AI art is going to have consequences
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 06. 2024
- Shorts and hot takes: / tbskyenshorts
Let's plays & gameplay: / 2bskyen
Twitch: / tbskyen
---
Merch store: www.redbubble.com/people/TBSk...
Tip me on Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/TBSkyen
Support the channel on Patreon: Patreon: / tbskyen
--------
I will not entertain the notion that human beings deserve to lose their livelihoods just because someone found a way to replace their labor. Any technology that is not implemented with compassion will be used for abuse.
Timestamps:
0:00 Introduction
2:39 "AI art" is not generated by AI
7:46 Are "AI artists" creative?
15:12 "AI art" is just automation
20:29 We cannot stop the technology, but we can decide how it changes our world
Royalty free music in my videos sourced from filmmusic.io, incompetech.com, and composed by Kevin Macleod. Used under a Creative Commons license ((creativecommons.org/licenses/b...)
Additional music by Stevia Sphere
steviasphere.bandcamp.com/
Used under a Creative Commons License - Krátké a kreslené filmy
![A video for #Pride2021 that would have helped me when I was younger [CC]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kXz16dmlNk0/mqdefault.jpg)
![A video for #Pride2021 that would have helped me when I was younger [CC]](/img/tr.png)
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
I think automation is the ultimate refutation to "trickle down economics." In theory, automation should be objectively good: reducing the labour required to produce a good result should always be a positive, but the benefits of that labour aren't distributed to all the people who made the tool possible or the society in general, they go directly to those who already wield enough power to take it for granted, while the labourers are discarded. That is the true horror of this society: in service of the powerful, we became like machines, and now that machines are becoming more efficient, we become like fuel to them.
Everyday communism/socialism makes more sense and I hate it.
@@hitchhikertp2282 Why hate it? Because every major news outlet owned by a billionaire seems to suggest that a system that removes billionaires from power is evil?
@@hitchhikertp2282 Could you explain a little?
@@LilithSnider Well it's simple. We're fed down our throats that communism/socialism = bad. But everyday we see a new billionaire fucking up the planet, and the internet is bringing news that shows that socialism isn't as fucked as we seem to believe.
@@julians.2597 Because few things are more uncomfortable than touching ideas that are so solidified in your head that it feels like things are going to collapse if you do.
"Ai Artists" are the equivalent of someone who says their dream job is to be the "Ideas guy".
Excuse me I'm an AI artist. I have spent hours producing my art and I've made a decent sum of money from it. I'm sorry you feel that way. Maybe you need to calm down and stop attacking other artists.
@@georgehope5477 Let me ask you, what is honestly stopping you from attempting to create art without an AI machine?
Is it the lack of tools? Like you just mentioned youve made some money already so you should be able to buy your own right now. Even if you didnt wanna buy something, most computers or phones or tablets come with a pretty bare bones art program, and even if that cant work pencil/pen on literally any form of paper is literally how most of us start. A bad carpenter blames his tools, Ive seen people get insanely proficient in microsoft paint of all tools, the most bare minimum tool out there that exists on basically every personal computer at this point.
Is the fact that you think it'd look bad? Yeah so does every artist ever known as a friend and even just follow online, we all think our art looks like shit, no matter the actual skill level.
Is it the time it takes? Well yeah any skill based hobby from playing an instrument to playing a sport to even playing a competitive video game, all are gonna take time to be good at, that investment just makes it all worth it in the end.
Are you disabled? So are other artists, Ive known artists with tourette syndrome, there are so many artists who dont have arms and still paint, there are artists who are mostly paralyzed and still paint. While I cant speak for myself beyond mental disability, the artists who do have disabilities like this have been vocal on whatever platform they have to express distain for being used as a reason people "cant" draw.
Drawing isnt something only available to the elite, literally no one is born with a skill, everything is worked for and earned, unfortunately for you and every other AI "Artist" you all end up using the same examples for why you "cant" draw, I promise you, you can draw, you can go and do the thing, you can go and make something, it doesnt have to be good it just has to be something, but...did you learn something from it? I learned to draw by making shitty stick figure drawings inside the margins of my note book at school, what did I learn from this in hindsight? How to put a pencil on paper and doodle something in my brain, as well as the very basics of how to pose a character. That eventually flowered into an escape as my home life got more turbulent, drawing became a way to deal with the stress of my home life taring apart, and turns out the more you do a skill thr better you get. Im not amazing at art, I make some money but not a lot, but I love making stuff, and my minor success with art has encouraged me to try my hand at other creative endeavours, like writing and game dev programing, Im not good at either of those things but I hope, much like art, someday I will be.
I promise you and every Ai artist, that you can draw, you all can actually put the effort in and make something like what you get from these AI machines. It'll just take time and effort and many nights hating what you create, thats good, thats normal, keep going, you can do this. Dont just use Ai Machines because thats all you know, cause I then ask, what happens when these AI machine stop being supported? Or get taken down? Are you still gonna create art?
The only actual thing that I see as a real reason that people who create Ai art dont try their hand at creating it on their own with their own methods is because they dont actually want to put in the effort, or they dont actually have a love for creating art, they just wanna be paid for it and scam people who dont know better. I do hope this isnt you as I do believe that there is a large pool of people who just think its neat and "wow look I made a thing" without realizing the plagiarism going on and I just end up feeling bad for them and want to encourage them to try their hand at picking up a pencil.
@@georgehope5477 excuse me I am a real artist and I have spent years producing my art. I'm sorry to say man but you're not an artist yet. And if you have hope of being an artist one day you'd drop this tool and go learn art first. You do have creative abilities as everyone does! 🙂 But you're hardly an artist without an identity that is your own, you are easily replaceable, your images generation is no different than the next guy, a real artist stands out from the crowd. A real artist can use any tool to make his dream a reality.
The reason you are not an artist, but in fact just an idea guy is this; if you took away the tool, you could not reproduce the images you create with any othrr tool. Artists like myself can in fact do this using any tool at our disposal, unlike you.
For an artist, all we need to do is just take a few mins learning the dynamics of how a new tool/meduim works, but once we figure it out we can do whatever we want past that initial learning curve of the tool. We can easily make what we invision exactly how we see it, we can easily make modifications too all with our raw abilities.
You however would have to spend the 3 + years to even come close to the result of my first try using a new medium.
Sure you could become a master at using an AI image gen tool. But that just makes you a master image picker not an artist I'm sorry to say. You limit yourself doing this and will never achieve becoming a real artist st this rate.
AI art inevitably plateaus very quickly because it is missing a lot of necessary knowledge and observation skills so your image generation is uncanny at best. In the process of using image generation software You don't get to make enough decisions ethier to create something truly new, as the machine is doing most of it unintentionally as it generates. A huge part of art is making both mistakes and intentional choices about color, value, etc... you learn and start growing past weaknesses, to become more proficient, or you find solutions. There is so many limitations on ai art that keep it capped at a certain level.
My advice is to pick up a pencil or any other tool that doesn't do the work for you and start drawing and actually using your creative talent for real instead of wasting your time. You'll go so much further if you take a step back and stop scaming chumps who don't have a clue, there's only so many of them, and there's fewer everyday.
@@georgehope5477 excuse me I am a real artist and I have spent years The reason you're are not an artist, but in fact just an idea guy is this; if you took away the tool, you could not reproduce the images you create. Artists like myself can in fact do this using any tool at our disposal, unlike you.
For an artist, all we need to do is just take a few mins learning the dynamics of how the tool works, but once we figure it out we can do whatever we want past that initial learning curve of the tool. We can easily make what we invision with our raw ability.
You however would have to spend the 3 + years to even come close to the result of my first try using a new medium.
Sure you could become a master at using the tool. But that just makes you a master image picker not an artist I'm sorry to say but you limit yourself doing this and will never achieve becoming a real artist.
AI art inevitably plateaus very quickly because it is missing a lot of necessary knowledge and observation skills. You don't get to make enough decisions ethier as the machine is doing most of it unintentionally as it generates. A huge part of art is making both mistakes and intentional choices about color, value, etc... you learn and start growing past weaknesses, to become more proficient, or you find solutions. There is so many limitations on ai art, that keep it capped at a certain level.
My advice is to pick up a pencil or some clay or the digital version of these and start learning, then you won't have to limit your creativity but instead let it truely flourish!
@@georgehope5477your life is...
i'm an artist myself, and i've seen my commissions completely dry up because people are willing to justify TO MY FACE that AI art is just cheaper. people i thought were friends, who were supportive, have said to me personally that because they can't find anything similar to what they 'made' with an AI art tool on a reverse google image search, it can't be stolen. I've also had people on twitter argue that legally, it isn't stealing, and copyright law is bad anyway.
but copyright law is the only shield we have anymore. we tried the moral arguments. we tried explanations of how our labor was being stolen. they weren't listened to. yes, the argument for copyright is flawed, and copyright law is more often used as a bludgeon by large companies who would have us sign away the whole of our creativity. unfortunately, it's the last line of defense that we still have.
i'm disabled. i can't hold down a 'real job'. i imagine that art and writing were the last bastions of semi-stable income that a lot of disabled people like myself could still find; it's certainly true in the communities i tend to frequent. now i'm wondering how I'll pay for rent and food in a world where everything is getting more expensive and fixed incomes don't even try to keep up. i don't know if I'll be able to pay my phone bill this month. my EBT card is tapped out.
i don't know where i was going with this; I've been shouted down for saying this sort of thing in comment sections before. but it's the lived, material reality of a lot of artists, and i'm glad not everyone is ignoring it.
I am so sad to hear that! I hope it will get better soon!
Do you want to share your insta or any other website where you show your art?
are you open for commissions right now? i'm fortunate enough to have some money saved, but with meds and rent getting only more expensive, me moving out for college just this year and war happening next to my country i don't know how long my stability will last, but i wholeheartedly want to support a fellow artist as much as i can
Um, are you open for commission right now or is it a bad time ?
