not "messy" the answer to both of those questions is just a really obvious yes
Artists are already losing work to bots that plagiarized them
You look like Natalie Portman who became a scientist instead of an actress.
So Jane Foster? Mighty Thor? 😁🔨⚡
Natalie Portman actually graduated from Harvard, and has few scientific papers published under her real name: Natalie Hershlag.
Abram hotter than Portman / Hershlag 😍 She so hot she looks unreal, like AI art. 🤔
Natalie Portman + Keira Knightley
Uhm Natalie Portman literally is a scientist, and you just didn't know?
Sora ai and other ai arts should shut themselves down since they should know that they are creating chaos
A good point that Sam Does Arts made in a CZcams video he made about it was that AI just copies while when humans make art, they have to mentally process it and it comes out how they interpret it.