My problem isn't that it's "cheating" it's that it's theft. It's not being used ethically. Just look at WHY people felt like they couldn't post on IG anymore. Some Ai images will even have a weird smudgy version of whatever artwork's signature they scrubbed. You shouldn't make a profit with Ai, you cannot legally own copyright of it.
Morally you can consider it plagiarism, but copyright and profit are unrelated. You can profit from selling public domain stuff or making fanart (neither of which you own full copyrights of).
This is a hilarious argument to me and deeply hypocritical. It's "theft and unethical." Hmm. Tell me, if you were to be assigned the task of drawing a motorcycle with authentic detail what would you do? Draw it from memory? What you would do is what I would do or anyone would do. You would find images to reference from the internet - either photos or other artists' drawings in order to make a version that is your own. You know what that is by another name? "Scraping." Exactly what the AI programs are doing. When you use those photos, even just for reference, do you look up whether they're stock or even amateur and send them each money for using their images to reference your own interpretation? You want to talk exploitation? How about every computer or related device, either desktop or mobile, that you've used to make a living or hobby on? Are they all American made? No? That's because you couldn't afford it if it was. You depend on the exploitation, same as me, of a workforce in China that is paid a harsh fraction of what you would even consider a livable wage or even livable conditions. Your very lifestyle wouldn't be a third of what it is if you didn't depend on that very exploitation. But you never think twice before buying that 40" monitor for $299. Your "outrage" at the exploitation of artists' work as the basis for AI models is convenient to YOU. So keep espousing that it's all "unethical" if it makes you feel better. How's that working out for you?
@@richtoonsTV Humans are relational so relating to an artist's interpretation is generally more engaging than a machine's diceroll. You can agree to disagree with him when it comes to ethics. Some people brag about tracing photos to earn $ (which is the same as using AI in my mind), even though tracing is legally riskier. Some people brag about being on steroids. It's up to individuals what they respect about the process.
@@ColinJWiens Interesting point, Colin. You can call it "plagiarism." One of your videos showing a stick figure animation sure looks a lot like the ones made popular by Piemations on CZcams. So in your case do you get a pass because it's your "homage?" Your house couldn't be more made of glass.
When Lee told everyone to "just shut up!" In the end I felt a spiritual connection. I was in university when AI plopped onto the scene and I would rather slam my pinky toe into an anvil than ever have a conversation about AI ever again. It's not out of fear or anger at AI, it's that I've never seen anything positive happen as a result of these conversations, the exception probably being this podcast because at least Rich offers a unique perspective to an audience even if I disagree. I feel time is much better spent, as you guys said, actually making things. Small side comment as well, I despise the "your opinion is subjective" argument as every opinion is subjective and it's typically a nonsense argument that only dilludes a productive conversation. Every opinion's validity has to be measured on its own using supporting or contradictory facts and examples. I side with Jake in this debate but I appreciate there were differing opinions at all as I feel there is way too much mono-thinking and "agree or be obliterated" in online discourse. Great podcast gents. Could write forever about this one.
Jake thank you for being the voice of reason, to me it seems like an unpopular opinion right now. 🙏💕 I highly agree with Rich about putting in effort to make yourself more than just hire-able! (I do think it’s a missed opportunity to hire someone to tell that story in the ad. If not an expert who’s spent YEARS learning their job, then maybe a student who wants to get there. If illustrating in your style did not work for the client, someone else could do that better with your direction. That way you’d be a proactive storyteller with a diverse skill-set who cares about people. Win Win Win.✅✅✅) To add to Lee’s point, it’s not technology advancement people are against - its the ethics of A.I everyone is against and how it’s not actually for the people. The more we use it, the better it becomes - like digging our own grave and creating demand when there is none. And the html coding conversation happened for sure and is still a conversation in terms of how A.I took over coding/writing. We just focus on the artist side since we’re in a niche community here. You have to think beyond the art community and self-gain to truly understand the impact A.I is going to have on society and how terrible that would be if we’re starting off on the foot of - no care for humans and selfish gain only. (Since we’re mentioning Pixar movies - does anyone remember what happened to the people in Wall-E when everything was A.I? Worth a re-watch. 👀) Also, most of the big name companies fired their ethics departments because the employees were against the way AI research was going forward. The experts know better than us general public yet were removed from their positions - Listen to ex-Google employee Mo Gawdat’s DOAC interview, he resigned because of all this. So did Geoffrey Hinton, considered the grandfather of A.I. We need to wake up and look outside our bubble. 😅 Will, A.I has a completely different context and impact compared to advancements in the past (like photoshop) which we incorporated into our workflow. There are sufficient alternatives to AI already but it requires a little more effort on our parts - i.e actually doing the work and putting in the effort to make yourself more than just hire-able. 😉
This was a great example of what AI can make and bring to the world: a pile of mediocre garbage. And it steals, pollutes, flatten the audience taste, destroy the market for everyone else and hand over total control and power to big clients and corporations in the process. Nothing personal against the guest, which I found to be a very nice and accomplished dude, but I like to think that most people getting into art/illustration (and then following this podcast) would like to feel and live their work like a Mignola, or a Toppi or a Malika Favre, rather than spit out hundreds of ugly beer commercials. I'm sure there are far better jobs to make "6 figures" and then go ski with the family, than being an illustrator.
Well, it seems by your blank channel that it's indeed true that it's way easier to criticize than to create. You don't seem to have even produced "garbage", as you call it. And the dig about going "skiing with my family" obviously speaks to the fact you know nothing about me, my life or my work ethic. It also seems to speak to a bitter chip you seem to carry. The "commercial" is a send up of beer commercials, in fact deconstructing the beer commercial formula. You either didn't get that or you never watched it in context with the soundtrack and all (which is a banger, by the way). The reviews are in and both my client and the fans of that show love it and it inspired a lot of beer sales and I'm proud of that. And I didn't get paid for it. I did it because I wanted to for my client and I wanted to stretch myself by learning and using tools that were new. I like playing with AI tools. They're not all about generating images and videos through text prompts. I like kit bashing tools together to get effects that will help me tell my clients' stories in the future to even greater results. You're right. I'm pretty accomplished. Because I've always stayed open to what's new instead of caving to online group think or letting podcasters tell me what my opinions are.
@@richtoonsTV thanks for taking the time to answer, although as I wrote it has nothing to do with you as a person and your life, of which I know nothing about and sounds pretty happy from what you write. But maybe it does have a bit to do with your work ethic, since the tools you employ have been developed and refined through lies and theft (yes, already read your opinion on this issue and we disagree. And so does the competent authority here in Europe - Ai Act) and by using these you A]create mediocre work (come on, this caricature of beer commercials was meant to be trashy in the first place, right?) and B]ruin the market and “power balance” for everyone, yourself included, with stuff that's too cheap, easy and quick to make. Your good ideas and experience in storytelling are not enough, because art directors, business owners and their spouses, also think they have good ideas. I understand the creative fun of playing with new toys, it's just that I get a kick from being in the process of learning, of getting better at what I do, possibly with a new tool/technique. Generative Ai takes away (mosto of) that process and you are left with an initial spark and some cleaning and post-production afterwards. I’m in for the fun part, not the cleaning. I have a feeling there’s an fundamental core difference in the way we approach our work, that is you being very commercially oriented and me being still in love with the basic act of painting and drawing. not that one is better than the other, just different. And you understandably go for the path that gets your job done faster. Too bad this tool is really poisonous for you and everyone else. As for myself, yes, I too have drawn “garbage” to pay the bills and feed the kids, particularly for pharmaceutical companies and other like-minded corporations. I did my best to bend their requests towards my artistic vision to turn a well paid commercial job into a chance to make something interesting. I really carry no bitterness and you are right, I’m not curating my online presence. Too busy painting. You can extend your background search to my Instagram to get a feeling. Ciao and good luck.
@@cosimomiorelli1715 agreed, I currently work in house full time, and its the same icons over and over again, drinks, palms, florida, floweres, ect. Its just a job to pay the bills and nothing I would do for personal work, yet people assume because I draw all day that its all 'fun' . After the first 2-3 years, it can quickly feel like any other 'fill a spreedsheet' type of office job.
@@jakeparker44 I don't think it's that "good." Most of what I do with AI tech has nothing to do with generative imaging through text prompts. Certainly in the case of the commercial we all dissected I did because I wanted to try something I hadn't done. But you yourself, Jake, commented how "awesome" the two test shots I sent you looked where I kit bashed some AI technologies together to create an effect where I can turn live action into anime (no more "cheating" than using mocap in the movies). This will allow my son and I to eventually co-direct a short film together where he directs the combat action and I pull it all together. This wouldn't be possible without the AI tools I've been playing with. So I DO care how I get there - either pleasing my clients or creatively expanding myself. I think your bias might be too strong to really have an open perspective on new tools that you're not used to. AI ≠ just Midjourney.
@@richtoonsTV I think this comparison is used in the illustration context as many people here intend to be illustrators. The output of the illustration using "ai" / image generation is the comparison. The anime filter / generative image software, based on the dataset, is very much like motion / performance capture. In the context of generating video from nothing, if you could generate video using a text prompt, there is nothing in your interview or really in your comment that seems to say that you would not use it. It would be possible to do but it would just take a lot of time and effort of rotoscoping it oneself.
@@mf-- I like your response, and it's certainly much more respectful than many of the comments that have been cruel rather than constructive. Yes, I did use generative video to a high degree for the single piece in the interview that took on an inordinate amount of focus. If you browsed my online portfolio you'd see dozens of examples of what I consider good work that I put a lot of energy into. I also put energy and work into the beer spot. It had the desired effect. It was a huge hit with my client, their audience and it has resulted in a lot of beer sales. My job as a commissioned artist, (though I did not get paid for this piece), had the best possible result for my client. I don't apologize for that nor for using the opportunity to explore a technology to a degree I hadn't before. I may or may not use it to as high a degree again. My litmus test for any art is this - is it interesting or not? I'm not concerned with trying to figure out how it was made or if there is some sort of arbitrary rules of morality what tools any group deems okay or not okay. The tools are here and they're getting more powerful and they're interesting. I can now do an instant mock up in Illustrator by applying my designs to photos of real world objects. I can put depth maps behind my background illustrations to be able to navigate them in 3D. I can instantly generate captions for my videos - and in any language! I'm not going to wait for some referee, whether they be Jake Parker (who I highly respect, admire and often crowd fund) or anyone else to throw their flags down on a play to sanctify what's okay and what's not. I believe that whatever you do, you should be, above all, interesting.
Re: Will’s comment, “I don’t care, I want to make money.” I think this thought has preceded a lot of disasters in the history of the world. It often masquerades as pragmatism.
