AI Art is Inevitable 

Play World of Tanks here: tanks.ly/3y4XWx1 Thank you World of Tanks for sponsoring this video. During registration use the code TANKMANIA to get for free: -7 Days Premium Account -250k credits -Premium Tank Excelsior (Tier 5) -3 rental tanks for 10 battles each: Tiger 131 (Tier 6), Cromwell B (Tier 6), and T34-85M (Tier 6) The promo code is only for new players during registration.

This reminded me of that one time when I was going to my university with my father, he asked why I didn't brought any books with me, I told him that we don't need books or textbooks now as we can do everything on our computers. He then laughed and told me that when he was at university (1980s) his professor told the students that one day the education system will eradicate the all need for books and will replace it with digital devices, and back then this felt like a Sci Fi movie for him.

As an artist, I don't think AI is, or ever has been the actual root of the problem. But AI has made me realize is just how little most people actually care for "art" as opposed to "pretty pictures". Your experiences, your insight, and your creativity are all entirely meaningless when at the end of the day the only thing anyone actually cares about is whether a thing is pleasant to look at.

Finally, something to make corpo art even more souless.

I was panicking about AI art months ago, but even if this stuff is inevitable, I won't allow this to stop me from being an artist in general.

man that one hit too close to home, I've never been too worried about ai art, I just didn't think about it much, but as an artist who's always been drawing digitally and thinking "man those people who had to draw on paper sure had a lot of patience" and realizing in the future that's how people could see what I make now? feels like I'm already getting old

Ah sweet! AI-made horrors beyond my comprehension!

My biggest fear is that art is going to be so customized, we won't appreciate art together anymore. Everyone will just be in their own bubble.

I think that AI Art is a product of our post-pandemic era, in which we demand entertainment faster and faster, to consume more and more. At least 5 years ago, it was still unthinkable that an AI could make art (it was a science fiction thing), and that even the day they replaced physical jobs would be when we were going to allow ourselves to be creative. Now it's the opposite, people see being creative as something obsolete, they want automated art to stay focused on continuing to work.

No matter what happens, never underestimate the eternal human drive for self-expression.

I draw a lot of comparisons to this coming shift for artists to the end of skilled craftsmen in the industrial revolution. Imagine being a skilled carpenter, you love your craft and can make the most beautiful furniture. It takes weeks, even months, to produce a full set but you sustain yourself and your family comfortably on this business. Then along comes a furniture factory, working around the clock with basic automation (machine tools) and dozens of unskilled laborers who can pump out equivalent quality furniture in days. Your skills with hand tools and slow, methodical woodwork can not compete with the endless tide of cheap chairs and you find the price you can charge drop like a stone. If you are exceptionally lucky, or famous, you can shift into the luxury market, but more likely you are just doomed and will have to abandon your profession entirely. Entire communities were destroyed this way and social upheaval was rife. By now woodworking has become just a hobby, long since relegated for something to do in your free time and not for money. Very view people care how their furniture was made, just how it looks and how cheap it is.

The AI will never have "happy accidents"

As someone who draws in their free time, I'd rather have the actual skill to draw than have a program give the impression to people that I can. The feeling of making something with your hands is priceless. I love to draw with graphite, charcoal or colored pencil and I can actually show that I made it. Now with digital art, it will be harder to tell if a digital artist actually made that or a AI program.

See, the part about AI not being viable for profit because of the copyright problem they're having right now provides *some* hope, but Disney has proven that any big company with enough money can easily influence copyright law so it works to their advantage. I think the fate of AI art will ultimately be decided by what the executives at media giants like Disney think about it. Will they find that they can save millions by improving AI technology themselves and changing the law in its favor to bypass the need for humans or will they be offended and trust that human artists will bring them more success and ensure that the law remains antagonistic to AI? I'm very worried that the shortsightedness and focus on cost cutting common in corporate culture will sway them in AI's direction.