These tech people actively pushing and flaunting this shit are DISGUSTING, full stop. They act like were all some kind of rich society of gate keepers holding the art world back, meanwhile their AI would be fucking nothing without us!
Sounds to me like those people are not real friends. I would offer my money for aid, but I am not currently in the position to commission art, I'm sorry to say. But I would tell those people that this is the hill I will die on. You either are against AI art, or you are against artists, and I am an artist.
As an artist who's been sacrificing so much time and money to turn my hobby into an eventual career it has been an absolute nightmare to see "AI" art popping up everywhere taking away opportunities that I might have pursued. Of course my goal has primarily been to go independent but even then "AI" art potentially threatens that opportunity. I am scared of what the future may hold, but I still must remain hopeful because without that hope I can't possibly keep my dream alive. Thank you for making this video
Don’t lose hope, I’m also an artist who wants a full-time career in the field of illustration and concept art but ultimately want to work for myself and create my own stories like you. Lol
I think the key 🔑 to artist survival is going to boil down to networking and incorporating skill sets from these new technologies, the AI is making impressive art but is limited in so many other ways (not to mention the legal issues) human artist still dominate - for _now_ , 10 -20 years on might be harder but getting a head start now places us ahead.
Also due to the widespread backlash there’s a possibility we will see another artistic Renaissance where the public begins to value traditional human crafted work above digital.
Same boat. I've invested the last few years in really building up my freelance caricature business with medium levels of success. I was really hopeful of cutting back on the day job but I can clearly see a future looming right in front of us where that just isn't viable. Who could have foreseen this ? It's literally the stuff of science fiction nightmares. The irony is that I started off with ink on paper and spent the last couple of years upskilling to digital but if any market is going to survive at, my hunch is that it will be in traditional art, ink on paper and paint on canvas. I think people are going to value authenticity a lot more, and in a way that's a positive. I do believe our culture has entered a very sad phase though - soulless and sterile music, writing and art endlessly rehashed by machines, nothing new or original coming through. Sad days .
"AI art is not generated by AI" is a good point to start when talking about this topic, to demystify the application of AI as a tool instead of using it as an accurate statement.
Edit: Thank you to the kind folks that know more about AI and what it actually means. I know that I know nothing, even more today.
@@dodongogaming5526 Yes, I think so too, but it is good to name things as they are imo
Correct me if i am wrong, but i thought that the programs were created with machine learning. Where the programs create images and get feedback on if it looks real. And over millions of repeats it creates the algorithm. I think thats technically called AI
@@lukasfiala6735 it's not
@@user-fd5nz5lo7m What he means is the difference between the AlphaGo & AlphaZero.
AlphaGo learn by humans created data
AlphaZero learn by only the rules of the game and walk through all possible combinations by itself.
To do that with art then there need to be a "function" to calculate artistry, either as a formula, which is very hard due to it highly couple with biological human life, or as a ongoing feedback loop, something like the CZcams algorithm, that generate and rate in extreme scale.
@@raketavostok Art schools make use of other pieced of art for students to create something called Master Copies. These are educational to teach students about lighting and such depending on what is being learned. It's literally even, a copy, not an image generated new from the techniques or style used from the original. However this helps students learn these techniques that they can later apply to their own works.
Ai arts currently going through that process, if a bit beyond master copies.
There's an anime called "Carole and Tuesday" that takes place in a sci-fi future where the use of AI is the norm in the creation of music. On one hand, it's depressing how as time goes on that prediction becomes less exaggeration and more actual reality. But it's also reassuring because the theme of the show is that 'despite how hard the systems in our lives try to rip the soul out of it, humanity and art will always find a way to persevere ."
I feel bad for every artist out there who has to compete with AI generated images.
As a customer I always have very specific needs for the art I want. AI images might get close, but in the end after 1000-2000 attempts with AI images I only could use a few of those as inspiration for the things I actually wanted.
I prefer to be able to talk to a real human and tell the artist, I want this and that to be changed to get exactly the image I want. AI is far from doing that and it probably never will be able. AI even has problems changing eye color and refuses to change eye color when the character has a certain ethnicity. Yeah, AI refuses to give an Asian character blue eyes, even if it would be possible with contact lenses. But also, Asians with blue eyes exist.
It's important to be careful of self fulfilling prophecy, and realize there are more people like you than you'd think. Most people I think appreciate things the more they know story about them.
Thank you. As an artist who does art as a hobby, this whole AI debacle has even made me pessimostic of the future. I can't even imagine what professional artists are going through...
#SupportHumanArtists
@Poor Quality Edits how about the people that wrote the algorythm that steals things?
@Poor Quality Edits and how many artists have paid for their references? Do you have a license to draw faces? Just hear yourself for a moment and think what you will feel if rhise reflection where applied to you?
@@AlessandroRodriguez Is everything about money to you? Is that all you think about?
@@hihosh1 that irrelevant, I ask you want everything licensed, perfect, show me your licences then. the proposed solution to "stolen" "creativity" is to "kill" any "creativity"
@Poor Quality Edits The companies which did nothing to prevent misuse of their software, you silly. Despite the lack of accountability in the field, none of the companies followed proper AI / ML ethics. I mean, Microsoft fired it's own team, which team indicated some issues we see now. I do not doubt that these algorithms will improve, and tech won't go away. But law from different governments will intervene at some point, since global economy is targeted from img/voice/text generation algorithms, not just some artist drawing booba as a career.
Its so depressing because you cant really compare the artist struggle in this situation with a struggle in any other field. As an actor, I can complain all I want about the massive amount of "competition" which is just a huge amount of people wanting easy access into a hard field, but that difficulty can weed the "fat" out.
However for artists, the workfield is already so willing to let go of them, and these "tools" are being refined just to replace the entire population of the workfield rather than assist in the creation. Id love to think that one thing I saw about assisted coloring on animations is to help animators, but its just there to eliminate those who work to color the products.
You can now, they want to scan actors and own your likeness indefinitely and use algorithms to replicate your likeness and replace you with a CGI version of yourself
I know that this was written before the strike but it is very ironic how fast we went from "unlike this field" to "major creatives in this field have to join the strike so the next generation can actually get jobs😢
@@solsystem1342 i actually wrote it when the negotiations were on and the possibility of a strike was on the table. I agree that it’s crazy how fast stuff like this moves
Super late reply I know but the original luddites are a good comparison, pretty much like any other field where machines substituted workers.
@@saps5831 and I’m not directly opposed to the tech but I am opposed to the tech being used to hurt 1,000s of people by forcing them out of careers with 0 safety nets (US citizen here). Automation and technology should be used to help people live better lives but not at the expense of other people’s livelihoods
16:05 This is something that isn't said enough; a lot of AI proponents don't seem to realize that what will just happen is they worsen their own job security.
If your program can be easily picked up by anyone with a quick tutorial, if that's literally the _marketing_ of it, companies will _only_ treat you *worse* than employees. They know you can literally generate art in a few minutes, so they won't care about giving huge workloads for bad pay.
And if this sounds like pessimism, oh boy do people not know how much people will not give two birds about screwing over artists. Ex: this entire situation.
Like, seriously, what do people think is the end result of standardizing programs that can do the efforts of entire teams in a few minutes? You're not going to be respected at all because the people who actually _were_ are now fired. You're not going to have unique skills, because automation doesn't need major skill. The only end result to automation without regulation is losing your voice and power.
Well id assume most are aware. They just have accepted it as the better alternative. That progressing technologically is a core part of humanity and so is the end of all human workers. (Or almost). The thing to do is to create a world where this isnt necessarily bad
@@dramwertz4833 they want to turn the crank on the human meat grinder
@@dramwertz4833 Yep, to me the lesson every single time throughout history is that technology stops for nobody. You either adapt along side it or get left behind by it.
Heck one of the huge issues right now is that technology is advancing so fast that not even corporations can keep up with the change in how people perceive ideas and tech.
@@Temperans Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't.
I'm not a visual artist, but I *am* an aspiring voice actor, and all the AI floating around concerns me. Getting in the industry in the first place has had me very worried, and hearing someone I watch frequently speak out about something like this lightens my heart.
The best "future proof" advice I can give you is to find what you can do faster, better, or more efficiently then the "average human".
That advice will apply to ANY job. Clean houses better, or tell a story better. Landscaping to Organization.
And sell your work to the end user - NOT a middleman.
@@kin2naruto the issue comes when the thing you can do better than average still only puts you on par, or worse, than hundreds of thousands of people in a normal competitive field of work. This is without the introduction of AI, where suddenly artists from all creative branches are now also having to compete against computers that can steal and then immitate your craft for cheaper.
@Kitnal Expand your definition of "average". People get paid to clean toilets, organize socks and dog walk after all! And having art skills helps in a LOT of fields - from home decor to translation of "engineering speak".
@@nicholash1278 doubt it can take a characters voice but you have to take 10× longer to make a new voice rather than hire a voice actor and ask them to do a few voices and choose one you would either have to take months to make a new voice or use the same basic voice getting a voice actor is easier
@@best_username6846 I thought that too until I saw voice AI. They actually made it pretty easy to change pitch, tone, age. They still use voice actors for the base emotion but its definitely going to cut down voice acting jobs.
My refutation for “is the prompter of the ai an artist?” is “are you a cartographer for plugging an address into Google maps?”
My ideal for this technology is to take several of my own photographs, add some interesting prompts and seeing if it becomes a transformative work. Right now the technology isn't really there, but that sort of tool is something I'd consider artistic...but probably because I want to control the output.
AI prompting is like google image searching, but with less skill and results which hide their source.
@johnchedsey1306 sounds like you'd wanna photoshop the photos together.
Thank you for so eloquently putting all the points artists have been talking about for years on this video.
It really does boggle my mind when people say that AI art will "give power to the common people to go against the studios" when we already see studios testing the waters with this technology...