I try to understand why Will said that; he's approaching 60, he's not trying to convince the world on what he's capable of anymore and just wants to get as much moolah as possible before retirement. I'm just a tad younger than Will but I don't feel I'd do it much different. Priorities at 30 are of a much different nature than priorities at double that age...
@@nicetriangle and looking at his engagement with the comments, entirely unprepared to civilly oppose or embrace expected points of criticism. I get it, some people are really mean for no good reason in here, but the podcast’s guest doesn’t look much better.
Not ironically Rich’s work is the definition of mediocre, competent but low rent - the kind of work easily replaced by Ai. He’s racing to the bottom. If that’s your thing, power to you I guess.
Wow, because your one video from thirteen years ago really elevates the art form. Your house couldn't be more made of glass. Could you squeeze any more drabness into that one shot? How's your career going? Your thirteen year absence of creating any content speaks volumes.
It's beyond disappointing to read a comment of one artist bashing another artist's work. I don't understand what that accomplishes. If you don't agree with someone's opinion about a topic, fine, but that in no way gives you the right to put down their work. Rich's work may not appeal to you, but to belittle the art due to differing opinions is uncalled for.
The problem with AI is that if it’s noticeable someone used, it will be a real challenge to convince anyone that that thing has any importance. Art takes process, intention, identity, struggle, skill, care ETC. AI can make gorgeous images but is soulless, cold, industrialized and generic. Just garbage.
I think this neural network situation is not about using the technology or not. Let's face it, if it gets good enough, there will be no choice. Especially in the field of advertisement or maybe even in the entertainment industry due to cost optimizations, artists will probably have to learn generative art skills to some degree. However, what's more worrying is, it feels like overall quality of visual content has gone down quite a bit. The stuff that is being produced with neural networks is often pretty bad in terms of composition, storytelling quality, and more often than not is done by people who have poor understanding of various aspects of visual arts. There is no personal voice in art generated by algorithms that aren't AGI and there will never be one because when an artist, to use Jake's unflattering but quite accurate term, makes real art he uses his own motor skills, his own vision of the world and his personal experiences to produce the final artwork. There's no experience for a neural network to draw from, it can only use questionably obtained training data, and it has no experience or motor skills to begin with. That's why, at least to me personally, neural art often feels hollow and inauthentic. And people using generative networks calling what they generated "my art" feels simultaneously sad and funny. Maybe it's my biases speaking, and I will change my mind some day in the future. But as it stands now, this activity feels extremely unappealing and devoid of everything that makes art worthwhile. Anyway, thank you for the podcast. It was a great listen.
This was an awesome episode. Rich made for a great guest to bring ideas and perspectives to the 3PP discussion table. However I’m pretty disappointed after seeing how rude Rich has been in the comments. Some of those people also said rude things about Rich and as much as it sucks to be so openly criticized like that I think Rich’s responses were inappropriate particularly for a guest. I hope this can be avoided in future episodes.
Appreciated. But I've endured some pretty personal trash talk about my work, my work ethic and even my family on here. Imagine how disappointed I was to read that.
Its easy for Rich or anyone whos been in the business for a while to just say "you need to be adaptable" while i agree with that statement, but its easy for someone who has built up their skills and toolboxes to be able to move to the next opportunity.... But what about those artist just starting out who don’t have those skills built up yet?
I feel for you. But the world wasn't made to comfort and wait for you. It's been a race my whole life to keep up with or stay ahead of the curve and to know where my marketplace is going to next. If you're a hobbyist, you have no worries. If you're getting into any field of work, especially art, get ready to always be competing. Your job, no matter what it is, is to be undeniable.
@@rheinrich_artnot only shooting ourselves in the foot we are putting a hole in our boat. Theres a reason why the actors association held hostage Hollywood billion dollar business for a year
Well done to Jake for calling Rich out for the use of AI in the "commercial" - and standing his ground. Will may be right in saying it may not matter to the end consumer, but from a quality perspective it was severely lacking and poorly put together. All respect to Rich and his body of work though, he seems like a nice guy.
You guys are talking about the incoming comments, but I'll be the first to say this was a refreshing podcast to hear from everyone on all sides of AI tools. I heard my fair share of hate at university and so much shaming and immediate rejection of amazing storytelling and art just because of the commercially used name of AI. I'm just glad to hear dialogue that doesn't immediately shut down or attack with direct hate of an artist who loves exploring exciting new tools and doesn't feel hostile rejections from others. This is truly a refreshing, open-minded conversation. More on this, please!
Theres always going to be peolpe that chose to take the "devils route" and make arguments to justify this. So sick of people using Ai to thier advantage because it gives them a short term profit. They dont care that Ai is unethical not to mention the added environmental straign it will cause. And by the way, since when have people needed Ai to come up with interesting ideas!!. Love SVS and evereything they are doing for the art community but their stance on Ai is always a disappointment to me.
It's so easy to say that artists should just be making stuff and putting it out into the world. I love that sense of idealism, but it's unrealistic. It's like burying your head in the sand during a tornado hoping that it all just blows over and doesn't affect you too much. Good luck with that. Look, I get it. AI is here and it's not going away anytime soon. That doesn't mean I should just roll over and take it. As an artist, I've drawn a line in the sand that I will not cross. Whatever happened to standing for something? I'll admit, I'm impressed with the AI tools that are out there. The technology in and of itself isn't the issue. The issue is that the current AI models are all built on work that was unethically scraped from the internet. It needs to be regulated - heavily. Enough with the dehumanization of the arts! And enough with artists embracing the dehumanization of the arts. That's incredibly disheartening to see. I want my books, movies, TV shows, and video games to be made by people with a pulse, thank you very much.
Any good director is going to want as much control over the outcome as possible, and if Sora ever evolves to allow you that much control, shouldn’t you have been using regular film and design software in the first place anyway. If you can’t control the outcome to that degree, the results are going to look like stock footage
Take a look around. There's some very interesting stuff being made out there using AI tools. I'm enjoying the experimentation. I'm really excited for the future of creative tools.
@@richtoonsTV it’s undeniably interesting, I’m looking forward to the future of animation and design software, Moho’s doing great things for 2D and looks like Zbrush will be coming to iPad (fingers crossed)
Definitely one of the better 3PP podcasts. It’s so important to *listen to other points of view even if you don’t agree. Will is correct- most people (average consumer) doesn’t know or care where images come from. They either like the content or they don’t. At the end of the day, as artists we need to simply make what we want to make. That is the one thing we can control.
A big respect to all that openly debated this. It’s too soon to decide if AI is negative, positive or both. Rich’s opinions are no more valid than anyone else’s; albeit I am more likely to give more ears to Jake, Will and Lee because they have a proven background. Rich was keen to have his opinion voiced to a bigger audience, via this platform. We can all think for ourselves. Face it; industry will always be %90+ about making money and %10 ,or less, about the benefit to the people, look at housing, technology and healthcare. AI will be about making as much money as possible for corporates, look at Adobe and look at what happened at Disney. Industry is less concerned about the good of the people and even less the creative people. Perhaps if we got rid of ownership of shares that might change things? The free work, that Rich did, for ten years for one client, and now with the beer design and extras he still gets no value or return from that client, after all that effort! Speaks volumes and is not a good business model. AI doesn’t get how to communicate humour (not novelty), sadness, etc. Most people can't think or express themselves creatively, AI won't change that. A good question to ask Rich would be. Is he glad that he spent years developing illustration skills or would he have preferred if AI had come sooner, so he didn’t have to develop a craft? Finally, I would argue that human touch through techniques in creating music or art truly come across in the final piece, but I am a traditional (and digital) artist. I was born in the late 1960’s so I have seen a lot of change.
AI doesn't make my art, Davyd. I do, no matter what tools I'm using. I'm willing to stretch my knowledge of what new tools are available and what my marketplace looks like. How about you? You seem to have a whole lot to say on how badly I'm running my business when you know nothing about me. I'll tell you this ... I work on exactly only what I want to, whether I get paid for it or not. And I'm really good at it. Sometimes I do something for fun and not the money. Is everything about money for you? How's your business doing? I've seen a lot of changes in my life too. And I keep an open mind to the potential of learning what's new. My advice to you is to maybe criticize a little less and concentrate more on creating your own work in whatever way you see fit and I promise not to pass any judgement on you.
This guy doesn't have the skill to do any of his AI-work by hand even if he tried to. It's evident looking at what he produces himself. He's a lazy and mediocre opportunist. This is not the way at all
I don't think the title is helping this episode. It's much better than I thought it was going to be. I do think there is a lot of very odd false equivalencies brought up when talking about AI "Art". And the marketing term "Tool" is a bit of a misdirection. A "tool" built from the pillaging of Humanity's Creativite Legacy, built using the one or if not the only absolutely pure and good things humanity contributes to existence .."Art". It's so hilariously Twilight Zoney. The Art Director's Guild and Costume "Design" Guild have both caved to AI and we can guess where Animation is going to land. It's not simply a "Tool". It's something that a few "artists" will use to replace 'many' artists. It ok to mourn and be far from ready to be the "adapt or die" hype man. We care about how things are made. Jake, shared that poignant quote about how "Content is Trash".. Welcome to the Wasteland chaps! .. On a positive note.. I am super Duper excited about the emphasis this all is placing on real art and indy artists!! .. "Let them eat Content"(My proposed episode title change.)
What I will say is. If you have a six figure salary and have this great drive to express yourself doing something with little time, why wouldnt you hire a couple people? Especially if the work wont be a gift but a commercial product that will eventually with luck lead to more and more work like you have managed to do with your entrepeneurship. I havent had time to draw and I need illustrations and covers for several novellas. So I went to the drivethru discord and hired someone to help me. My funds are limited, but I am sure to use them to support newcomers kickstarters and hire artists to be a part of my production. Not everyone is a polymath, not everyone has time to learn a new skill, but we can all work together lifting artists and help being more wonderful art. So if you are one of the lucky ones, share the joy, hire an artist, you will make a difference.
If you were listening to what I said, I did that AI piece because I wanted to. I wanted to get more experience with AI tools. I may or may not use them again to as large a scale. But I like to learn new things for my own interest and the betterment of what I can create for my clients. It's interesting hearing people give me advise on how I should spend my money or run my business when I've been doing it quite well for 30+ years.
@@richtoonsTVbut this is not related to your enterprise or work. This is related to a young artist being let go. You are telling him how to plan and run his career after he comes and says its difficult out there. Your presentation tells us your plan and how succesful you have been and thats great, but you put so much emphasis on your storytelling and forget writers are getting replaced too. Thanks for sharing your point of view and your career but this is related to the impact of ai, not to promote your work because you wrote part of it. You can do full ai if you want and you will continue on your 30+ years carrer and thats something to be admired. But please, dont say you are really interested in them, because if you where you know there are many ways to help besides saying “is going to get rough!”