I think that the part that scares me the most was when you say "In time, nobody cared" Scary stuff dude...

i just wish they got AI to do jobs before they got it to do art

As an Elder Scrolls fan, while they’re admittedly hilarious, the rise of Dagoth Ur and other TES AI memes created by ElevenAI is kind of scary. For those who don’t know, ElevenAI allows you to take someone’s voice and adapt it so that it will say whatever you write down. Sometimes it can sound horrifically real with breaths and proper speech patterns, even emotion. What worries me is that will make voice actors completely obsolete, and maybe even cause people to lose the right to their own voices.

As someone into Copyright Reform/Fair use advocacy, something people overlook is laws/rulings set vs AI art could impact Copyright/Fair use for human artists, opening them to lawsuits , and that a lot of corporations and lobbying groups (the same ones people worry will use AI & are doing the Internet Archive lawsuit) are actually sneakily masking as or working alongside "pro-artist" organizations to expand Copyright law and erode Fair use even in non-AI contexts/against human artists, under the guise of standing up for Artist's jobs/rights (which to be clear, I do think AI costing artists jobs is a valid concern: But many groups only pretend to care). Plus, a lot of people misunderstand how Copyright and Fair Use and how AI works: So here's my clarification on all this: First, context for other viewers who may not understand how Fair Use works (Obligatory disclaimer that IANAL and that my comment here is based on US law, for other countries it might be different) The main thing in fair use determination is if the derivative work is "transformative". This is a legal concept that basically is asking is the derivative work is putting enough of a new spin on the original in both/either a literal and abstract sense. This is an IMMENSELY complicated concept though, If something is transformative is also just one aspect of many the courts consider when weighing a fair use defense: There's also Parody claims; there's the "4 pillars" (Purpose of a work, Nature of a work, how much of a work is used, and commercial impact), which a lot of sites erroneously act like are the only parts of Fair Use; and a whole host of other things. Also, Judges can and do invent new standards or weigh certain aspects more or less: You can satisfy a lot of requirements and still be infringing, or you can satisfy very little and still be fair use....But being transformative is often a key part of it, and it's what makes rulings against AI potentially damaging to human fair use too. This video brings up the point that currently, the fact AI generated images aren't made by humans means they don't get Copyright protection. this is true (though I suspect it will change: the bar for the minimum amount of originality needed to qualify for copyright is pretty low, and the Naruto vs Slater monkey photo case may actually AID AI copyright claims, I'll clarify on this in a followup reply), but this is a SEPARATE LEGAL QUESTION from if AI/AI generated images are Fair Use or infringement as derivative works:Courts have already had cases where automated processes and scraping have won Fair Use claims. For example, the Google Books case (Look up the article "Torching the Modern-Day Library of Alexandria"). Mind you, there's a lot different between that case and what AI is doing, but the point is that being non-human doesn't disqualify a Fair Use defense. In fact, I actually think, for better or worse, AI has a rather strong claim for being transformative: The AI themselves are made by looking at thousands or even millions of images, and compares them and tags them (which humans actually do help with) to glean stuff like composition, lighting, linework etc principals tied to specific prompt terms. The AI itself does not directly contain any of the actual image it's trained on, only similarities and differences between them, and it's not an image but is code describing those trends and patterns. Imagine a text description of an artist's style: This would obviously not be infringing (and in fact, style itself isn't even covered by US copyright law). If the OUTPUT images are transformative is gonna depend: If you ask it to spit out an image of Spider-Man on a bike, then well, Spiderman is still covered by Copyright. And if you're asking the AI to specifically modify an existing image rather then to generate a new one, and you can tell what the original image is, that's probably infringing too. But if you ask it to generate a "Dinosaur in a swimming pool", then chances are the image it spits out isn't going to significantly resemble any one image the AI was trained on, and in fact, may resemble any given input image LESS then if a human artist drew the same image relative to the references they used, since a human artist is only gonna be using a few references, not thousands which dilute each other. Here's where I get to the "People are advocating for anti-AI measures which could backfire on artists" stuff. Let's assume for a second that a court case happens which establishes that a AI output image which doesn't specifically resemble any one input work, or the AI itself, is found to not