... why'd I put for years. I meant months or long while.
The last chance for a commoner to have power was when the internet was made and look where that got us.
Commenting for the algorithm because more and more people should see and understand how and why AI Art, despite being a morally neutral tool, represents a horrific and unethical future for not only the livelihoods of artists, but also the quality of art moving forward.
Automation is a net good
@@FrenchThottyAmelia "Hey, what if we came up with a way to do all this technological advancement _without_ hurting people?"
@@rogueobscura it would probably be a first for humanity
@@rogueobscura the thing is theres only one solution. Getting rid of capitalism and restructuring society. There is no magical "lets do this and do technology and everyones happy"
@@dramwertz4833 Ideally, yes. The only way a society with such intense automation can exist is if we stop having people need a job and wage to live, but it's easier to regulate digital programs than end capitalism.
Ai art has most definitely impacted my commission income, by a large margin. Considering I have a baby to feed its just sad and depressing. Im sure others are struggling way more than I but it really is just a slap to the face to be told my art is trash and then stolen to use for ai. Its just all really gotten to me :'(
I feel for you I hope things get better for you and your child and those people saying your art is trash are speaking rubbish I checked your channel and it's very good you put heart and effort into your work you deserve recognition and I would gladly be your client for commissions but as of right now I don't have a bank account because yet but when I do I'll be more than happy to be your client for commissions I am an animator and I wish it as a carrier choice when I am older I wish you and your child luck and prosperity because you deserve it for your hard work don't listen to those people who try to demoralize you yet haven't felt pain and suffering you have indured because you deserve a break from it I don't even know what you're going through but I know is that you deserve better than this
@@kuronblue Thank you for your kind words. Us artists have to stick together more than ever, big or small. Just the positivity alone, even if its far and few between definitely keeps me going along with many others. Your very appreciated
@@nicholash1278 oh honey I work full time in healthcare. Art is not my main source of income but it helps us quite a bit. Art *is* a real job whether you like it or not (if it wasn't, you wouldn't have video games, or movies, or any creative thing really) but not everyone is able to live off of *freelancing*.
@@nicholash1278 Im not staying in the healthcare field for long at all. My health is too poor to continue, all other career choices are impacted by ai and even if they wont I still have empathy for those struggling. Im not sure why your on this video in the first place if your just here to try and make artist feel bad, although it IS on par for how most ai bros act. Learn some empathy for other human beings and life becomes a lot less hateful!
@@nicholash1278 actually you can disregard my last reply, I just realized your here to argue no matter what stance people have. Get better soon! Life gets better when you stop looking for arguments, enjoy some positivity in your life!
19:57 Unlike stuff like looming, there isn't really any societal benefit to automating art. Isn't the whole point of art for people to express their creativity?
True
Not to the people who only care about making millions with it.
Hypothetically, if you were building a general intelligence that you wanted to use to solve complex problems. It wouldn't be a bad proof of concept to ask it to invent a few new styles of art first because you definitely don't want to start with problems that could have catastrophic consequences like healthcare or whatever. That being said, all of our current models are narrowly intelligent and therefore largely the only benefit is the cutting costs from paying artists/a proof of concept. Which uh, there are a lot more useful problems to be solving😅
god i feel so hopeless as a student going into uni rn. dreamt of being a concept artist since forever, but now i’m not sure if i’m going into the right course/career path. as if it wasn’t a competitive enough field amongst other people, now we’re competing against ai. i knew the job security was always dubious, but at this point i don’t even know if i can afford to risk fighting what seems to be a predetermined loss of a battle. maybe i should have studied harder for my maths and economics
From one concept artist to another: we are still needed. Please don't give up hope
i feel concept artist is the one type of artist AI won't replace
i feel the same, but i absolutely hate the "maybe i shouldve studied harder for my maths and economics" thought. i hate that we have those thoughts, because we're working so hard precisely cuz we want to be able to earn money while also doing what we're passionate about. this simply sucks big time
The truth is, pretty much all creative or knowledge-based jobs are at risk. Musicians, accountants, engineers, architects, designers, etc. If it's something a human can do using a computer and software, it's something an AI can, and will eventually, replace. Throw robotics into the mix, and no job is is safe. There is massive unemployment on the horizon. Once robotics and AI can do all the work we normally do, we'll have to evolve as a society to figure out how to proceed.
Studying math and economics wouldn't have helped you. I'm in school studying data science and I'm also watching AI quickly develop the ability to do everything I would have been doing in my eventual career. It's screwing over all of us, not just creative professions.
The moral of the story is that technology isn't evil, capitalism is.
🙄
That’s not the message at all. The existential pressures of capitalism and weight to the issue, as the literal financial well-being of the artist is at stake. But even in some silly post scarcity communist utopia, the services of an mid level artist in an AI art world are not desired, leaving them to find another job or produce worthless output.
Hold the phone. Capitalism isn’t innately evil in the same way technology isn’t. Technology can be used for evil, capitalism can be used for evil. It’s not an air right system, and it’s gaps are easy targets for bad people, but it’s the problem people that create the evil. Just like technology, bad people abuse a system. Keep the accountability on the people abusing the tool.
no
@@9forMortalMen if you think a Skyen video like this one doesn't mean capitalism is the ultimate reason then you don't actually follow Skyen that much.
The fact that so many of these tech bro's ignore history and actively WANTS to repeat it is MINDBLOWING for me. Like why do we even learn history???
Because they don’t care about the people who lost their jobs from the automatic loom.
They look at that history and they see themselves as the rich assholes who made bank by making working class citizens’ lives worse.
To them, those guys are the winners, and they want to be winners too. Morality be damned, life is a competition and anyone who suffers just needs to complain less and hustle more.
@@cartoonishidealism582 Thats not true. Most AI developers genuinely believe they do good for humanity which is super delusional. If anything they will lead us to a dystopia.
Exactly they are asking for art automation machines to start a parasitic relation ship with people who put actual heart and work into it why do they act like everything that happened in the past is justifiable in the future this ain't a flipping food chain its people's life's matter a fact
There is a lot of “progress for the sake of progress”
Dudubs responded to me and then blocked me so I can't reply. Do with that what you will
I’m a young, aspiring artist, and this whole situation has me quite worried. I recently got rejected from my dream animation school, and if I’m quite honest, I’m starting to reconsider my career choice because of this whole AI art situation. What if I can’t support a family later? Hell, what if I can’t support myself? It’s a frightening time for artists, and I do hope we find a solution to it, although I fail to really see how. Good luck to all of you out there, and never forget your own worth.
The problem is capitalism, its so obvious at this point
I legit wanna wish it to be deleted from any timeline at this point. It just keeps using a lot of evil stuff like greed to incentivice itself to keep going.
Finally a sensible critique that doesn't just brush these things aside and say dumb things like they're 'soulless'. These companies like stable and open AI know exactly what they're doing - hit it fast and deal with the legality later - Artists need to understand what these things can do and how to navigate this new landscape instead of just being afraid and thinking to avoid engaging it will make it go away
Stability AI take it up a notch by open-sourcing the model. Even when they got struck down, their open-sourced models will never die. This is the power of open-source. In the past developers use this power for encryption. The government want to massively regulate encryption which ends up failed due to people open-sourcing it. Basically putting it freely available to the hands of the masses.
im not really good at anything else except for art... i always knew this is what i wanted to do, for as long as i can remember. im now almost finishing high school and started getting my portfolio ready for college applications...this really feels like the wrong era to want to become an artist. this is so scary and unfair. im so very sad and confused because i dont know how to do anything else other than art and i quite frankly dont want to do anything else. i hate imagining myself as those people that hate their job and only do it in order to survive, not getting too much real fulfillment out of it. i feel so scared, sad, confused, angry and hopeless
I love how your voice is dripping with barely-contained rage when you talk about this. And what might be the worst part is that these corporations know that even if they manage to monopolize art, we artists won't stop making our art and sharing it with the world, so they'll likely never run out of material to steal from.
@Jane Smith Oh, that fallacious excuse. Even if an artist is supposed to be perfectly okay with keeping their art to themselves or and maybe a select few, that doesn't make it okay to steal their art. We don't blame the victims over here.
There is a new software made by researches in collaboration with artists like Karla Ortiz called Glaze to cloak artworks to make it difficult for database to scrape and categorize cloaked images.
What was it called? I feel like I've heard of it b4. @@subhankitbasu620
Thanks for drawing a specific parallel to the Luddites, that’s one point I had in mind in relation to this argument that I had trouble finding others specifically addressing. One of my main concerns was how one could be against AI art if they wore jeans and t-shirts created on automated looms that also removed the livelihoods of countless workers. It was the perfect segue into your next point about how while this stuff inevitable, like the Industrial Revolution, the consequences can be mitigated by regulation that will admittedly take time to be drafted by people much smarter than us, like the rise of labor laws and unions in the 20th century.
So yeah, while your argument was self-admittedly cynical, it was also realistic and direct, acknowledging that this stuff isn’t going to go away, and the exact solution is likely going to take some time to figure out, but the least we can do is recognize the truth behind the technology and how it can/will be applied.
Thank you for this! You've captured a lot of my thoughts and feelings I had about this topic and put it in a very succinct and well made video!
It's always frustrating how people focus on how this will benefit so many people and improve lives while ignoring all the people that are exploited and stepped on to get there. So many tech innovations are only able to get away with this because the law is slow and the new "thing" was inconceivable when the laws were written. Too many people have the Machiavellian mindset of "the ends justifies the means" but suffering and exploitation never justify capitalistic gains. Innovation and Automation CAN be done ethically, we just need to legally and morally force companies to act that way.
This is true, unfortunately the way laws get changed is always so slow, and laws have always been playing catch up with technology.