@@richtoonsTVbut this is not related to your enterprise or work. This is related to a young artist being let go. You are telling him how to plan and run his career after he comes and says its difficult out there. Your presentation tells us your plan and how succesful you have been and thats great, but you put so much emphasis on your storytelling and forget writers are getting replaced too. Thanks for sharing your point of view and your career but this is related to the impact of ai, not to promote your work because you wrote part of it. You can do full ai if you want and you will continue on your 30+ years carrer and thats something to be admired. But please, dont say you are really interested in them, because if you where you know there are many ways to help besides saying “is going to get rough!”
I think it would be really interesting if you guys interviewed Kaz Windness. She writes and illustrates for traditional publishing, and she has a website kinda like SVS with courses and mentorship stuff.
If there's anything that I hope present and future artists will follow, regardless of the tools of their choice, is to learn and never forget the fundamentals, like composition, perspective, shapes, anatomy, colour theory etc. These are principles that remain timeless, regardless of the tools available. And I hope future artists will continue to learn and understand them.
This is a really interesting episode. Appreciate all the angles. My worry about AI is not when a visionary uses it to realize a piece of work that would otherwise never be made, it is when a corporation would rather lower their standards and produce janky commercial. We've already seen companies like Microsoft release images where they didn't even take the time to clean up with AI jank, so instead of this technology becoming a tool for us, it replaces us because someone decided they would rather a character have 6 fingers than pay someone to fix it.
I also think artists ARE open to new technologies, so many of our careers depend on advancements in hardware, and enhanced features in existing software. The only issues I have with LLMs is that, the massive value attributed by the developers to the scraped data, has not resulted in compensation to the owners of that data, and it just doesn’t give you the same control over the outcome, where’s the satisfaction in that?
I can get where you're coming from, but I think these new tools offer incredible opportunities for artists. Our designer eyes and brains naturally scrape information from every source around us, using it as inspiration to create art. Everything we create comes from another source. However, when a machine replicates what our brains do naturally, it becomes distasteful to some. Imagine if a human had the capability to draw from a seemingly infinite amount of design inspiration and create something new and unique from it. That would be amazing, and they would rightfully be called an artist, because that's what they always have been and are right now. Embracing AI as a tool can enhance our creative process and open new avenues for innovation. It's not about replacing artists but expanding the possibilities of what one can achieve.
@@JarRob-tq5lf I think you’d have to be careful comparing how LLMs learn, to how humans learn, attributing that level of awareness to these systems, is like suggesting we actually have artificial general intelligence already. LLMs learn in the same way humans do, would be worthy of news headlines. Show a human one example of an object for the rest of their lives, and they can continuously imagine iterations of it without influence. The LLMs required simultaneous, vast injections of data, before they could achieve ‘ignition’, and subsequent artificially generated images.
They used to say that about computer graphics in general back in the early 90s. And then computer animation later in the 90s. I think like any new set of tools that democratize art-making processes you initially get a whole lot of meh but also some cool stuff by those who can adapt them in a unique way.
I absolutely agree with Will on this position with AI tools. Back in the day, we used to use a typesetter and he had his own Linotype typesetting machine that was at least $20,000 dollars (which was a lot of money back in the 80's). He was a really nice guy - we loved him. After Apple 2e's came out - he was out of business within 2 years. Our screen printing shop was just starting and we moved from hand cutting rubylith for screens, to outputting art on a film and then burning the screens. Production time and lead time was reduced by 3-4 days - which put us ahead of the competition. What we were doing was not high art - it was putting out a product for your average customer who wanted a shirt for their reunion or their company.
I guess i just don’t understand the point of AI art... i could maybe see it used for animation studios where they need alot of concepts really quick, or someone just trying to pump images out to make a buck... But i don’t see myself ever using it, ive finally gotten to a place with my art and abilities where i can come up with good ideas and designs on my own...should we give up on those skills and become dependent on technology?
To us, there is no point. We don't need it. I don't want it. Those of us who love creating art for art's sake are the ones that will keep those basic art skills alive and pass them along. AI isn't going to kill that. The only people, from what I have seen, that gravitate to AI are the ones who want something "cool" right away for as little cost as possible (even with 6 fingers). We are not going to stop those people, no matter what is done to control AI training. We do not have to support it, but it isn't going away. There are too many players with too much to gain. We can be as loud about it as we want, and the gov't could swoop in and set boundaries, but it won't go away. And even if AI gets to the point of creating decent "art", know that there are so many out there who will still never use it commercially. I know I won't. My desire is to put my imagination, my experiences, on paper, not a computer's interpretation of my experiences, no matter how close it comes. And I can't be the only one who feels this way. The world is too big. I think the big point here is to stop complaining about what has already been done, and figure out how we as individual artists move forward to prevent further unethical behavior by AI companies and make a decent living at the same time.
Good podcast guys! I've slowly become less and less scared of AI in the art world. I heard a popular tech youtuber recently say (paraphrasing), "I hate AI art! It has all the elements of being a pretty picture, but it's not." And this was a TECH youtuber; not an artist. With that being said, I also appreciate the pro-AI arguments made in this video, and I do think the anti-AI voices are getting insane too.
Hi guys. I love your podcast. Fist time I felt compelled to comment though with just a few minutes into this video listening to your guest describe work he created using AI. I just feel compelled to point out that AI work is not created. Instead it is curated by a digital "entity" responding to his directions. So while it can be argued that the end product is art, it is a production rather than a creation. With a fraction of artistic emotive value of the end product attributable to the director commensurate with their directorial effort and control over what the AI produces (which is limited right now but will change with time, of course).
This was interesting - thanks to all involved. I'm not sure where I land on this AI art "debate". I think each panelist made good points and found agreeing with a lot. I empathise with Rich's view - complaining about AI art technology isn't going to help you and is perhaps just wasted energy. AI is here to stay whether artists like it or not - the pattern is that technology gets better so we need to learn how to live with it. Rich has a found a way to use AI as just like any other tool at an artist's disposal. And having done a lot of work in the finance/banking sector too I understand the value in any tool that's going to help speed up to meet tight deadlines. I also agree with a lot of Jake's sentiments - especially the idea of preserving the craft of human-made art. There's definitely this sense that AI generated art affords someone the ability to create highly detailed artwork without having any artistic skill - it's just pushing a button and the AI machine spits out what you want. I think there's genuine concern that the technology can make artists complacent and use it as a crutch. I think the ethical side of things is a fair concern - one that shouldn't be hand-waved away, since copyright has such hugely important value for artists. I suspect it wouldn't have been such an issue if the AI technicians training their systems had trained AI on only old, copyright expired works - I think their lack of insight in that area is what's caused this ethical debate to flame over. I think if an artist can train an AI system only on their own artwork, then that should dispel the copyright issue. Those are my thoughts on it, for what their worth. Peace.
I appreciate Rich Murray's story, even if I don't agree with the AI take and side more with Jake's perspective. Good conversation, and thanks for joining them Rich and sharing your thoughts. I dislike AI for sooo many reasons though. I could go on forever.
42:57 Exactly... that beer video is not awesome, not expertly crafted, and have lots of AI wankiness. Well said Parker. And Will, not everything in life is money, have some respect for the craft man. If we accept anything as good because of the "we want money" mantra, we will fail as a society.
You were brave calling this episode "AI is NOT your enemy" 😆I've busted out the popcorn while reading these comments... the defensive nature of some of the replies here are really quite telling. Jake: Thanks for showing compassion for the human spirit in the creation of art, appreciate it 🤜🤛
I think its more that its going to have some issue with our working being drowned out just like how bots and automated channels are ruinging the experince for the users. I guess its a give and take, but I see more people going back into grassroots and in person to bring in more work or share your work. Also, yes once you have establiished your self, you may not feel the threat of AI as much, but I also see simple starter, or resume builder type projects going away. And its not just in art fields. its like how mass market clothes has flood even the higher priced market with ill fitted, poorly designed clothes and in general, people are thought to be OK with such clothes and fabrics (not talking about basics) and to just replace and throw away. Same with food, same with many entertainment, same with buildings, ect when major businesses control the market, they force taste change and drown out more human experiences. And when a few indie stuff break out, they're quick to flood the market with copies and makes the average person thinks its 'just for fun' 'easy' or ' supposed to be very cheap or free'
I feel those who are sick of the AI debate like Lee and Will are conflating the wide-ranging views people have on the topic, like most divisive topics. As many have mentioned here not all are straight up against such innovations in technology and its utility in commercial art, but are rightly concerned about the ethics surrounding it - which IS a difficult topic with no easy answer. That's why the debate is still going! Our views will inevitably change as the technology progresses and we learn more, but that's no reason to just shut it all out. I mean, sure, if you're sick of it and it doesn't affect you in terms of your work, then stop bringing it up in the podcast, but you can't blame people for caring about it.
That all said, I do agree with Rich's point that using such machine learning technology in your work can co-exist with work that doesn't use AI, because eventually the use of AI will likely become inevitable in most facets of our lives. BUT I also advocate for proper regulations within corporations and AI engines to prevent blatant theft of art, especially if it is to be used in commercial/professional settings. After all, we now have laws in place that control how images, IP, etc. can/can't be used in commercial projects - and this should also be applied to AI use.