be transformative. Or that "Style" is now protected by Copyright. What are the wider impacts of this? As I said, legally, there's not inherently a distinction between AI and human made art from a Transformative-ness perspective. That ruling COULD absolutely create a situation where now even real human artists can get sued for their art happening to use similar composition or lighting or style to another piece of art or from a media corporation: Imagine people being sued by Toei for making "Dragon Ball style art" that doesn't actually feature DB characters or elements. If you think this sounds crazy, look at Music copyright infringement cases. It is FREQUENT for pieces of music to face lawsuits over incidental similarity because there's only so many notes you can use (and this is ironically why Music AI are only trained on royalty free music, unlike art AI), or all the drama that happens with Content ID And this is PRECISELY what industry giants like Disney, Getty, the RIAA, MPAA, Adobe, etc want. People think these corporations are pro AI and they want to fire human artists and use AI instead (and, well, they might, I think that's a real concern) but they're actually playing both sides: They're also lobbying against AI and are suing many of them, and many of their lobbying groups and represenatives are either working alongside or are pretending to be pro artist organizations and activists, so they can push for more copyright protections and fair use limits as a way to "stop AI", but then also have more tools to go after smaller artists and creators online. You know the Concept Art Association's Anti AI fundraiser? It's working with the Copyright Alliance, which is made up of those corporations and also were behind SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, and all the other bills from the past decade that would have set up RU-vid style automatic filters on every website. The Human Artistry Campaign? Also working with a bunch of industry lobbying groups like the RIAA and Author's Guild (which is also a pro-author union, but it, the Artist's Rights Alliance, and other some orgs which are ostensibly pro-worker tend to also support industry lobbying efforts) The latter of which is also one of the groups suing the Internet Archive for lending digital books, with the IA suit being supported by the other organizations as well. I don't wanna diss people, but some major anti AI/Pro artist Social media accounts are also celebrating the Internet Archive suit, framing it as somehow being a "victory against AI", or even cases where HUMAN photographers and artists get sued and lose their Fair use defenses (I will name some names: neilturkewitz is straight up a former RIAA representive). There was also a Washpost opinion piece claiming to be "pro artist" by a musician which are likewise by industry mouthpieces who repeats the same decades old claims about the internet hurting sales and, again, advocating for even human artists like Andy Worhol to lose Fair Use cases. On the flip side, normally pro-artist groups like Creative Commons have taken the position that AI training shouldn't constitute Copyright Infringement. To be clear, it is possible that AI could be found to be Transformative, but still not Fair Use on the grounds of it's commercial disruption, which would limit AI without hurting Fair Use for human artists, but given the amount of lobbying and literal astrotrufing media corporations are already doing and their involvement with lawsuits, and how historically the courts and lawmakers have listened to them and not small artists and creators, I think it's more likely we'd all get screwed then a surgical, AI targeted ruling/law. If people really want to fight against AI in a way that's actually pro-artist and won'trisk empowering massive media corporations with expanded copyright laws that will enable them to DMCA people even more then they already do, then people should be working with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Fight For the Future instead: Both of those organizations do a ton of pro online privacy and user created content advocacy and legal work, and have involved All of that said, here's my personal take: I think AI isn't the problem here, it's corporate power imbalances and capitalism. Nobody cares if you get an AI to make art of Goku eating a hotdog, just like how nobody cares about DBZ fanart even if it's without permission. On the flip side, people WOULD care if Disney aped the style of a smaller creator even without using AI and even if they were legally in the clear. The power imbalance between the corporate giants and small creators is what really matters, and I think people are losing sight of that. I also think that risking gutting of Fair Use or setting up this entire parallel set of IP rules for human vs AI driven art (and as the video says, that line would be murky: How much human involvement is needed for it to count as human?) just to preserve the status quo of employers vs workers is an imperfect solution, especially when automation is going to hit tons of other industries where you CAN'T keep the status quo in place like that. I think we need to move past the expectation that people need to work to make ends meet.... but we're a long away from that.