That seems to be human nature in general. I mean, look at how we mishandled COVID and now have to learn to live with the virus that can kill us at random and leaves us crippled with every infection. We could have defeated this virus but unfortunately, spoiled white people wanted to ruin it for everyone and they have. Now we're all paying the price.
@@hjups It is not being used medically currently, and the only articles I could find were the *potential* uses of Stable Diffusion could have. It's a good thing medical regulations are restricting a new technology from being ham-fisted into practice because that's incredibly dangerous! Could AI help fill out data sets and give doctors more scans to practice on, maybe, could AI generate a bunch of nonsense that doesn't help at all or worse actually leads to harm, also just as possible!
We have no idea where the technology will be in 5 years, so what if it doesn't get to the point to help these hypothetical children. People's lives are ruined and people are exploited all for not because this imaginary child still dies. I don't believe in destiny so I rather prioritize the people alive now then hypothetical future people.
Well that's because it has lots of benefits and you only want to see the negatives so you can have a pity party... Or at least that's what it seems like. I see the positives, one of my favourite things is using the art I make and then seeing how an AI interprets them as people. Sometimes I get some amazing results, if I were to rely on actual artists they A: Wouldn't be able to provide me the same results and B: Would overcharge me, when paying for something I'm only interested in paying for the finished piece
@@hihosh1 Damn I didn't realize my standards of wanting companies to have ethical business practices and not exploiting people was having pity party. That stuff clearly should be over looked when their product can personally benefit me.
Snark aside, yeah AI stuff is just a tool and it can be used for good or bad. Companies only care about making profits go up so they will use it maliciously.
i am an artist, it's my livelihood. i live in an area with very few jobs and this is the only way i can make money. when friends and family have questioned why i was so against AI art i couldnt fully articulate my feelings for it, it was too close to home for me. i'm not a popular artist by any means. i struggle to get my work seen. but the thought, that out there there's an tech bro that *maybe* made something that looked like my style filled me with dread. i couldnt get my feelings out. this video does a wonderful job at really conveying everything i felt and the logical reasons behind it in a well spoken manner. i'm going to send this to people who ask why i am against AI art from now on. thank you for this video.
@@dodongogaming5526
I think OP meant where some AI art try impersonating/copy some people's art work more rather than taking inspiration of the artstyle using the scraping method.
@@greschenglin-dz7wj Drown
@@greschenglin-dz7wjexactly!!!, SOME ai bros keep saying art isn't a real job, but its HAS been a real job for centuries, and they also says that art isn't useful, although with that logic you can say that almost every other entertainment jobs are useless
@@greschenglin-dz7wj yeah, its kind of sad imo, but on the bright side, atleast i still can get to enjoy making art eventhough the ai medium has taken over it, yeah sure i won't be getting money or exposure from that, but like atleast i got to do something that i found fun.
@@greschenglin-dz7wj Exactly, that's how it is for me it's a fun thing to do
this needs to be seen, the general public is just not well informed about what is going on right now qnd it's heartbreaking. Commenting to do my part in boosting engagement.
Watch Solar Sand's video. Same core point, more nuanced, less subjective sweeping statements about philosophy, less presumption that they understand exactly how machine learning works.
Love the video. One thing with the "genie out of the bottle" thing is that we've had technologies like the Concrod planes or human gene editing stop or be heavily regulated because either doctors ended up in jail for breaking ethics and law or the Concord planes were to expensive to maintain so companies went bust, despite how appealing it was to fly supersonic. And looking how NFTs got completely bullied from the mainstream media, why not AI? We can always encourage and foster human art instead of AI, after all people decides what goes back into the bottle and what doesn't.
The difference is in the cost-benefit balance. The planes were too expensive to maintain (at least back then), NFTs are useless for they're supposed to do. AI art is free, at least partially, while an actual artist has got be paid. The weavers/tailors lost their market in the common person because the machines clothes were cheaper and did their job of covering a person, and had to turn to those who would want and could afford designer clothes, both higher in quality and price: the high society, VIPs. The same happened with horses, they did not disappear but drastically changed their place in western society when cars became widespread (that also because we weren't really aware of pollution too). The same happened with food, with almost anything (buildings are an exception to me). It's called consumerism, and there's a reason why it exists.
I do think it's going to be the same for art, (if Skyen is right): only those who can easily afford will commission actual artists, while others will rely on AI. Which... already was and is today. With the difference that at least, back then, people could appreciate art in churches, with all the limits of that.
Ai art seems to have popped up at an odd point in time. In that we are currently going into a recession, global tensions are rising (at least becoming more prominent in the media with Jan 6th, Ukraine, french protests for the retirement age among other things occuring that don't get attention on a global level)
These things will likely overshadow the rise of "AI"(or should we start calling them MLA for machine learning algorithms) resulting in the time that it needs to get some form of regulation going unchecked.
Why would people care about it when all they see is that they can have cool art for "free" just like all the wealthy people?
Not only that, but i'm pretty sure people will soon get bored from prompting art and/or will realize that it isn't economically viable.
@@darkonyx6995 It is economically viable. What we see at the moment is just like other tech bubbles. Market explodes with a ton of options, and a few successful ones will win out and succeed. But it is still just a tool. The advent of digital art didn't make artists obsolete, it just changed the skills they needed. This will do the same.
I really want human gene editing simply because I want to be a centaur-
If “AI art” were truly made by ACTUAL artificial intelligences, than I don’t think our biggest concerns would be with wether or not it can make art, but instead it’d probably be more like “oh shit, we just made sentient and sapient beings, we should probably make sure they gets sufficient rights and shit before they gets all Terminator on our exploitative asses!”
Edit: also, great vid as always Skyen, seeing your work in my inbox is always a good moment
that will probably happen if people keep abusing artificial neurons while other people keep saying that artificial neurons is not thinking....oh wait they already do! haha we're fucked
As someone who got degrees in computer science and philosophy, this is the kind of shit I have been screaming into the void for the last decade. It’s frustrating, because the efforts of wealthy tech bros that want to “disrupt the ecosystem” or whatever have created this image that AI means intelligent machines, when it simply doesn’t. I’ve had people ask me if the Facebook image recognition software got unplugged because it was going to “take over the world”. And my refrain has always been “don’t worry about the tool. Worry about who’s holding it.”
Whether it’s tech startups stealing art to cut costs, or image recognition software being used to track anybody who is outside near a phone, we are *sorely* lacking in ethical and moral frameworks to process the changes machine learning is making to society. We fundamentally misunderstand the technology in the general public, assuming intentionality where there is only math. This video demonstrates a pretty solid understanding of AI, and one that should become more commonplace.
If I have any insight, it’s this: many ML algorithms aren’t even “unspeakably complicated”, as Skyen puts it. The ones I used in college to accurately label hand-drawn numbers didn’t even use actual functions in their models. Instead, data is fed through various layers of nodes in a graph(think the image at 3:44) with each of those nodes having various connections to other nodes in the next layer, each weighted differently so that more data will go down certain connections. There are many, many components, to be sure. Modern ML algorithms have hundreds to thousands of nodes per layer, and can have as many layers as the company has computational capacity, but the basic principles can be explained on the back of an envelope in about 10 minutes. AI, or neural networks, as they were called when I studied them, is not some magical, grand leap towards machine sentience. It’s just a lot of basic math being performed on a lot of data.
Yes these ML algos are simpler than many think they are, but really when you break down what is happening in our own heads it isn't all that different, with the biggest difference beeing that most ML models do not work in loops while our thoughts and emotions are in a constant loop of neurons firing off signals to one another. ML algos usually get an input and generate an output, are done and get "resetted" afterwards. And making a NN run in loops is already in research. So we really are at a point where we have to ask ourselfes what is integlligence anyways? And how can we change our current economic and social systems to deal with this. Because if we do not deal with this big companies will do that instead, with possibly very bad consequences.
I saw your Twitter thread about this and I'm glad you're discussing this -- by far the most nuanced take. AI is everywhere, and it's even in the games we love and play. The problem so often lay in people using it in cases like this, in the replacement of such a human element by stealing the work of others.
Which game that you love and play is using Machine Learning ?
@@piorism Games that adapt and respond to what you do, like chess, use a Kind of machine learning. It's obviously not all machine learning in the way this art is being generated. I was more referring to the fact that more or less Every game with enemies or other mechanics uses a form of "AI" or coding which responds to the player. Like the bots in League of Legends. Like, I'd love to see how far they could push that for *games* and their interactivity.
Mind you, I'm definitely not a tech bro advocating for """"AI Art"""" here, but more that I'm grateful for a nuanced take that isn't just "all AI/machine learning is bad." It's just one of those things where technology is abused to create shortcuts for profit.
what about google search?, it is an AI trained on the entire internet and it was used for profits, i think we should ban google search
@@AnnasVirtual Google search is more of an automated librarian, and doesn't claim anything it shows as something it created, nor something new. My post already says I appreciated nuanced takes-- literally because AI is used in a lot of things and shouldn't be demonized as a concept lol.
I'm not entirely sure if you missed the point I was trying to make or if you're just making up something just to argue. I'm confused about what you were trying to say here. Can you clarify why you said it?
Im not a fan of how he just sort of glosses over a bunch of the philosophical aspects and then basically belittles anyone who might critique it. Came across as pretty disingenuous. I think Solar Sands handled these topics in a more nuanced way while still coming to the same core point.
My dad is your typical divorced late forties Elon Musk fan and he's dismissed every criticisim i have of AI as "you need to learn more about things before you judge them" despite the fact that i know about this stuff more than he does.
Hopefully this makes him think a little because you're much better at explaining the ethics of it than i am.
Tell him the fact that Elon was once in charge of OpenAI, but once he saw the dangers of it, he left the company is sceptical towards its fast development, which isn't regulated by laws (they just don't wait for new laws to settle, they skip this part and do unethical things before anyone stops them)
Perhaps your dad may listen now that Elon's heavily pushing for a 6-month shutdown of AI development
Bro is out here mad at his dad and ai rather than the system that is opressing your dad and you. Lol
Nah i'm mad at the system too
Wonderfully said. This whole "AI" story is such a mess at this point, I hope it'll be legally regulated eventually.