There are already many ways artists can incorporate generative AI into their workflow that will achieve more faster and still have the finished product a hand drawn/painted illustration(traditional or digital). Jake, there is a difference between the AI model and the people that use advanced knowledge and technology to create the AI, its a brand new horizon thats not going away and it keeps improving, fast. The people that are learning about it see how hard it is to keep up, it take a lot of work and learning if a person wants to use AI for anything practical. you draw a parallel using Ai Chess and Ai image generation, its possible youre speaking if anything ai. You say that you're not impressed if a computer plays chess, I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth but I believe you're saying If AI plays chess and because you say if 2 people play chess you're impressed. Ok I get that. I like chess but I don't watch unless I'm trying to learn more about the game but I would bet that someone who enjoys watching chess still has a preference for not watching unskilled chess players, it's neither impressive or entertaining. You don't have to be impressed that an Ai beat the best chess player in the world, I'm not either but I am impressed that a group of people were able to create an AI that beat the best chess player in the world. Im even entertained if I get to play around with the ai and get to understanding how it works. Yes the internet is flooded with AI images and 90% (I'm being generous with that percentage) of them are absolute junk, but it's the internet, and so far the internet isn't just about business. . . yet jk. One last thing, the people that put out 90% of the Ai junk images are using websites and its very hard to make something original or consistent or other things like altering an images composition and get what you intended. But thats just it, AI can do those things if you know how. There are Apps to run AI image generation locally, and some of these programs are very technical and offers a great deal more control over the image generation as well as hundreds maybe thousands of AI Models and loras out there (most junk also) can produce everything from abstract to illustration to watercolor to game assets to semirealistic to realistic images and each of those categories there are style subcategories. The way to control the AI generation is being improved upon by regular people (some in the field of aI) that know how to script in python and their modifications are made available for free on online AI communities. Modifications are regularly created or updated with the latest techniques. Not only that a person that learns the technical side can train their own AI models based of ones own intellectual property or sketches, videogame screenshots, photos, if it's an image or a video(I haven't messed around with video or 3d model meshes yet so i dont know how the video AI models are trained) you can make a model from it. I use other people's art for studies and other people's photography for reference but if I intend on selling what I'm working on I'm not going to rip off someone else's creations but artists need references especially the less skilled ones, that is if they hope to improve over time they will use them. If a person can generate an AI image with a a good deal of control in getting an image that looks close enough to what that person was going for then I'd think that would make an awesome reference for that person's hand made art work. It does take time and many generated images to get the image you want but that doesn't mean the rest are junk, granted most of them probably are as control over the image generation takes time, still, in that stack of generated images that doesn't even closely resemble what was intended their are images that have promise in otherways. It's no different then doing a bunch of thumbnail sketches for a project, only the best are selected, some never get used, the rest have potential for other projects. I think there is a side to this AI thing you're not aware of. You make solid points but they focus on a very smaaaalll area of the topic. Yeah people shouldn't rely to much on technology, but unless you're Amish technology is an integral part of society and getting rid of AI won't change that. Saying technology is integral is another way of saying we let the computer do the thing for us. But technology doesn't grow on trees, engineers, scientists and the rest are the siblings of all the Arts, they approach aspects of reality from opposite sides, in an abstract sense of course. AI is growing fast so what we knew about it 3 years ago doesn't really apply today, well I'm just taking about hype here. Well not entirely because if we're talking on the technical side their are some techniques used 3 years ago that still are used but have been improved on, some parts gets dropped and parts of it are entirely new. Much of what the public mind complains about is put there by talking heads, but the public awareness is slow to realize, long after complaints are resolved. But AI is new and it will continue to cause controversy but in different ways. An artist or any business person that wants automation (for the tedious stuff) and wants AI in their toolbox of the trade will have to study up on it in order to be effective with it. The majority of people have little to no understanding of it and believe all a person has to do is write in a prompt, pick a style and press generate. No wonder their results are less than impressive. When I say the person needs to know the technical side, I'm not suggesting they need a college education or that you can't learn as you go. The real nuts and bolts of it all is tough to grasp and would take a long time to fully grasp but as an artist that wants to have ai as a tool and use it well just needs a basic working understanding of it all so that they know their way around the software of their choice. People losing their jobs because of AI didn't believe 2 years ago that AI would replace them. At the time I knew it would but I wasn't sure how it would happen. After I got down and Learned about it the picture of how it would effect the job market became clear. The people that couldn't see its potential back then are losing work now, and that set them back.
I would like to thank Jake, Will and Lee for 3 point perspective, I listen to each episode and it's always mentally stimulating. Thank you. And thank you Rich Murry for coming on. It was nice for me because i felt like you were speaking for me and others that see this way. At times i felt like we are kindred AI spirts when it comes to seeing the potential uses and problematic areas of AI. AI is a revolution of sorts. Here Im speaking of Ai in general not just for images. I want to be a professional illustrator. The kind that starts out small and tries out different things and grow that way. I want the skills and would never rely on AI but to me it's a mistake to underestimate the movement. And using ai artistically is much more involved and takes actual skills then just writing in a prompt and clicking a button. Theres a whole world of this ai generation thing that produces much better images then a person would ever get from simply a prompt and a button. For those that do underestimate it, irs cause you really dont understand it as much as you believe. There are techniques to control over how the image generation is handled then you can imagine, but you wont find it on most websites that charge a monthly subscription to. Im not trying to be mean here, i just want people to know, if you did understand Ai like you thinkn you do most of your complaints would vanish and any that remain will be forever changed because its much more complicated then you once thought. For those that do underestimate it i would tell them not look at what it can do now, ut wont stay like this, its getting better as we speak. It could open doors we didnt even know were there. It's far from reached its potential, the form it's in today is just the beginning. Learning it now would allow a person to take their time, or wait and crunch later to catch up.
What an interesting podcast from after the first half hour... for different reasons. Awkward at times. I was expecting the ai artist to have more than just a bunch of motion slideshows to be honest and to hear he's not getting paid for that is kinda mind blowing. I admire his honesty how do you make a living like that when you're creating stuff that nobodies asked for or willing to pay for? That fact is ai art is boring to most audience and the narrative of it only getting better is only appealing to artists that are just trying to survive in an industry that they may not be cut out for
Hi SoVS team! First time viewer/listener here. I want to raise a topic for conversation that I think would be very important and interesting to explore on your podcast. I understand the concern that A LOT of artists have about Copyright theft, and I implore you to consider the following: (Disclaimer: Similar to Rich, I’ve dedicated my life to so many different digital art mediums. Illustration, comics, animation (2D and 3D), acting, directing, visual effects, voice acting, and video game development. I’ve worked and DO work in all of these fields professionally for over a decade.) If artists that are beating the "class action drum" against these platforms are successful, do they understand they are signing their own death warrant for independent commercial artists? If we make AI illegal for anyone without the legal copyright to MASSIVE data sets, it will only screws us (the artists) over. Because now that makes these magical content generators only available to massive companies, and we’ll all be left in the Stone Age, UNABLE TO COMPETE.
Great episode! Take home message I got is 1) Make your own opportunities by wearing many hats and don't be a one trick pony and 2)Working for your passion and working for a living are not necessarily the same thing. So I'll make explainer videos so I get paid and buy myself resources to make luchador comics :)
I think current LLM based generative AI solutions have already peaked in terms of what they can produce. Sure there can be minor improvements. But at the end of the day that tech is limited to whats in the database and how much stuff you can add there. It doesn´t learn or understand subject matter. So at best it will be photobash 2.0 as an artist tool. Current AI bubble will pop when big companies relealize that it won´t deliver return for the investments. LLMˋs will have they use cases for sure like in 3d animation fixing skinning problems with simulated datasets for example.
Interesting chat & thank you Rich. It will be intriguing for me to see how the behind the AI scenes develops. It’s already challenging to do the data centres, new film studios & power infrastructure to suit the current demands. I suspect the kick back to AI users will come soon when investors in all this want a return on their money. I will also look forward to the stories & work people create regardless of how it’s made. Cheers AL
Started listening to this podcast but then I had to come here for the visuals. Rich's mentioned beer commercial definitely looks like something straight out of AI - Uncanny Valley to full effect. Rich says this is "on brand" with the tone of the podcast, but... I don't know. What I can say is that I've never had the luxury to become an one-trick pony and like Rich, I've had to try my hand out at many things to bring home the bacon. For sure I love the idea of AI cutting up my work load on a fraction of the time but there are just too many thorny issues with copyright and ethics and plagiarism and overall mediocre output for me to be comfortable with it. But while we're digressing at this, Rich is making the big bucks selling to Big Pharma while... we're not And I've been around tech circles enough to know how ethics can easily fall by the wayside in the name of profits. My human artist side still rebels, and bigly so, against that.
While I enjoyed the episode and appreciated both sides, I think I’m siding with Lee on this one. I’m ready to stop talking about AI and just go back to making art.
The whole AI conversation is still not over for good reason, especially in my head. I want to be a hater and I want art to have human soul but this podcast made me remember that AI can be awesome if used by an underdog (not a corpo) who can't afford a studio/actors. In other words not as a substitute for effort but where effort was not possible. Good examples: AI voice music covers (I don't care about Frank Sinatra or FNAF music, but paired together they can be amazing), original country/rap/rock operas enhanced by changing the artist's voice to Spongebob, and AI-visuals-enhanced horror videos where the author's only skill is writing. The beer commercial in the podcast isn't bad, the audience knows the jank is clear and accepted it as funny AI. In that context it would've been worse if human-made. Bad examples: Using AI in concept art or any corpo product; I know concept art was already derivative photobashing from whatever was randomly available/inspirational, but I don't care. I want a human vision with no taint of AI because I haven't crossed that mental hurdle. If AI shortcuts are being taken when you have big skill + big money, the product will end up worse. AI compositions will also probably have tells for a long time; I notice them in some 3D animated shows.
And to followup with Will’s point. Yes we are here to make a living and following his example he hired people to take over the things that he didnt had time for and he grew his business. If you look at the Why Files, they have grown to a multimillion follower channel and they use ai for their images and video, BUT, they have hired a full production team, editors, writers, community mods, etc etc. ai allowed them to share the stories they want to say but they didnt took anyones job, they created a whole new enterprise and hired talent.
I liked what Jake said in an earlier podcast, where the problem is more with the industry than AI. In my mind yeah you have to pivot, but maybe you can pivot to a better (less mainstream) field of art. Even ignoring AI, mainstream animation used to be the only animation, now indie YT anims are excelling in parallel. Mainstream AAA games used to be the only good games, but I've sworn them off; the indies are making the fun stuff.
So I'm 25 minutes in, and I'm not entirely sure what the point of this conversation actually is. I don't want to sound dismissive or mean, but it seems like aimless ramblings up to this point.
I think the biggest thing about using AI is that it really seems to only serve as a replacement for stock footage and imagery. I’m sure that it makes multidisciplinary’s (and advertiser/designer’ss specifically) life easier, but I’m still not entirely sold on its value or place in art and publishing. Sure, it wills get better, but in the mean time it’s just kinda meh. And I say that as a person who’s been playing with it and trying to find a way it could help my business and process.
My problem isn't that it's "cheating" it's that it's theft. It's not being used ethically. Just look at WHY people felt like they couldn't post on IG anymore. Some Ai images will even have a weird smudgy version of whatever artwork's signature they scrubbed. You shouldn't make a profit with Ai, you cannot legally own copyright of it.
Morally you can consider it plagiarism, but copyright and profit are unrelated. You can profit from selling public domain stuff or making fanart (neither of which you own full copyrights of).