As someone who doesn't make art, what unnerves me about AI art is the ease at which it can be mass-produced. With the human artists that I follow, or RU-vidrs that I support financially, I am supporting them for their art -- or what's sometimes called "content" now. I like their art, I think it is good, and I justify my parasocial attachment through my like of that art, maybe in a similar way to favorite authors before the Internet. AI has no human backing to that, but what it can do is hit many of the right notes to make art or stories. And that verisimilitude will only increase over time. And that scares me on a personal level, because if AI art fills the same niche as art now eventually you're going to get more people who are overly attached to AI programmatic generations.

I don’t care if an AI can make art faster than me, it’ll never live the experience that led to the art in the first place

AI will not "kill art". Art is a concept that has remolded itself over the course of generations. AI will irrevocably change art and make it impossible to return to the way things were, yes, but with all that unmatched convenience comes the sheer potential to break boundaries and create something previously thought impossible. It will require incredible talent & dedication, but it is possible for AI artists to take advantage of the technology at hand and achieve more with it. 99.99% of them won't, but at least there will be a few that do.

Thing is, Photographers never snapped a picture and declared "this is a painting"

My main fear is not that AI Art will become better than human art, because by definition it cannot perform the same spur of the moment decision-making and weird details that only humans can, but that it'll become "good enough" to suit the needs of mass media. This'll drive away the humanity of the primary consumption of entertainment and everything the average person will consume will just be a rehash of the same training material and prompts, mathematically sorted for maximum audience viewing retention and commercial potential. Human art will still be there, but it'll be niche and only those entrenched within the industry will be able to live off it, if even that. Maybe we'll have AI controlled drones flying around warzones, algorithmically designed to capture photos most likeley to win press awards. The human experience will be cheapened and we're all worse off for it.

Although controversial, AI will inevitably speed up the amount of "art" that will be released into the wild in the coming decade.

As an addendum, all the current AI art generators ban a lot of "offensive" content from being made, so they can't be used to generate any sort of porn, erotica, gore, etc. So even if AI art becomes more commonplace, they'll likely continue to be a thriving market for human artists to produce such content. The same is true of text generation AI like Chat GPT, which tends to refuse prompts about heavy subjects in general, which keeps it from really being able to compete with most adult fiction authors, even if the algorithm itself were to improve substantially.

I mean the movies made by Disney and other big studios already feel like AI generated movies that try to get the biggest amount of people for max profit

As someone who is dumping thousands of dollars into art school in hopes of becoming an animator under the assumption that there will always be a demand I thank you for making this video to reinforce this bit of existential dread into my life. I when I graduated high school the best ai art could do was some very abstract pieces of art and when I start college it still couldn't do faces without being extremely uncanny now its actually so good and only getting better I dread to think that within a decade of graduating everything I will have learned will have become completely obsolete.

As a writer who can't even draw a stick figure properly, I look forward to being able to one day show what I have in my head my effectively. Preferably as a blueprint for the real artist.

I believe AI art is God's punishment for the fact that most artists on Twitter are really annoying.

I'm still waiting on A.I.-generated food…

I’ve already seen ads using Ai generated art and I had a “prove you’re human” thing where it was using AI generated art. Because I don’t think “people playing hockey” hold two sticks, one in each hand. It’s so creepy at this stage and there’s just something absolutely unsettling about it.

one day we will do away with prompts entirely, and the AI will watch your face through the front facing camera looking for signs of boredom, constantly altering the narrative to keep you clicking “next episode” forever