I don't think you can really, unless you start like, an art registry and start giving out artist licenses? Point at which OpenAI or whatever company's using the tech will hire a thousand people in Pakistan or Ecuador or some other place that hands licenses with little requirements to be "artists" on their behalf using the tools.
It'll be regulated for the benefit of large corporations who own the copyright to many IPs. They'll cripple open source use and development for everyone else while turning artists as scapegoats. Artists will once again get the short end of the stick while getting all the hate and all the blame while they're made irrelevant in a post AI world dominated by corporate entities who hold all the rights.
@@richardmarin2538 „I don't think you can really, unless you start like, an art registry and start giving out artist licenses? ”
What you ranted about has nothing to do with anything. Simply bad programs trained on images taken without permission, and continue to refuse to give copyright to anything generated by any of these programs.
@@carlosramon6102 „It'll be regulated for the benefit of large corporations who own the copyright to many IPs”
Citation needed, mister defeatist.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 Suppose I'm an artist, and I create some piece, and I ask an AI to make me the same thing, and it produces very similar results to what I created. If the results are basically the same, why should what I created manually qualify for copyright, but the AI generated one shouldn't? If I use photoshop to create an original piece of art, but decide to augment it using AI tools, is that piece suddenly not copyrightable? What if I start with an AI-generated piece but work it into a new piece, is that copyrightable? How would someone unremoved from the process of how the art was generated be able to discern how something was created and thus decide if it violates copyright or not? All you can really go on is, is the work similar enough to an existing copyrighted work such that it violates copyright. We already have copyright law. There's no reasonable way to amend it to include how the work was created, which is what you are suggesting. To qualify for copyright, we'd have to include some sort of documentation on how a work was created along with the work itself, which is kind of insane to suggest. If any piece in the workflow utilized AI, would that disqualify it? I see your concern but the issue is complex and your proposed solution isn't really practical.
The weaving example is actually a pitch perfect metaphor for this situation; what a lot of people don't realize is that hand-woven fabrics were *better* than the fabrics we have now. They were stronger, more flexible, and had a much higher thread count. In quite a few fairy tales someone is sent on a quest to find fabric so fine it could be pulled through a ring; that isn't magic. It was a real fabric thar existed for centuries, as recently as the 1820s, and it was made in Pakistan from local linen.
If AI automates art the way the industrial revolution automated looms, we are going to lose so much. We will be sacrificing quality for quantity in the worst way.
Thank you so much for making this, and for getting my feedback on it. 💜
me realizing that the "future" and the "AI" of now, are neither the future nor real artificial intelligences:
my dissatisfaction is immeasurable and my day is ruined
I do like that people are coming up with ways to protect art though. There's a tool that's being tested now that puts a sort of "cloak" over a piece of art and it messes up the generators.Very cool
Whats the name of the tool?
@@kalliskivike The tool is called "Glaze", developed by a university, just Google it, might only work for a while though until the thieves figure out a way to remove it like they do with watermarks
There's one called Glaze, I think? It's made by the University of Chicago
Nightshade and Glaze.
This shit has ruined my life and caused me suicidal anxiety. I gave my passion my absolute everything.
@aIbi7280 Hey there, I don't know what you're going through but I just want to encourage you to never give up. This stuff is absolutely scary. And it's ok to be afraid of the future. But please know you don't have to struggle alone, people love and care for you. I'm just a stranger on the internet who just met you, and if I care this much for you, imagine how much more those closest to you do? ❤ keep moving forward comrade, stay safe, it's all we can do
Damn man, I majored in CS and took extensive classes on machine learning, and I'm so glad you did that entire section on it, really well written stuff!
Dudeee, id like to have a convo with a CS major on this. I majored in CS for almost 2 years but then I dropped out of College, to become an animator and learn online.
"may the tides of history wash gently over us all"
That's a beautiful prayer to sign off on.
As a uni student studying design and animation, this is exactly the conversation we should be having. Your comparison to the automated loom is pretty spot on and puts into perspective how scary the future may be for artists' livelihoods.
The answer to the AI art problem is just like the answer to everything else. Monopoly law needs to get steroided to the point of being able to overwhelm even the biggest companies. Workers need adequate compensation for their work. Average work hours need to go down because there is just too much automation to justify a work schedule set in the 1800s, and education costs for those who need to change fields or are getting out of high school need to drop drastically.
In other words, the people need to govern again, and our corporatocracy is not gonna do it. People may hate socialism, hate unions but the constitution doesn’t start with “We the stockholders”. It’s time we took up the gavel… else we will inevitably take up the guillotine.
“What are artists to do?” I ask my brother.
“Prevent the change and learn something else to do before they become outdated” he says.
I need people like you irl.
Its funny when 90% of jobs arent safe from this automation anytime soon
This world needs more humanistic people like you Skyen. Thank you ❤
As a beginner artist I've been very nervous and intimidated to try and become a professional and making it my career as I worry that by the day I would get enough commissions or find an entry level job I would've wasted my time cuase "AI art" is just better, cheaper, and faster then me a novice with no experience videos like these put my heart a little to rest but that little voice never leaves, so thank you Skyen for putting out such an excellent video, let's just hope that those sleazy, grim filled shmuks won't get away from this unscathed
As someone who's trying to learn art in their free time, i'm finding a lot of salesmen pitching AI services like they'd help me. But it's like saying "isn't art hard? Cut down your labor by not doing it! You'll be a better artist!"
@@plebmcpleb5761 true that but anxiety go brr
Cheaper - of course. That is the CEO's only - may I repeat ONLY? - concern. Fast, by Jove, spit-em-out looking snappy. Better than you? Are you bloody kidding? Everything you do with that brush is impelled with emotion and your 'take', and that is the whole thing - your choices, each pencil line intended, emotional and playful. All that spit-em-out is doing is stealing, which is another feature of CEOs.
return to traditional art.
Been following you for quite some time, and I'm genuinely in awe at the overall quality of your content. This video in particular speaks to me on a personal level, as I'm certain it does many artists, since IA has been a source of worry for us all for a while now. I appreciate that you tackled the issue with such clarity and nuance, though without giving any form of leeway to those who would belittle our concern and urge us to move on from our craft to and embrace IA and shit.
So yeah, thank you for this and everything else
I am hurt and scared listening to this ;-; ... I dont really got feared by anything but this time this is tough to listen through the whole thing without my anxiety spikes through the roof.. It must be so rough trying to think of a way to live and support yourself as a full-time artist .. But I did try to listen till the end, and wow the message is very powerful. Thank you for the video as always
This is the best video on AI images I've seen, I have very similar opinions on this topic and I just couldn't find them anywhere else. I just heard that "AI art will give us the art democracy..." or "use words as your paintbrush", I think that art is one of the last things that need to be automated, thank you for making this!
I hadn't thought about the similarity between all this and the textile machinery thing before, but that was a brilliant point.
Exceptional job as ever.
I especially love the history you worked in of the Luddites, it’s a pet peeve of mine to see past movements and ideas eclipsed by the colloquial usage of the titles. This topic has been on my mind a lot of late, so hearing your thoughts on his has really been helpful.
If CZcams content creation is an artform, this is definitely a masterpiece
I support the "rebranding" of AI art as automated illustration. Far more semantically accurate i think.
Anyway, this really does confirm it:
It's not a tech problem, it's a capitalism problem.
Oh, your job is getting replaced? It's easier and more accessible to all? That shouldn't be a bad thing, and the only reason it is is because of capitalism. Not the first, not the last person to have their jobs taken away by a machine, yet i don't see nearly as many complaining about self-checkout on supermarkets.
It's bitter, but my main response is "welcome to the revolution". You've just been hit clean in the face with the harsh reality that you don't matter, your output does, separately from you, and if that output can be replaced, you are literally, entirely worthless. A community should be built around people, society should be created for people, so they can live free and have their needs met. The progress of technology is unstoppable, but the only way it is harmful is if it's done for the sake of profit, and for as long as we live in a society(heh) that ties our worth to our output rather than tying our worth to the simple fact that we are human and we exist, this will keep happening, forever.
EDIT: also, copyright bad. Nobody should own ideas.
that pachinko analogy is a fantastic way to demonstrate how 'ai art' '''makes decisions'''
The thing I find truly sad about this, is that while the industrial revolution crushed peoples livelihoods and while the automation of often simple but very labour intensive jobs do the same (this should obviously be fixed with reeducation or something, idk how). To me it has always seemed like the "end goal" was to have robots do everything that was repetitive, "boring", prone to human error, etc., so that humans could focus on innovation, science, arts, etc.
But this, as it is now, seems seriously dangerous for the creative space, so what is gonna be left?
To be clear, I'm not arguing against advancement, it just seems like we are trying to automate stuff that brings genuine fulfillment to people.
In learning all this it can seem easy to feel powerless against the gargantuan power of the system we live in but there is hope and something we can do about it, remember these quotes Gurren Lagann:
“The dreams of those who've fallen! The hopes of those who'll follow! Those two sets of dreams weave together into a double helix! Drilling a path towards tomorrow!"
"Even if the universe stands against us, our seething blood will determine what shall be! We'll break through time and space and devour all who would hold us down!"
Please, please, please I hope this goes viral
Me too
Love to hear someone else telling the story of the Luddites! It's one of my favourite parts of Nottingham's history
The word should honestly be reclaimed given that automation will happen in a bunch of other fields too, and history will repeat itself each time.
If the 2010s were all 'AI' training with small projects and demos, the 2020s will be the deciding decade of it will be practical legally.
Maybe logical in the long-term, but history overlooks the suffering of those who lost out to the automated loom. And AI advances are happening much, much faster than the Industrial Revolution. Whole fields could disappear in 5-10 years. Is society ready for that mass upheaval?