This is a hilarious argument to me and deeply hypocritical. It's "theft and unethical." Hmm. Tell me, if you were to be assigned the task of drawing a motorcycle with authentic detail what would you do? Draw it from memory? What you would do is what I would do or anyone would do. You would find images to reference from the internet - either photos or other artists' drawings in order to make a version that is your own. You know what that is by another name? "Scraping." Exactly what the AI programs are doing. When you use those photos, even just for reference, do you look up whether they're stock or even amateur and send them each money for using their images to reference your own interpretation? You want to talk exploitation? How about every computer or related device, either desktop or mobile, that you've used to make a living or hobby on? Are they all American made? No? That's because you couldn't afford it if it was. You depend on the exploitation, same as me, of a workforce in China that is paid a harsh fraction of what you would even consider a livable wage or even livable conditions. Your very lifestyle wouldn't be a third of what it is if you didn't depend on that very exploitation. But you never think twice before buying that 40" monitor for $299. Your "outrage" at the exploitation of artists' work as the basis for AI models is convenient to YOU. So keep espousing that it's all "unethical" if it makes you feel better. How's that working out for you?
@@richtoonsTV Humans are relational so relating to an artist's interpretation is generally more engaging than a machine's diceroll.
You can agree to disagree with him when it comes to ethics. Some people brag about tracing photos to earn $ (which is the same as using AI in my mind), even though tracing is legally riskier. Some people brag about being on steroids. It's up to individuals what they respect about the process.
@@ColinJWiens Interesting point, Colin. You can call it "plagiarism." One of your videos showing a stick figure animation sure looks a lot like the ones made popular by Piemations on CZcams. So in your case do you get a pass because it's your "homage?" Your house couldn't be more made of glass.
@@richtoonsTV bro drank too much podcast beer
When Lee told everyone to "just shut up!" In the end I felt a spiritual connection. I was in university when AI plopped onto the scene and I would rather slam my pinky toe into an anvil than ever have a conversation about AI ever again. It's not out of fear or anger at AI, it's that I've never seen anything positive happen as a result of these conversations, the exception probably being this podcast because at least Rich offers a unique perspective to an audience even if I disagree. I feel time is much better spent, as you guys said, actually making things.
Small side comment as well, I despise the "your opinion is subjective" argument as every opinion is subjective and it's typically a nonsense argument that only dilludes a productive conversation. Every opinion's validity has to be measured on its own using supporting or contradictory facts and examples.
I side with Jake in this debate but I appreciate there were differing opinions at all as I feel there is way too much mono-thinking and "agree or be obliterated" in online discourse. Great podcast gents. Could write forever about this one.
Jake thank you for being the voice of reason, to me it seems like an unpopular opinion right now. 🙏💕
I highly agree with Rich about putting in effort to make yourself more than just hire-able! (I do think it’s a missed opportunity to hire someone to tell that story in the ad. If not an expert who’s spent YEARS learning their job, then maybe a student who wants to get there. If illustrating in your style did not work for the client, someone else could do that better with your direction. That way you’d be a proactive storyteller with a diverse skill-set who cares about people. Win Win Win.✅✅✅)
To add to Lee’s point, it’s not technology advancement people are against - its the ethics of A.I everyone is against and how it’s not actually for the people. The more we use it, the better it becomes - like digging our own grave and creating demand when there is none. And the html coding conversation happened for sure and is still a conversation in terms of how A.I took over coding/writing. We just focus on the artist side since we’re in a niche community here.
You have to think beyond the art community and self-gain to truly understand the impact A.I is going to have on society and how terrible that would be if we’re starting off on the foot of - no care for humans and selfish gain only. (Since we’re mentioning Pixar movies - does anyone remember what happened to the people in Wall-E when everything was A.I? Worth a re-watch. 👀)
Also, most of the big name companies fired their ethics departments because the employees were against the way AI research was going forward. The experts know better than us general public yet were removed from their positions - Listen to ex-Google employee Mo Gawdat’s DOAC interview, he resigned because of all this. So did Geoffrey Hinton, considered the grandfather of A.I. We need to wake up and look outside our bubble. 😅
Will, A.I has a completely different context and impact compared to advancements in the past (like photoshop) which we incorporated into our workflow. There are sufficient alternatives to AI already but it requires a little more effort on our parts - i.e actually doing the work and putting in the effort to make yourself more than just hire-able. 😉
This was a great example of what AI can make and bring to the world: a pile of mediocre garbage. And it steals, pollutes, flatten the audience taste, destroy the market for everyone else and hand over total control and power to big clients and corporations in the process. Nothing personal against the guest, which I found to be a very nice and accomplished dude, but I like to think that most people getting into art/illustration (and then following this podcast) would like to feel and live their work like a Mignola, or a Toppi or a Malika Favre, rather than spit out hundreds of ugly beer commercials. I'm sure there are far better jobs to make "6 figures" and then go ski with the family, than being an illustrator.
Well, it seems by your blank channel that it's indeed true that it's way easier to criticize than to create. You don't seem to have even produced "garbage", as you call it. And the dig about going "skiing with my family" obviously speaks to the fact you know nothing about me, my life or my work ethic. It also seems to speak to a bitter chip you seem to carry. The "commercial" is a send up of beer commercials, in fact deconstructing the beer commercial formula. You either didn't get that or you never watched it in context with the soundtrack and all (which is a banger, by the way). The reviews are in and both my client and the fans of that show love it and it inspired a lot of beer sales and I'm proud of that. And I didn't get paid for it. I did it because I wanted to for my client and I wanted to stretch myself by learning and using tools that were new. I like playing with AI tools. They're not all about generating images and videos through text prompts. I like kit bashing tools together to get effects that will help me tell my clients' stories in the future to even greater results. You're right. I'm pretty accomplished. Because I've always stayed open to what's new instead of caving to online group think or letting podcasters tell me what my opinions are.
@@richtoonsTV thanks for taking the time to answer, although as I wrote it has nothing to do with you as a person and your life, of which I know nothing about and sounds pretty happy from what you write. But maybe it does have a bit to do with your work ethic, since the tools you employ have been developed and refined through lies and theft (yes, already read your opinion on this issue and we disagree. And so does the competent authority here in Europe - Ai Act) and by using these you A]create mediocre work (come on, this caricature of beer commercials was meant to be trashy in the first place, right?) and B]ruin the market and “power balance” for everyone, yourself included, with stuff that's too cheap, easy and quick to make. Your good ideas and experience in storytelling are not enough, because art directors, business owners and their spouses, also think they have good ideas. I understand the creative fun of playing with new toys, it's just that I get a kick from being in the process of learning, of getting better at what I do, possibly with a new tool/technique. Generative Ai takes away (mosto of) that process and you are left with an initial spark and some cleaning and post-production afterwards. I’m in for the fun part, not the cleaning.
I have a feeling there’s an fundamental core difference in the way we approach our work, that is you being very commercially oriented and me being still in love with the basic act of painting and drawing. not that one is better than the other, just different. And you understandably go for the path that gets your job done faster. Too bad this tool is really poisonous for you and everyone else.
As for myself, yes, I too have drawn “garbage” to pay the bills and feed the kids, particularly for pharmaceutical companies and other like-minded corporations. I did my best to bend their requests towards my artistic vision to turn a well paid commercial job into a chance to make something interesting. I really carry no bitterness and you are right, I’m not curating my online presence. Too busy painting. You can extend your background search to my Instagram to get a feeling.
Ciao and good luck.
@@cosimomiorelli1715 agreed, I currently work in house full time, and its the same icons over and over again, drinks, palms, florida, floweres, ect. Its just a job to pay the bills and nothing I would do for personal work, yet people assume because I draw all day that its all 'fun' . After the first 2-3 years, it can quickly feel like any other 'fill a spreedsheet' type of office job.
Using AI is like using steroids. You either care how you get there, or you don't.
That's a good way to put it.
@@jakeparker44 I don't think it's that "good." Most of what I do with AI tech has nothing to do with generative imaging through text prompts. Certainly in the case of the commercial we all dissected I did because I wanted to try something I hadn't done. But you yourself, Jake, commented how "awesome" the two test shots I sent you looked where I kit bashed some AI technologies together to create an effect where I can turn live action into anime (no more "cheating" than using mocap in the movies). This will allow my son and I to eventually co-direct a short film together where he directs the combat action and I pull it all together. This wouldn't be possible without the AI tools I've been playing with. So I DO care how I get there - either pleasing my clients or creatively expanding myself. I think your bias might be too strong to really have an open perspective on new tools that you're not used to. AI ≠ just Midjourney.
@@richtoonsTV I think this comparison is used in the illustration context as many people here intend to be illustrators. The output of the illustration using "ai" / image generation is the comparison. The anime filter / generative image software, based on the dataset, is very much like motion / performance capture. In the context of generating video from nothing, if you could generate video using a text prompt, there is nothing in your interview or really in your comment that seems to say that you would not use it. It would be possible to do but it would just take a lot of time and effort of rotoscoping it oneself.
@@mf-- I like your response, and it's certainly much more respectful than many of the comments that have been cruel rather than constructive. Yes, I did use generative video to a high degree for the single piece in the interview that took on an inordinate amount of focus. If you browsed my online portfolio you'd see dozens of examples of what I consider good work that I put a lot of energy into. I also put energy and work into the beer spot. It had the desired effect. It was a huge hit with my client, their audience and it has resulted in a lot of beer sales. My job as a commissioned artist, (though I did not get paid for this piece), had the best possible result for my client. I don't apologize for that nor for using the opportunity to explore a technology to a degree I hadn't before. I may or may not use it to as high a degree again. My litmus test for any art is this - is it interesting or not? I'm not concerned with trying to figure out how it was made or if there is some sort of arbitrary rules of morality what tools any group deems okay or not okay. The tools are here and they're getting more powerful and they're interesting. I can now do an instant mock up in Illustrator by applying my designs to photos of real world objects. I can put depth maps behind my background illustrations to be able to navigate them in 3D. I can instantly generate captions for my videos - and in any language! I'm not going to wait for some referee, whether they be Jake Parker (who I highly respect, admire and often crowd fund) or anyone else to throw their flags down on a play to sanctify what's okay and what's not. I believe that whatever you do, you should be, above all, interesting.
Re: Will’s comment, “I don’t care, I want to make money.” I think this thought has preceded a lot of disasters in the history of the world. It often masquerades as pragmatism.
I try to understand why Will said that; he's approaching 60, he's not trying to convince the world on what he's capable of anymore and just wants to get as much moolah as possible before retirement. I'm just a tad younger than Will but I don't feel I'd do it much different. Priorities at 30 are of a much different nature than priorities at double that age...
Respectfully, I think that while this was an important discussion to have, this was entirely the wrong person to have it with.
@@nicetriangle and looking at his engagement with the comments, entirely unprepared to civilly oppose or embrace expected points of criticism. I get it, some people are really mean for no good reason in here, but the podcast’s guest doesn’t look much better.
Not ironically Rich’s work is the definition of mediocre, competent but low rent - the kind of work easily replaced by Ai. He’s racing to the bottom. If that’s your thing, power to you I guess.
Wow, because your one video from thirteen years ago really elevates the art form. Your house couldn't be more made of glass. Could you squeeze any more drabness into that one shot? How's your career going? Your thirteen year absence of creating any content speaks volumes.
@@richtoonsTVnot everyone is a youtube star lol, just because they don’t have youtube videos doesnt mean they arent producing artwork
It's beyond disappointing to read a comment of one artist bashing another artist's work. I don't understand what that accomplishes. If you don't agree with someone's opinion about a topic, fine, but that in no way gives you the right to put down their work. Rich's work may not appeal to you, but to belittle the art due to differing opinions is uncalled for.
@@tombarrettart I thought @richtoonsTV was all about “hard truths”?
@@rheinrich_art cheers
I’m noticing via his responses to the comments that @richToons is a little thin skinned, not at all like his earlier gritty, “hard truth” posturing.
Right?
The problem with AI is that if it’s noticeable someone used, it will be a real challenge to convince anyone that that thing has any importance. Art takes process, intention, identity, struggle, skill, care ETC. AI can make gorgeous images but is soulless, cold, industrialized and generic. Just garbage.
AI looks cheap. Means the budget for it was low. Means the creator of the product did not believe in it enough to invest in a better quality ad.
I think this neural network situation is not about using the technology or not. Let's face it, if it gets good enough, there will be no choice. Especially in the field of advertisement or maybe even in the entertainment industry due to cost optimizations, artists will probably have to learn generative art skills to some degree. However, what's more worrying is, it feels like overall quality of visual content has gone down quite a bit. The stuff that is being produced with neural networks is often pretty bad in terms of composition, storytelling quality, and more often than not is done by people who have poor understanding of various aspects of visual arts. There is no personal voice in art generated by algorithms that aren't AGI and there will never be one because when an artist, to use Jake's unflattering but quite accurate term, makes real art he uses his own motor skills, his own vision of the world and his personal experiences to produce the final artwork. There's no experience for a neural network to draw from, it can only use questionably obtained training data, and it has no experience or motor skills to begin with. That's why, at least to me personally, neural art often feels hollow and inauthentic. And people using generative networks calling what they generated "my art" feels simultaneously sad and funny. Maybe it's my biases speaking, and I will change my mind some day in the future. But as it stands now, this activity feels extremely unappealing and devoid of everything that makes art worthwhile. Anyway, thank you for the podcast. It was a great listen.
This was an awesome episode. Rich made for a great guest to bring ideas and perspectives to the 3PP discussion table. However I’m pretty disappointed after seeing how rude Rich has been in the comments. Some of those people also said rude things about Rich and as much as it sucks to be so openly criticized like that I think Rich’s responses were inappropriate particularly for a guest. I hope this can be avoided in future episodes.
Appreciated. But I've endured some pretty personal trash talk about my work, my work ethic and even my family on here. Imagine how disappointed I was to read that.
Its easy for Rich or anyone whos been in the business for a while to just say "you need to be adaptable" while i agree with that statement, but its easy for someone who has built up their skills and toolboxes to be able to move to the next opportunity....
But what about those artist just starting out who don’t have those skills built up yet?
I feel for you. But the world wasn't made to comfort and wait for you. It's been a race my whole life to keep up with or stay ahead of the curve and to know where my marketplace is going to next. If you're a hobbyist, you have no worries. If you're getting into any field of work, especially art, get ready to always be competing. Your job, no matter what it is, is to be undeniable.
@@richtoonsTV im not worried, i have and will adapt if needed. But just seems like we are shooting ourselves in the foot
@@rheinrich_artnot only shooting ourselves in the foot we are putting a hole in our boat. Theres a reason why the actors association held hostage Hollywood billion dollar business for a year
Well done to Jake for calling Rich out for the use of AI in the "commercial" - and standing his ground. Will may be right in saying it may not matter to the end consumer, but from a quality perspective it was severely lacking and poorly put together. All respect to Rich and his body of work though, he seems like a nice guy.
You guys are talking about the incoming comments, but I'll be the first to say this was a refreshing podcast to hear from everyone on all sides of AI tools. I heard my fair share of hate at university and so much shaming and immediate rejection of amazing storytelling and art just because of the commercially used name of AI. I'm just glad to hear dialogue that doesn't immediately shut down or attack with direct hate of an artist who loves exploring exciting new tools and doesn't feel hostile rejections from others. This is truly a refreshing, open-minded conversation. More on this, please!
The problem is that the art PROCESS creates new insights. AI has no “insight generation” process. It just creates products for the market
Theres always going to be peolpe that chose to take the "devils route" and make arguments to justify this. So sick of people using Ai to thier advantage because it gives them a short term profit. They dont care that Ai is unethical not to mention the added environmental straign it will cause. And by the way, since when have people needed Ai to come up with interesting ideas!!. Love SVS and evereything they are doing for the art community but their stance on Ai is always a disappointment to me.
It's so easy to say that artists should just be making stuff and putting it out into the world. I love that sense of idealism, but it's unrealistic. It's like burying your head in the sand during a tornado hoping that it all just blows over and doesn't affect you too much. Good luck with that.
Look, I get it. AI is here and it's not going away anytime soon. That doesn't mean I should just roll over and take it. As an artist, I've drawn a line in the sand that I will not cross. Whatever happened to standing for something? I'll admit, I'm impressed with the AI tools that are out there. The technology in and of itself isn't the issue. The issue is that the current AI models are all built on work that was unethically scraped from the internet. It needs to be regulated - heavily.
Enough with the dehumanization of the arts! And enough with artists embracing the dehumanization of the arts. That's incredibly disheartening to see. I want my books, movies, TV shows, and video games to be made by people with a pulse, thank you very much.
Any good director is going to want as much control over the outcome as possible, and if Sora ever evolves to allow you that much control, shouldn’t you have been using regular film and design software in the first place anyway.
If you can’t control the outcome to that degree, the results are going to look like stock footage
Take a look around. There's some very interesting stuff being made out there using AI tools. I'm enjoying the experimentation. I'm really excited for the future of creative tools.
@@richtoonsTV it’s undeniably interesting, I’m looking forward to the future of animation and design software, Moho’s doing great things for 2D and looks like Zbrush will be coming to iPad (fingers crossed)
Definitely one of the better 3PP podcasts. It’s so important to *listen to other points of view even if you don’t agree. Will is correct- most people (average consumer) doesn’t know or care where images come from. They either like the content or they don’t. At the end of the day, as artists we need to simply make what we want to make. That is the one thing we can control.
Amen
Agreed, but we need good examples like the why files.
A big respect to all that openly debated this. It’s too soon to decide if AI is negative, positive or both.
Rich’s opinions are no more valid than anyone else’s; albeit I am more likely to give more ears to Jake, Will and Lee because they have a proven background. Rich was keen to have his opinion voiced to a bigger audience, via this platform. We can all think for ourselves.
Face it; industry will always be %90+ about making money and %10 ,or less, about the benefit to the people, look at housing, technology and healthcare. AI will be about making as much money as possible for corporates, look at Adobe and look at what happened at Disney. Industry is less concerned about the good of the people and even less the creative people. Perhaps if we got rid of ownership of shares that might change things?
The free work, that Rich did, for ten years for one client, and now with the beer design and extras he still gets no value or return from that client, after all that effort! Speaks volumes and is not a good business model.
AI doesn’t get how to communicate humour (not novelty), sadness, etc. Most people can't think or express themselves creatively, AI won't change that.
A good question to ask Rich would be. Is he glad that he spent years developing illustration skills or would he have preferred if AI had come sooner, so he didn’t have to develop a craft?
Finally, I would argue that human touch through techniques in creating music or art truly come across in the final piece, but I am a traditional (and digital) artist. I was born in the late 1960’s so I have seen a lot of change.
AI doesn't make my art, Davyd. I do, no matter what tools I'm using. I'm willing to stretch my knowledge of what new tools are available and what my marketplace looks like. How about you? You seem to have a whole lot to say on how badly I'm running my business when you know nothing about me. I'll tell you this ... I work on exactly only what I want to, whether I get paid for it or not. And I'm really good at it. Sometimes I do something for fun and not the money. Is everything about money for you? How's your business doing? I've seen a lot of changes in my life too. And I keep an open mind to the potential of learning what's new. My advice to you is to maybe criticize a little less and concentrate more on creating your own work in whatever way you see fit and I promise not to pass any judgement on you.
This guy doesn't have the skill to do any of his AI-work by hand even if he tried to. It's evident looking at what he produces himself. He's a lazy and mediocre opportunist. This is not the way at all
Interesting. Your channel is blank. So either you're a bot or someone who knows nothing about my work. Either way, you're insignificant.
Obviously a bot.
I don't think the title is helping this episode. It's much better than I thought it was going to be. I do think there is a lot of very odd false equivalencies brought up when talking about AI "Art". And the marketing term "Tool" is a bit of a misdirection. A "tool" built from the pillaging of Humanity's Creativite Legacy, built using the one or if not the only absolutely pure and good things humanity contributes to existence .."Art". It's so hilariously Twilight Zoney. The Art Director's Guild and Costume "Design" Guild have both caved to AI and we can guess where Animation is going to land. It's not simply a "Tool". It's something that a few "artists" will use to replace 'many' artists. It ok to mourn and be far from ready to be the "adapt or die" hype man. We care about how things are made. Jake, shared that poignant quote about how "Content is Trash".. Welcome to the Wasteland chaps! .. On a positive note.. I am super Duper excited about the emphasis this all is placing on real art and indy artists!! .. "Let them eat Content"(My proposed episode title change.)
What I will say is. If you have a six figure salary and have this great drive to express yourself doing something with little time, why wouldnt you hire a couple people? Especially if the work wont be a gift but a commercial product that will eventually with luck lead to more and more work like you have managed to do with your entrepeneurship.
I havent had time to draw and I need illustrations and covers for several novellas. So I went to the drivethru discord and hired someone to help me. My funds are limited, but I am sure to use them to support newcomers kickstarters and hire artists to be a part of my production. Not everyone is a polymath, not everyone has time to learn a new skill, but we can all work together lifting artists and help being more wonderful art. So if you are one of the lucky ones, share the joy, hire an artist, you will make a difference.
If you were listening to what I said, I did that AI piece because I wanted to. I wanted to get more experience with AI tools. I may or may not use them again to as large a scale. But I like to learn new things for my own interest and the betterment of what I can create for my clients. It's interesting hearing people give me advise on how I should spend my money or run my business when I've been doing it quite well for 30+ years.
@@richtoonsTVbut this is not related to your enterprise or work. This is related to a young artist being let go. You are telling him how to plan and run his career after he comes and says its difficult out there. Your presentation tells us your plan and how succesful you have been and thats great, but you put so much emphasis on your storytelling and forget writers are getting replaced too. Thanks for sharing your point of view and your career but this is related to the impact of ai, not to promote your work because you wrote part of it. You can do full ai if you want and you will continue on your 30+ years carrer and thats something to be admired. But please, dont say you are really interested in them, because if you where you know there are many ways to help besides saying “is going to get rough!”