In short: “AI” art is not a mechanism that creates art, but an attempt of capital to seize the means of production for a resource that has historically been held by labor
we do really need more perspectives of historical materialism, the public discourse nowadays is filled with too many fairy tales from the big tech and resource monopolizers.
Would you support AI art if it could be generated freely by anyone without having to pay a corporation? In this world, the means of production would be controlled by everyone instead of just capitalists, but the talent & effort of "traditional" artists would still be massively devalued. I'm genuinely curious and not trying to make a rhetorical point.
@@alexm2716 ahh, my original comment isn’t all that great, but your question still applies even if I had worded it better.
I don’t think the hypothetical world you describe could exist without getting rid of the very conditions that create demand for these algorithms.
Capital can’t do work. It can’t perform labor, only laborers can. So these learning algorithms are tools that, under an economic system controlled by capital, allow capital to more effectively profit off the labor of artists without purchasing that labor. Beyond personal entertainment, this is a tool that became popular exclusively with people who want to benefit from art without paying artists. It’s designed to let capital get around labor laws and to let non-artists get around IP protections.
In a world without capital, a tool like this would still be plagiarism, but I find it hard to believe it would still have any appeal beyond whipping up a portrait for a DnD game.
I hope more people get to watch this video, some people believe in a weird utopia where they would get benefits from AI, but that is not how that is going to be.
I've been the last months basically desperate about this situation because I've been learning from years how to do art by myself, and just when I was about to post all my progress to get my work know, ''AI'' happens and everything just went downhill for me since then, I believe I'm gonna stop trying to be an artist and also stop to create something that once saved my life.
Bob Ross NEVER sold a single painting. He gave art lessons away for free on PBS and sold paint. Art was healing for him.
Don't stop doing art merely because you don't see a quick, easy way to make money from it.
Oh come on, so because you can't make money from art, you must just give it up? Seriously?
don't.
Dude, this video is way too pessimistic.
Sure, commission art is going to be harder to get in. but no impossible, you just need too wide your horizons, search a niche for your art.
Digital Art is going to be really hard to survive as a freelancer, but the old school, oil painting and similar, is still an open market.
The creation of comics also is still an open market. Editorial work to fix IA generated art also going to be profitable.
This is not the end, it is just a new market!
@@Zeroangelus9 exactly
@@kin2naruto That's fine and dandy in a non-capitalistic world.
Unfortinately, artists have bills to pay. We sacrifice years of our life practicing so we can make this a career.
There's not enough time to "do art for free" when your average person needs to work 2 jobs just to make ends meet.
Also doing art isn't making a "quick buck". Its a long term investment, and is extremely labor intensive. People have been devaluing the work artists do for years, and AI only makes this problem worse.
Not primarily a visual artist, but watching these discussions happen both in visual art and writing is... something. I'll mention that AI art is increasingly being used for faking propaganda photos, and AI writing is known for being wildly inaccurate. (After all, something that makes only what it thinks you want to see is going to reinforce a lot of existing biases.)
The luddite section broke my heart.
We look back at history like it's some distant thing, a fictional narrative we just accept once happened. To be able to, in a modern equivalent, stand here and on some level understand what they were going through intimately because we're beginning to experience it in our own fields... it breaks my heart. It is such a powerful likeness.
Just when I thought the existential dread of humanity couldn’t get any worse. Now our creativity, a part of the soul is now…. I don’t even know anymore
Don't worry, as he laid out here, AI art is neither AI or art. It's more like an automated remix of pre-existing art. That'd be a looooot of theft going on if companies can somehow start plagiarizing en masse. It just doesn't make any sense.
@@RacingSnails64 I mean he says it’s art. Walk like a duck talk like a duck and all.
@@RacingSnails64 yhea the dude said that in less than 5 minutes
Your creativity has not changed. No part of your soul is gone, just your ability to monetize it is being impacted.
@@jenvas yeah I just wanted to try something profound
Amazing video and arguments. Really appreciate the explanation on the tech behind it. As a computer scientist I really think that what really makes people put AI in such a high horse is not understanding how it works.
Yes! Unionize, spread the word, help *each other* whether you are a creator or someone who enjoys art. To stop the ugly corporate dragons from stealing wealth, from using advancement as firey breath to torch jobs we need to unite against them!
Great video Skyen!!
The worst outcome of AI art I witnessed so far was an AI video that used deepfake technology in Brazil, to replicate a singer who died years ago and that opposed our military dictatorship, while she drives the car of one of the biggest supporters of said dictatorship, a company that even collaborated with the authorities to torture itw own workers if they were acting a bit too subversive for their tastes
Literally erasing her opposition to the regime, and the way she wouldn't make any shows for the bosses but made one for the workers
We live in a cyberpunk distopia if this is allowed to set a precedent
One of the things I have not seen being talked about much is the non art related consequences this technology can have, like how easily it could be used to create and spread misinformation or/and propaganda, especially after it has advanced enough be able to make realistic photo looking pics. In combination with how much the deepfaking technology has advanced I could see this going very badly.
Hell, even right now, at the INFANCY of this tech there have been moments where I found it hard to tell if a picture is AI generated or not and if a video is genuine or a deepfake. I am afraid that in the following years it's going to become progressively harder and harder to tell what's real and what's not, even harder than it already is, and I don't know where that could lead to.
Other than that, great video, I pretty much agree with almost all of it.
Anyone else here almost 100 days into the WGA/ SAG-AFTRA strike? How prophetic, this was.
Genuinely one of my favorite videos on this subject. It's to the point and really hits on the most important aspects of all of this. Thank you, I hope a lot of people see this.
This video was so informative and thanks for making it! Even if the intent is to make life easier, the companies are just using it as an excuse to ignore the people behind the art.
I lose any scraps of faith I ever had in humanity every time someone says it's moral for an algorithm to steal people's art and use it to directly undermine them
You know, when I was a kid, I imagined that in the future we will automate all the tedious routine and physically intensive jobs, which would allow people move to creative jobs, or arts.
So very amused to see it happen the other way around, ffs.
If I can only offer one remark is that the destruction of value has always been deliberate as a part of the buy low sell high mentality of capitalism, your chances at winning the monopoly increase when you can buy out more at the now devalued price. We lost skilled labor of old just as we're losing small family/local businesses today, they have always been undercut and ruined to soon become the next chain outlet of the corporate franchise, really no different then being held under control by feudal lords. It was bad enough with manual skills and such means to make a living but we're now putting our own personal and creative identity under the monopoly hammer. Other than that aspect of discussion being missed out on this is a brilliant summation video of the issues with machine learning AI, someone like Hasanabi should see it. Well done T B Skyen!
Oh man. I've always said that as someone who can't draw for shit and my stick figures look fat, AI ART would be a wonderful jumping off point for me to get an idea of what I'd like to ask an actual artist to create on commission for me. Might be a camera angle, might be a colour palette, might be some scenery. But now...I'm just... I hate that these algorithms are using stolen work, and it sucks that I had hopes that this would be for the better.
Every day I regret going for a degree in Comp Sci more and more
First of all, thank you for expressing such a staunch defense of artists and creative workers. It's a dark time for us and it feels so good just to hear someone speaking out about the challenges we're facing.
But on a lighter note, how very iconic of you to cue the Shinra theme when talking about the industrial revolution exploiting workers. I see what you did there.... :j
Amazing video, well researched, and I agree with most of what you said. However, as a Statistician who has dabbled in ML (Machine Learning) for a while now, I would like to elaborate on one of the fundamental ethical and practical flaws of the way these algorithms appear to be trained, and also argue against a point you made. The argument will be made as a reply, I do not want to muddy or have people conflate the 2 points.
Fundamental Flaw: ML should not be trained on random unprocessed data!!!!! Like this ML 101, the data that you teach it on needs to be cleaned and curated. To give an example of this being done properly, lets take a look at the Audio ML scene, specifically TTS (Text to speech, specifically referring to those made using ML). So when a TTS ML algorithm wants to create a new voice, it does not just grab random samples online. A person sits in a booth for hours generating gigabytes of audio samples that are then processed and used to create the voice (the process is more complicated, but I dont want to get into it here). Now imagine instead a TTS just took random voice samples it could find online and tried to make a voice out of that, it would be an absolute freaking mess!!!! NO wonder these algorithms are riddled with biases, they have no curation or as far as I can tell any other limiters in place to make sure that the end product is well trained. Hell, the fact that it can conceive of certain skin colours, body types, ect. also suggests that the algorithm if overfitted like crazy.
So yeah, if we want a practical solution, there needs to be a strong push towards ML interpretability, where the creators should be held responsible for any biases and be liable to identify and fix such things, as well as full disclosure about the input dataset that it is being trained on.
As for the thing that rubbed me the wrong way - you kept saying saying that ML cant be creative (yes, I know that Skyen used AI, but ML is the proper designation, so I will keep using it).
It is *potentially* reasonable to say that these specific algorithms cannot be creative, but to say that any ML cant be creative, or even that image generation ML cannot be creative is simply not true. That is not just my opinion, and hopefully I will be able to properly explain why.
So for a simple example, we can look to ML in games. Chess, Go, hell even Starcraft 2 have had ML algorithms (Alphastar and Alphago as examples) that were clearly shown to come up with creative ways to play those games that are different to how humans play them. If your argument that the best an ML can do is replicate is true, then that would imply that the ceiling for an ML is to simply imitate the best strategy humans have come up with, but if you see them play those games, it creates strategies that do not match any existing human strategies.