@@richtoonsTVbut this is not related to your enterprise or work. This is related to a young artist being let go. You are telling him how to plan and run his career after he comes and says its difficult out there. Your presentation tells us your plan and how succesful you have been and thats great, but you put so much emphasis on your storytelling and forget writers are getting replaced too. Thanks for sharing your point of view and your career but this is related to the impact of ai, not to promote your work because you wrote part of it. You can do full ai if you want and you will continue on your 30+ years carrer and thats something to be admired. But please, dont say you are really interested in them, because if you where you know there are many ways to help besides saying “is going to get rough!”
I think it would be really interesting if you guys interviewed Kaz Windness. She writes and illustrates for traditional publishing, and she has a website kinda like SVS with courses and mentorship stuff.
If there's anything that I hope present and future artists will follow, regardless of the tools of their choice, is to learn and never forget the fundamentals, like composition, perspective, shapes, anatomy, colour theory etc. These are principles that remain timeless, regardless of the tools available. And I hope future artists will continue to learn and understand them.
This is a really interesting episode. Appreciate all the angles. My worry about AI is not when a visionary uses it to realize a piece of work that would otherwise never be made, it is when a corporation would rather lower their standards and produce janky commercial. We've already seen companies like Microsoft release images where they didn't even take the time to clean up with AI jank, so instead of this technology becoming a tool for us, it replaces us because someone decided they would rather a character have 6 fingers than pay someone to fix it.
I also think artists ARE open to new technologies, so many of our careers depend on advancements in hardware, and enhanced features in existing software.
The only issues I have with LLMs is that, the massive value attributed by the developers to the scraped data, has not resulted in compensation to the owners of that data, and it just doesn’t give you the same control over the outcome, where’s the satisfaction in that?
I can get where you're coming from, but I think these new tools offer incredible opportunities for artists. Our designer eyes and brains naturally scrape information from every source around us, using it as inspiration to create art. Everything we create comes from another source. However, when a machine replicates what our brains do naturally, it becomes distasteful to some. Imagine if a human had the capability to draw from a seemingly infinite amount of design inspiration and create something new and unique from it. That would be amazing, and they would rightfully be called an artist, because that's what they always have been and are right now. Embracing AI as a tool can enhance our creative process and open new avenues for innovation. It's not about replacing artists but expanding the possibilities of what one can achieve.
@@JarRob-tq5lf I think you’d have to be careful comparing how LLMs learn, to how humans learn, attributing that level of awareness to these systems, is like suggesting we actually have artificial general intelligence already.
LLMs learn in the same way humans do, would be worthy of news headlines.
Show a human one example of an object for the rest of their lives, and they can continuously imagine iterations of it without influence.
The LLMs required simultaneous, vast injections of data, before they could achieve ‘ignition’, and subsequent artificially generated images.
Ai just looks all the same style wise
They used to say that about computer graphics in general back in the early 90s. And then computer animation later in the 90s. I think like any new set of tools that democratize art-making processes you initially get a whole lot of meh but also some cool stuff by those who can adapt them in a unique way.
I absolutely agree with Will on this position with AI tools. Back in the day, we used to use a typesetter and he had his own Linotype typesetting machine that was at least $20,000 dollars (which was a lot of money back in the 80's). He was a really nice guy - we loved him. After Apple 2e's came out - he was out of business within 2 years. Our screen printing shop was just starting and we moved from hand cutting rubylith for screens, to outputting art on a film and then burning the screens. Production time and lead time was reduced by 3-4 days - which put us ahead of the competition. What we were doing was not high art - it was putting out a product for your average customer who wanted a shirt for their reunion or their company.
I think in later day, traditional artist (Non AI) going to be valued more because they're rare.
I guess i just don’t understand the point of AI art... i could maybe see it used for animation studios where they need alot of concepts really quick, or someone just trying to pump images out to make a buck...
But i don’t see myself ever using it, ive finally gotten to a place with my art and abilities where i can come up with good ideas and designs on my own...should we give up on those skills and become dependent on technology?
To us, there is no point. We don't need it. I don't want it. Those of us who love creating art for art's sake are the ones that will keep those basic art skills alive and pass them along. AI isn't going to kill that. The only people, from what I have seen, that gravitate to AI are the ones who want something "cool" right away for as little cost as possible (even with 6 fingers). We are not going to stop those people, no matter what is done to control AI training. We do not have to support it, but it isn't going away. There are too many players with too much to gain. We can be as loud about it as we want, and the gov't could swoop in and set boundaries, but it won't go away. And even if AI gets to the point of creating decent "art", know that there are so many out there who will still never use it commercially. I know I won't. My desire is to put my imagination, my experiences, on paper, not a computer's interpretation of my experiences, no matter how close it comes. And I can't be the only one who feels this way. The world is too big. I think the big point here is to stop complaining about what has already been done, and figure out how we as individual artists move forward to prevent further unethical behavior by AI companies and make a decent living at the same time.
Good podcast guys!
I've slowly become less and less scared of AI in the art world. I heard a popular tech youtuber recently say (paraphrasing), "I hate AI art! It has all the elements of being a pretty picture, but it's not." And this was a TECH youtuber; not an artist. With that being said, I also appreciate the pro-AI arguments made in this video, and I do think the anti-AI voices are getting insane too.
Oooweee! Knowing what the recent podcast convos about this topic I’m excited to see. Let’s go fellas!
Hi guys. I love your podcast. Fist time I felt compelled to comment though with just a few minutes into this video listening to your guest describe work he created using AI. I just feel compelled to point out that AI work is not created. Instead it is curated by a digital "entity" responding to his directions. So while it can be argued that the end product is art, it is a production rather than a creation. With a fraction of artistic emotive value of the end product attributable to the director commensurate with their directorial effort and control over what the AI produces (which is limited right now but will change with time, of course).
This was interesting - thanks to all involved.
I'm not sure where I land on this AI art "debate". I think each panelist made good points and found agreeing with a lot.
I empathise with Rich's view - complaining about AI art technology isn't going to help you and is perhaps just wasted energy. AI is here to stay whether artists like it or not - the pattern is that technology gets better so we need to learn how to live with it. Rich has a found a way to use AI as just like any other tool at an artist's disposal. And having done a lot of work in the finance/banking sector too I understand the value in any tool that's going to help speed up to meet tight deadlines.
I also agree with a lot of Jake's sentiments - especially the idea of preserving the craft of human-made art. There's definitely this sense that AI generated art affords someone the ability to create highly detailed artwork without having any artistic skill - it's just pushing a button and the AI machine spits out what you want. I think there's genuine concern that the technology can make artists complacent and use it as a crutch.
I think the ethical side of things is a fair concern - one that shouldn't be hand-waved away, since copyright has such hugely important value for artists. I suspect it wouldn't have been such an issue if the AI technicians training their systems had trained AI on only old, copyright expired works - I think their lack of insight in that area is what's caused this ethical debate to flame over. I think if an artist can train an AI system only on their own artwork, then that should dispel the copyright issue.
Those are my thoughts on it, for what their worth.
Peace.
I appreciate Rich Murray's story, even if I don't agree with the AI take and side more with Jake's perspective. Good conversation, and thanks for joining them Rich and sharing your thoughts.
I dislike AI for sooo many reasons though. I could go on forever.
42:57 Exactly... that beer video is not awesome, not expertly crafted, and have lots of AI wankiness. Well said Parker.
And Will, not everything in life is money, have some respect for the craft man. If we accept anything as good because of the "we want money" mantra, we will fail as a society.
Will is a sad human being trying to act though to look cool. Ends up looking really sad.
You were brave calling this episode "AI is NOT your enemy" 😆I've busted out the popcorn while reading these comments... the defensive nature of some of the replies here are really quite telling.
Jake: Thanks for showing compassion for the human spirit in the creation of art, appreciate it 🤜🤛
I think its more that its going to have some issue with our working being drowned out just like how bots and automated channels are ruinging the experince for the users. I guess its a give and take, but I see more people going back into grassroots and in person to bring in more work or share your work. Also, yes once you have establiished your self, you may not feel the threat of AI as much, but I also see simple starter, or resume builder type projects going away.
And its not just in art fields. its like how mass market clothes has flood even the higher priced market with ill fitted, poorly designed clothes and in general, people are thought to be OK with such clothes and fabrics (not talking about basics) and to just replace and throw away. Same with food, same with many entertainment, same with buildings, ect when major businesses control the market, they force taste change and drown out more human experiences. And when a few indie stuff break out, they're quick to flood the market with copies and makes the average person thinks its 'just for fun' 'easy' or ' supposed to be very cheap or free'
AI DISCUSSIONS DOESN'T BEGIN UNTIL 35 MIN IN
I feel those who are sick of the AI debate like Lee and Will are conflating the wide-ranging views people have on the topic, like most divisive topics. As many have mentioned here not all are straight up against such innovations in technology and its utility in commercial art, but are rightly concerned about the ethics surrounding it - which IS a difficult topic with no easy answer. That's why the debate is still going! Our views will inevitably change as the technology progresses and we learn more, but that's no reason to just shut it all out. I mean, sure, if you're sick of it and it doesn't affect you in terms of your work, then stop bringing it up in the podcast, but you can't blame people for caring about it.
That all said, I do agree with Rich's point that using such machine learning technology in your work can co-exist with work that doesn't use AI, because eventually the use of AI will likely become inevitable in most facets of our lives. BUT I also advocate for proper regulations within corporations and AI engines to prevent blatant theft of art, especially if it is to be used in commercial/professional settings. After all, we now have laws in place that control how images, IP, etc. can/can't be used in commercial projects - and this should also be applied to AI use.
There are already many ways artists can incorporate generative AI into their workflow that will achieve more faster and still have the finished product a hand drawn/painted illustration(traditional or digital).
Jake, there is a difference between the AI model and the people that use advanced knowledge and technology to create the AI, its a brand new horizon thats not going away and it keeps improving, fast. The people that are learning about it see how hard it is to keep up, it take a lot of work and learning if a person wants to use AI for anything practical. you draw a parallel using Ai Chess and Ai image generation, its possible youre speaking if anything ai. You say that you're not impressed if a computer plays chess, I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth but I believe you're saying If AI plays chess and because you say if 2 people play chess you're impressed. Ok I get that. I like chess but I don't watch unless I'm trying to learn more about the game but I would bet that someone who enjoys watching chess still has a preference for not watching unskilled chess players, it's neither impressive or entertaining. You don't have to be impressed that an Ai beat the best chess player in the world, I'm not either but I am impressed that a group of people were able to create an AI that beat the best chess player in the world. Im even entertained if I get to play around with the ai and get to understanding how it works.