But lets take this one step further. An ML algorithm does not necessarily need an input dataset in the first place. All a Gan (Generative adversarial network) needs are adjustable parameters and failure based on a condition. So lets say if you wanted to get an ML to learn how to play checkers, you don't need to show it checkers games, and learn from them, in fact, that is usually less preferable by most researches in this particular ML subfield. The way you teach it is that you put 2 variants up against each other, and then have them play. Due to it being a zero sum game, one will inevitably win and the other one will loose. Are you going to tell me that an algorithms which has never seen anyone else play a game of checkers is simply copying how humans play it?
This is the core of my argument, ML CAN be creative simply because it is not solely reliant on imitating input. This clearly depends on the type of algorithm that is ran, so lets see how this in theory can be applied to image generation. Interestingly enough, not much changes, you simply need to change how you decide what a success and a failure is. So lets say you wanted to make an algorithm that would create images in the style of Van Gogh. So lets say we took all of his paintings, made digital scans, and then standardized them into 10,000 x 10,000 pixel images. Then an algorithm would generate 10,000 x 10,000 pixel images first completely at random. So it would generate the first 10, and then those 10 would be compared and ranked in how close they resemble the paintings. And this process would be repeated thousands of times until you have an algorithm that will generate paintings in the style of Van Gogh. Is this algorithm creatively bankrupt? I would say no, its not taking those images, extracting bits and bobs and plastering them together, it is simply learning to work within given parameters, in this case that the images it generates should resemble Van Gogh's work.
And if you do feel like this algorithm is creatively bankrupt, let me ask you this - is playing a game by its rules creatively bankrupt? that is all the algorithm is doing. The goal of games like chess is to win, so those that win are more likely to be selected. All we did was change the rules from 'Win' to 'Does it closely resemble this'. And here is the thing, in theory, if you were to do this enough times, the monkey typewriter probability theory dictates that eventually it will make an exact copy, and that exact copy will happen to be selected. So yes, there is still the risk of overfitting, as there is with any ML, but if done properly, the algorithm will stop being trained when the images it creates imitate Van Gogh's style, but are not simply copies of this work (Also practically speaking, this would take such computing power that the heat death of the universe will happen before it generates a perfect copy).
So yeah, sorry for the long wordy nerd rant, hopefully I have been able to convince you that ML can be creative, it all depends on the algorithm, how it is trained, and on what it is trained.
@@olegkuvsincikov8817 This so many times this thank you for saying it. So many people get hung up on the "its a computer" that they forget that we designed these types of algorithms to go beyond just making exact copies. Which even if someone does create an exact copy the original artist would still have copyright on that original image, just like if someone dedicated themselves to create exact copies of real art.
To add to your post I would also say that some of the algorithms are based on free art databases that already do all the work of cataloging the art inside it. This is specially the case with anime art which have art databases with extensive tag systems. This not only makes it so much easier to train the AI, but it naturally adds all the biases that anime art has. Which in the anime community is seen as a feature as the goal is often to make art of specific characters in various situations, poses, and styles.
@@Temperans Thanks! Glad my rant could be helpful to someone.
As for " some of the algorithms are based on free art databases that already do all the work of cataloging the art inside it." thats kinda the issue. The training set rarely if ever should just be the set of what you want it to create, because as we both agree, it will inherit all of the biases. And thats not an excuse! One of the main goals of ML Interpretability is identifying and fixing biases, and the creators should be help responsible for the biases their algorithm displays. In the case of "AI art" for example, it should not be working on a random selection of art from a free database. The art that is used as its training data should be specifically curated to feature a mostly even spread of a diverse amount of tags, skin colours, body types, ect.
It is my genuine belief that the ML algorithms we train should be better than us. Better than our monkey brains with its perceived pre-conceptions and biases. And whilst it isnt possible to get rid of completely, we have tools of checking how much a certain factor affects the output and mitigate that issue. So dont take this as a 'This is just how it is', its not. We can do something about it, it just requires some extra effort.
@@olegkuvsincikov8817 My point was more that anime based models are a special exception amongst execptions because people want "anime" warts and all. They don't care as much about diversity, they care about getting their character to look how they want.
I agree that a more focused dataset would create much better results and would allow for much more diversity.
I would love to see what resources you used to research this. I think your abstraction for ML models and statistical prediction is very good
Especially the articles you showcased. They look like an interesting read
I really needed this to clear my head around all the concepts and implications this tech would have, thank you for making this mr Skyen
Thank you for this, Skyen. I've been one of those more neutral people on this subject, especially as someone without a lot of money. But I also tend to default my values to "how the world logically/empathetically should be". With that, I'm glad you could explain why people say it's so horrible. I understand a lot better now.
This might be just be being too optimistic, but I feel like AI art is seriously overvalued in what it can and will do.
As TB has alluded to, all it does is create the average of the data it's been fed and if there is one thing I learned about games, movies and drawings, then it's that average is not what will remain in peoples minds. The more we use AI, the more they will turn into their own feedback loop, creating the same typ of art again and again till people get annoyed and fed up by it. Of course, we will then not just turn them off and never switch them on back again. AI art is here and it will stay. But I think that AI art will not overtake the entire artistic field but find it's place as a tool to simplify the steps of real artists. Similar to how digital artists use textures and preshaped brushes to make their work quicker, I think AI art will end up being only another tool of artists to lessen the time they spend on their art.
Just look at the comparison at 24:31. Sure the style of the pictures is the same but I think there is no question about which is better.
From my perspective (arch viz company) it will lower the entry levels skills, make work way faster and remove the artistic component from it, as it will be AI that will chose the style, color balance, composition (I already see it coming once they add inpaint and controlnet to midjourney). So basically either I will continue doing arch viz, but for MUCH lower pay, or it will be done by interns for free inside the architecture offices. And it may apply for many other jobs - the job won't require years of skill acquisition, so you will be stuck on entry level salary, with not much field for progress. The jump between entry level and a high paid job will be unachievable for a lot of people.
I'm starting to learn storyboard art so I can hopefully work with something that like, but now i just feel hopeless and lost
I need a transcript of this video to just post to answer their comments. You genuinely answered everything. Amazing video!
One thing is for certain, handmade art will never be replaced even if it is monetized. Because unless ai programs are somehow gatekept from the general public in the future, then everyone would be able to make films, pieces of music, literature and paintings. So If everyone is an "artist" then no one is. Because contrary to usual automation, people just need a PC, phone etc. to make whatever they want. No risk, no expertise, no maintenance, no physical labor and no corporation is needed.
Exept the corporation that makes thay PC, phone etc.
And the corporation that makes that AI image/text/whatever generator.
And thd corp that collects the data to sell to the AI makers
And ...
Altho i agree there will always be people doing amazing stuff seeing this as a tool freeing artists from the corpo chains of capitalism is misleading.
Also as sad by the video if 1 person can do a 100 peoples work big corpo can hire 100 people to do 10000 peoples work. And sue any compatation out of existance before it even starts.
@@egesanl1: Also, this technology requires high end computers to run. Cost of hardware alone will "gatekeep" who can use it effectively.
@@egesanl1 I'm not saying it is a freeing tool for artists, but it is a freeing tool for customers. Why buy a t-shirt when you have the means to do it for free in an instant. So it seems stupid to chase that corpo dream of making money from automating and selling ai art because they stand to gain nothing from it. If as said, future tech is not gatekept.
@@EmeralBookwise I mean sure, but it is an one time purchase with no additional costs other than power consumption. But since so many people bought such equipment and paid so much more to consumption costs to enter the crypto market, I feel confident saying it doesn't seem as much of a commintment. It's like buying a car, but cheaper and that runs on minimal ammounts of energy.
@@riakaraofficial: It's only a "one time purchase" ignoring maintenance and upkeep. Not to mention that most electronic equipment just isn't built to last and will have to be outright replaced eventually, since manufactures make more money off sales than repairs.
The comparison to investments made into crypto is also rather spurious, considering how much of a scam that market ended up becoming.
Artists already struggle with having their work devalued. People think this is a pleasure activity.
They ignore the labor and the years of practice that go into making art, and they say we should just do this for free. AI only gives more ammunition to this mindset.
In a non-captialist world. I'd love to do this work for free. Unfortunately, food, water, and shelter aren't free.
it can only generate images though so things like movies shows and video games are safe. I dobut there will be an ai any time soon that can generate good games. games with ps5 graphics any time soon.
This video is Excellent. It cuts through the noise to focus on what's important.
What it is,
what it does,
who it affects.
TB Skyen, I'm a freelance artist that made several webcomics, turned to anime uwu lewd art to make ends meet. The saddest part about AI Art is, that people use it to make money, without getting any hate. They make video concepts like "Skyrim as a 80s fantasy movie" which honestly is a creative idea. But as soon as you the Artist uses AI you're a cheat. Artists really get the short end no matter what they do. I support any Artist that decides to use AI as a tool. There is no reason for us to "not be allowed to use it".
As he said, AI is a neutral tool, as is with hammer.
For now there is not a morally positive way to use Ai- all of it is created by stolen work
Malicious compliance, I like it.
It's not longer a "creative idea" the next day, because it already proliferated into hundreds of other videos that are being recommended to me every day by CZcams
@@crepooscul My thoughts exactly, I recently realized that if it was drawn by a human, I'd appreciate it more, but now it only makes me think "I could also put this prompt into Midjourney, it's nothing special".
The only thing that is likely to stop these sleazy tech bros is massive legal action against anyone who even looks at AI art and thinks the want a piece of it.
This kind of holistic look at generative models, economic structure and the history of automation is so important. It is too easy for people to say "this will free us all up to be creative" if they can just turn their backs on the exploitation and theft that runs these machines.
I am exactly the person threatened by these models, and while I don't think their output holds much of a candle to my work, the price tag any would-be client sees on my labor certainly pales in comparison. So thank you for this.
No amount of technical research or article-reading I do can beat the spread of mis-and-disinformation, so videos like this one are incredibly important.
I think we need to start this from one point: there is no such thing as AI art right now. Only AI-generated images.
Calling what AI produces "art" is not just straight up offensive to work that is done by real artists, but also simply incorrect from many points. AI is incapable of expressing feeling due to their non-existentce from begining, it doesn't know "context" of what it generates, and AI is not subject to copyright.
It doesn't mean that "AI art" is impossible , i think at some point when intelligence may gain sentience and self-awareness we will see art done by AI.
But right now we have encountered automated machines that are created to steal and transform work of other people to abuse the market.
But it is art that the person using the tool has carefully created and chosen to fit the emotion and context that they wanted. The fact the the tool doesn't know does not matter because it is a tool. Or will you say that real art is not art because the brush had no idea of feelings and context?
The only reason to say its not art is the mistaken idea that art only happens if the person takes up a brush/pen. Which is not and has never been the case.
@Temperans so you're saying that creators of AI can be called artists, and what they are doing is not stealing?
Because if we look at AI from point of "brush-like tool in hand of artist", then creators are doing legitimate tracing with their tool
@@powerofspiral9716 It is not stealing nor tracing to make something of your own in the style of another person.
It is not stealing or tracing to an AI/Machine learning algorithm to make a unique image in a style of another person.
In both cases the tools are just that tools. The human is the one deciding what gets made, how it gets made, what isnfocused on, and what the final image looks like.
@Temperans machine-learning algorithmes by definition cannot create anything of their own.They literally cannot exist, nor function without other people's work as database.
And in our case, databases are formed without any consent, agreement or regulation.
At this current moment in time I'm not worried about AI art sacking millions of jobs, but you are right in that greedy CEOs will do whatever it takes to get more money. Unfortunately laws and social issues aren't cared until something bad happens. Like the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. People are inevitably going to lose their jobs until the general public cares enough to find a solution.
The best we could do is practice our right to vote if you live in a country that allows that
Thank you for this video, I try no to think too much about this AI "art" debacle for my own mental health, so it was nice hearing such a levelheaded and eloquent explanation and argument of the pros and cons of it. Hopefuly the tech gets strongly regulated soon, nothing would be sadder than to see the artistic world be overtaken by souless plagiarism algorithms implemented for the sake of profit margins and nothing more.
My biggest problem with the mainstream discourse of this subject is the demonization of AI art. I stand firm that technology is a tool, it is morally neutral, and if any bad consequences happen because of its use, it is because of who and how it was used, and not because of itself, and that seems to be a point that goes over most people's heads. Thank you for taking the time to create some valid, deep and well thought out criticism. For good or bad, AI is here, you can't just unmake the technology, so it is way more useful to discuss how to use it in a morally correct way than debate if it's good or evil. I couldn't agree more with the things you said in this video.
I would think that the reason AI Images are being demonized, is because they are universally created through mass theft of intellectual property, on a scale never before seen. I think you can liken it to a person, who has never experienced anything but being bitten, when meeting dogs. If their entire experience with Dogs is being attacked, then being afraid of, disliking - even hating - dogs is not an unreasonable outcome.
In the same sense, AI images are currently all (or very, very nearly) created by programs that were trained upon art unlawfully; art made by people, who have collectively spent what is likely millions of hours on it, and none of whom were even given the option to consent. This is also not helped by the ones among the AI proponents, who are actively hostile towards artists and those against the AI image generation. I am not saying all proponents are hostile, but a loud minority have nevertheless poisoned the waters even further.
With this in mind, I think it's very hard to not be radicalized, for lack of better term, in this situation. When you are sympathetic to the artists (or are one yourself) whose work is being misused and abused, and then see comments like "[putting them out of a job] is the point of it all" (an all too real comment I've personally seen from an Ai proponent), becoming hostile in return is all too easy.
Now if the data used to train ai art models was given permission by the artist, I think artists would be more receptive to the technology because they still have power over if they want to provide their artwork and get compensated for it. And the artists who aren't interested in selling their art to models can protect their work and skills. Right now, artists are getting their work plagiarized without permission and without compensation.
After all, the music industry is still standing even though there is ai music creation. Artists just need the same momentum to push for protection of artist's rights.
@@dodongogaming5526 yeah.. but you're not devaluing the *act* of training *yourself* by putting in ALL the art into your brain
@@dodongogaming5526 watch the video
Guns are also tools, but they are tools designed specifically to kill. Similarly, AI art programs are designed specifically to steal.
Regulation that all "A.I." art be prominently labeled as such. Their value will remain low, and we have to instill the mentality that it's thievery and lazy work.
how would it help? transgenics are all labeled, it doesn't make a difference because everything is transgenic anyway
We labeled NFTs as trash and look what it is now
2:40: AI art is made by AI akin to Stockfish or Akinator. They are computer programs that can imitate one specific form of human behavior well enough for a given task. It's AI as much as the logic driving video game enemies is AI.
15:38: Spinning fiber into thread was also an important job which required specialized skills. Ask any farmer to turn wool into yarn, and they'd be out of luck. But so much thread needed to be spun that pretty close to half the premodern human population spent most of their time doing it. Spinning wheels (which weren't invented until the early modern period) drastically cut down on the amount of labor needed.
I'm not sure what my point here is. I just find it interesting how the lives of premodern women were shaped around the need to spend several hours a day spinning thread. And it feels connected.
So as both AI nerd and trying artist I want put some thoughts out for people. And to state my position right away I think in general situation about whole AI now in grey zone. And how it's going to turn out depends on new regulations and changes in copyright law (some positive things I saw is in few cases already AI art being judged as non copyrighteble ((heard about it on channel Mental Outlaw))
Firstly it's kinda weird that you both agreed that AI art is art and that it's not creative at all. With this I want point out that many videos from point of artist get somethat wrong. Yes, neural networks work by predicting what you want, but it not just really complex collage machine how most videos from position of artists make it sound. It much more complex mathematical model and it not pull from works of artists actual work. It's pull out of it hard patterns and associations (kinda hard to argue it don't understand what you want, then it consistently delivers what you typed as prompt). Yes, it doesn't do it as humans, but it has internal model of some patterns and assosiations with actual model of interpreting prompts. And again it doesn't does it like humans, but it also don't just take 50 pictures of "cat" and mush them together to give you new "cat" you requested. I could continue longer but better point anyone interested to Computerphile channel there they dive even more detailed into this. And of course bies is a thing, but it in context you put, it seems on level on some much more big things, then in reality it something what constantly fighting on by computer scientists and definitely not on level with other points.
And coming back to theft aspect, great question to what extent should copirights extend? Yes, current situation with neural networks really moraly dubbios but how justifiable is this? I should point out that I support anyone fighting against this use of art. But how justified is it? I don't know really. This my biggest concern point. If you dive in how algorithms use this stuff it doesn't seem illegal or in some way bad for artist's work. And this is a point for me there I want make a statement of which I thought for long time, in actuality no one really against this use of art, as many people point out artist use references all the time, and most people chill about that. And as counter argument they point that artist use imagination and references here only to help this it, but if we apply same "hard" judgment to use of references them most artists should be called thiefs at least partially. But no one in right mind would say so. That why for me main point for actual argument about neutral network's art is automation.
And here a deal, I don't have solid positions on automation of art as well. For me problem lies in actually how art is priced in modern societies not really in how art is created. Generally speaking art is priced pretty cheap right now even without AI. Most people hardly appreciate hard work put in creating one and reliance on some people just randomly getting orders for your work is also painful. And even this balance unhealthy for artist. In my country there saing: "Artist should be hungry" and it was created even before any art automation. And there now AI, which breaks this already bad and fragile balance. And here I see two paths how this could play out and both of them kinda sad. Ether through hard opposition of artists and legal law, balance would be recreated in even more fragile way, with constant battle between neural network companies trying fight for their place in world and artist continuously pushing them back with protective laws and protests. Or though hard and fast changes AI would overtake most low level positions slowly creaping to higher levels. And artist then would not compite with AI, but rather would change audiences and concentrate on more limited groups of people who really appreciate artist's work and community (but even now there a not lot of people who really appreciate artist's work). And right now we stay on this weird edge then both possible and both happening. And it hard to see third best way between both bad ends of spectrum.
I think many people agree that even without AI society is really restrictive of artist ambitions and desires. In some way all artists want to people to be more creative and explore themselves through art, but imagine if everyone suddenly start drawing? There would be good artists and bad artists but in few moments there no chance to get commission just because how many there artists trying make living. My point here it is not that there no inherent problem in AI or peoples individualy, but problem in our system of living and there not a lot we can do. Even before AI with I felt like there more and more people trying make money drawing putting pressure on already existing artists. So AI just exposed already long standing problem with art: bad appreciation of work put in by ordinary people and hard working conditions in companies with continuously strict deadlines.
So this is all, I can see I gonna get some backlash against my arguments, but it expected. For anyone who read until end, thanks for engaging with my rumble, and I already appreciate your enthusiasm.
I was expecting an alternative conversation when it came to this video. But it is the same logic that lead to the same conclusion. This technology is going nowhere and us artists will have find a way to deal with it. This was a really good video T B Skyen. Looking forward to the next video. Definitely betting it will be more cheerful than this topic.
@@dodongogaming5526 You're right.
@@dodongogaming5526 So that's why Microsoft and Google are investing billions into this... to help the little guy with no skills make movies and skits. So kind of them.
I used to be heavy supporter of ai art. Thought it could be a tool I could use. To take direct involvement in creation of my characters. After using it for awhile not only does it steal. I realized the prompt system only lets you slightly manipulate the finally image. You can come with the most wacky concept. But the end result will always be hollow. Execution well but won’t convey emotions you wanted it to have. So yeah even for consumer think it’s beneficial for its long hall. To stop ripping on artist and for them to make it so. More people can get into art.
I have never felt more dejected than after spending 2 years in college how to render textures with painting and from photos for 3D models in college to have a program come out for procedurally generated realistic textures. That was 10 years ago
I’ve heard of ai being used to generate essays so a bunch of universities are trying to restrict them