Yes the internet is flooded with AI images and 90% (I'm being generous with that percentage) of them are absolute junk, but it's the internet, and so far the internet isn't just about business. . . yet jk.
One last thing, the people that put out 90% of the Ai junk images are using websites and its very hard to make something original or consistent or other things like altering an images composition and get what you intended. But thats just it, AI can do those things if you know how. There are Apps to run AI image generation locally, and some of these programs are very technical and offers a great deal more control over the image generation as well as hundreds maybe thousands of AI Models and loras out there (most junk also) can produce everything from abstract to illustration to watercolor to game assets to semirealistic to realistic images and each of those categories there are style subcategories. The way to control the AI generation is being improved upon by regular people (some in the field of aI) that know how to script in python and their modifications are made available for free on online AI communities. Modifications are regularly created or updated with the latest techniques.
Not only that a person that learns the technical side can train their own AI models based of ones own intellectual property or sketches, videogame screenshots, photos, if it's an image or a video(I haven't messed around with video or 3d model meshes yet so i dont know how the video AI models are trained) you can make a model from it.
I use other people's art for studies and other people's photography for reference but if I intend on selling what I'm working on I'm not going to rip off someone else's creations but artists need references especially the less skilled ones, that is if they hope to improve over time they will use them. If a person can generate an AI image with a a good deal of control in getting an image that looks close enough to what that person was going for then I'd think that would make an awesome reference for that person's hand made art work. It does take time and many generated images to get the image you want but that doesn't mean the rest are junk, granted most of them probably are as control over the image generation takes time, still, in that stack of generated images that doesn't even closely resemble what was intended their are images that have promise in otherways. It's no different then doing a bunch of thumbnail sketches for a project, only the best are selected, some never get used, the rest have potential for other projects.
I think there is a side to this AI thing you're not aware of. You make solid points but they focus on a very smaaaalll area of the topic. Yeah people shouldn't rely to much on technology, but unless you're Amish technology is an integral part of society and getting rid of AI won't change that. Saying technology is integral is another way of saying we let the computer do the thing for us. But technology doesn't grow on trees, engineers, scientists and the rest are the siblings of all the Arts, they approach aspects of reality from opposite sides, in an abstract sense of course. AI is growing fast so what we knew about it 3 years ago doesn't really apply today, well I'm just taking about hype here. Well not entirely because if we're talking on the technical side their are some techniques used 3 years ago that still are used but have been improved on, some parts gets dropped and parts of it are entirely new. Much of what the public mind complains about is put there by talking heads, but the public awareness is slow to realize, long after complaints are resolved. But AI is new and it will continue to cause controversy but in different ways.
An artist or any business person that wants automation (for the tedious stuff) and wants AI in their toolbox of the trade will have to study up on it in order to be effective with it. The majority of people have little to no understanding of it and believe all a person has to do is write in a prompt, pick a style and press generate. No wonder their results are less than impressive.
When I say the person needs to know the technical side, I'm not suggesting they need a college education or that you can't learn as you go. The real nuts and bolts of it all is tough to grasp and would take a long time to fully grasp but as an artist that wants to have ai as a tool and use it well just needs a basic working understanding of it all so that they know their way around the software of their choice.
People losing their jobs because of AI didn't believe 2 years ago that AI would replace them. At the time I knew it would but I wasn't sure how it would happen. After I got down and Learned about it the picture of how it would effect the job market became clear. The people that couldn't see its potential back then are losing work now, and that set them back.
I would like to thank Jake, Will and Lee for 3 point perspective, I listen to each episode and it's always mentally stimulating. Thank you.
And thank you Rich Murry for coming on. It was nice for me because i felt like you were speaking for me and others that see this way. At times i felt like we are kindred AI spirts when it comes to seeing the potential uses and problematic areas of AI. AI is a revolution of sorts. Here Im speaking of Ai in general not just for images.
I want to be a professional illustrator. The kind that starts out small and tries out different things and grow that way. I want the skills and would never rely on AI but to me it's a mistake to underestimate the movement. And using ai artistically is much more involved and takes actual skills then just writing in a prompt and clicking a button. Theres a whole world of this ai generation thing that produces much better images then a person would ever get from simply a prompt and a button.
For those that do underestimate it, irs cause you really dont understand it as much as you believe. There are techniques to control over how the image generation is handled then you can imagine, but you wont find it on most websites that charge a monthly subscription to. Im not trying to be mean here, i just want people to know, if you did understand Ai like you thinkn you do most of your complaints would vanish and any that remain will be forever changed because its much more complicated then you once thought. For those that do underestimate it i would tell them not look at what it can do now, ut wont stay like this, its getting better as we speak. It could open doors we didnt even know were there. It's far from reached its potential, the form it's in today is just the beginning. Learning it now would allow a person to take their time, or wait and crunch later to catch up.
What an interesting podcast from after the first half hour... for different reasons. Awkward at times. I was expecting the ai artist to have more than just a bunch of motion slideshows to be honest and to hear he's not getting paid for that is kinda mind blowing. I admire his honesty how do you make a living like that when you're creating stuff that nobodies asked for or willing to pay for? That fact is ai art is boring to most audience and the narrative of it only getting better is only appealing to artists that are just trying to survive in an industry that they may not be cut out for
Hi SoVS team!
First time viewer/listener here. I want to raise a topic for conversation that I think would be very important and interesting to explore on your podcast. I understand the concern that A LOT of artists have about Copyright theft, and I implore you to consider the following:
(Disclaimer: Similar to Rich, I’ve dedicated my life to so many different digital art mediums. Illustration, comics, animation (2D and 3D), acting, directing, visual effects, voice acting, and video game development. I’ve worked and DO work in all of these fields professionally for over a decade.)
If artists that are beating the "class action drum" against these platforms are successful, do they understand they are signing their own death warrant for independent commercial artists? If we make AI illegal for anyone without the legal copyright to MASSIVE data sets, it will only screws us (the artists) over. Because now that makes these magical content generators only available to massive companies, and we’ll all be left in the Stone Age, UNABLE TO COMPETE.
Great episode! Take home message I got is 1) Make your own opportunities by wearing many hats and don't be a one trick pony and 2)Working for your passion and working for a living are not necessarily the same thing. So I'll make explainer videos so I get paid and buy myself resources to make luchador comics :)
I think current LLM based generative AI solutions have already peaked in terms of what they can produce. Sure there can be minor improvements. But at the end of the day that tech is limited to whats in the database and how much stuff you can add there. It doesn´t learn or understand subject matter. So at best it will be photobash 2.0 as an artist tool. Current AI bubble will pop when big companies relealize that it won´t deliver return for the investments. LLMˋs will have they use cases for sure like in 3d animation fixing skinning problems with simulated datasets for example.
Interesting chat & thank you Rich. It will be intriguing for me to see how the behind the AI scenes develops. It’s already challenging to do the data centres, new film studios & power infrastructure to suit the current demands. I suspect the kick back to AI users will come soon when investors in all this want a return on their money.
I will also look forward to the stories & work people create regardless of how it’s made.
Cheers
AL
Amen
Started listening to this podcast but then I had to come here for the visuals. Rich's mentioned beer commercial definitely looks like something straight out of AI - Uncanny Valley to full effect. Rich says this is "on brand" with the tone of the podcast, but... I don't know. What I can say is that I've never had the luxury to become an one-trick pony and like Rich, I've had to try my hand out at many things to bring home the bacon. For sure I love the idea of AI cutting up my work load on a fraction of the time but there are just too many thorny issues with copyright and ethics and plagiarism and overall mediocre output for me to be comfortable with it. But while we're digressing at this, Rich is making the big bucks selling to Big Pharma while... we're not And I've been around tech circles enough to know how ethics can easily fall by the wayside in the name of profits. My human artist side still rebels, and bigly so, against that.
While I enjoyed the episode and appreciated both sides, I think I’m siding with Lee on this one. I’m ready to stop talking about AI and just go back to making art.
The whole AI conversation is still not over for good reason, especially in my head. I want to be a hater and I want art to have human soul but this podcast made me remember that AI can be awesome if used by an underdog (not a corpo) who can't afford a studio/actors. In other words not as a substitute for effort but where effort was not possible.
Good examples: AI voice music covers (I don't care about Frank Sinatra or FNAF music, but paired together they can be amazing), original country/rap/rock operas enhanced by changing the artist's voice to Spongebob, and AI-visuals-enhanced horror videos where the author's only skill is writing. The beer commercial in the podcast isn't bad, the audience knows the jank is clear and accepted it as funny AI. In that context it would've been worse if human-made.
Bad examples: Using AI in concept art or any corpo product; I know concept art was already derivative photobashing from whatever was randomly available/inspirational, but I don't care. I want a human vision with no taint of AI because I haven't crossed that mental hurdle. If AI shortcuts are being taken when you have big skill + big money, the product will end up worse. AI compositions will also probably have tells for a long time; I notice them in some 3D animated shows.
And to followup with Will’s point. Yes we are here to make a living and following his example he hired people to take over the things that he didnt had time for and he grew his business. If you look at the Why Files, they have grown to a multimillion follower channel and they use ai for their images and video, BUT, they have hired a full production team, editors, writers, community mods, etc etc. ai allowed them to share the stories they want to say but they didnt took anyones job, they created a whole new enterprise and hired talent.
Like it or not, ai is here to stay. We all need to pivot and make lemonade out of lemons or be left in the dust like the horse and buggy.
I liked what Jake said in an earlier podcast, where the problem is more with the industry than AI. In my mind yeah you have to pivot, but maybe you can pivot to a better (less mainstream) field of art.
Even ignoring AI, mainstream animation used to be the only animation, now indie YT anims are excelling in parallel. Mainstream AAA games used to be the only good games, but I've sworn them off; the indies are making the fun stuff.
So I'm 25 minutes in, and I'm not entirely sure what the point of this conversation actually is. I don't want to sound dismissive or mean, but it seems like aimless ramblings up to this point.
Yeah, first half is a lot of Rich sharing his history as an artist which is good groundwork information. The conversation gets good about 35min in.
@@jakeparker44 Rad, thanks for the heads up, I ended up setting it down for a bit, but I'll make sure to pick it up around that point.
I think the biggest thing about using AI is that it really seems to only serve as a replacement for stock footage and imagery.
I’m sure that it makes multidisciplinary’s (and advertiser/designer’ss specifically) life easier, but I’m still not entirely sold on its value or place in art and publishing. Sure, it wills get better, but in the mean time it’s just kinda meh. And I say that as a person who’s been playing with it and trying to find a way it could help my business and process.