As an artist, want to say, that main thing about art is idea, and advanced and more conscious AI will help skip the boring part and fokus on idea! It's great! Everyone can be an artist without 15 years of practice, just make their ideas come to life! And if your opinion is that nothing must change, or people will lose jobs... well... if nothing would change, we would never improve, we would stuck in 1800's, when same thing happened, but with workers of factories, you can't stop time

its like people ignored every scifi book/movie that was every created lol

There was a few Voyager episodes, where people 'programmed' in Holo Decks. Basically walking around, and giving orders to the computer by voice commands. "No, no, more... airy,' or something. And the whole room would 'change' subtly. And they just kept doing that, until they had a whole interactive murder mystery or something. Really think that's an hopeful view of the future what this tech can allow people to create.

There’s one thing that I find strange how nobody has brought this up, AI art takes photos from the internet, if people use current AI too much too fast then the AI is stuck in a catch 22 unless it stops taking images from the internet, but by doing so it also limits how much data it has. Ai art might end up destroying itself if it’s overused, and as an artist I find that hysterical. And no, they won’t sift through billions of images to find the AI art and remove it, that’s physically impossible without major errors even with todays computers (hell idk if quantum computers could do that))

3:30 you earned my subscription as long as you promise to keep doing top tier ad-reads like that one 👍

Shit reminds me of wall E. How everything is automated and humans are there just to consume, never to do anything

I'm just gonna stick with shaping my creations the old fashioned way.

"I believe art should consist of two things. An artist thinking of an idea, and then using those skills to give idea form. and that second part is the most important aspects of making art."-KnowledgeHusk I do loved the AI artworks I favorite in Devinart and Pixiv, but I personally prefer traditionally made artworks (both 2D and 3D) myself. Especially drawn artworks. That is how I intend to make art myself once my I finally get my career started. "At best it could save countless hours of the most mundane parts of creating art, but at worst it could destory it entirely."- KnowledgeHusk

With out photography we might not have any paintings by Francis Bacon. He relied heavily on it, and he's one of the greatest artist ever. Today there's no need to commission a portrait from a painter, every one has a camera in their phone. But they do. I know because, I'm a painter. A large portion of my commission work is portraiture. Art is more than aesthetics, it's a connection.

9:21 well impressionist painting actually took 6 hours or less. It was all about capturing the moment. Great video regardless 👍

One of the last points mentioned in the video is actually one of the main reasons I'm really not that worried about AI art as much as others are: AI art is too unpredictable and it doesn't give you that much control. With previous technological improvements in art, they're embraced not only by how much easier they make certain tasks, but by how much control they give the artist. Photography didn't just replace location/portrait paintings because of how fast it was to take a picture, but by how much control the photographer had and how fast they could make impulse decisions. Photographers could easily change the camera angle/focus/lighting/etc. in a way that would be impossible for painters to do impulsively without redoing the whole thing. Same with 3D animation and 2D. Another big one is the usual complaint with Marvel using so much CG compared to practical effects, but the main reason they do that is so they can have perfect control of how the final frame looks. Entire suits can change during post-production to match exactly what the director wanted. With AI, sure, you could theoretically do the same thing, but you won't actually be able to accurately control what those suits look like, which removes the whole benefit of using CG suits painted over practical on-set ones. You just got to hope that the AI will take your prompts and give you what you want. I think at best, AI could be useful for very fringe cases and coming up with first drafts, (I think concept art is the one industry that can truly be threatened by this) but if you're looking for a very specific result, AI is really not that helpful or practical. So long as we're referring to AI as the "write down a prompt and see what comes up," then I just don't see that changing.

Interesting comparison there at the end, I've never heard of that comparison before, really good vid

The best parallel i can think of is watches and the quartz revolution. You went from an industry based around incredibly fine precise workmanship that was uprooted to the point you can give away cheap LCD watches as a free gift. Mechanical watches still exist even at an entry level but the broad appeal just quietly died and even digital watches are dying a death when everyone has a smartphone. A bleak outlook but art won't die, likely just become a niche.

18:45 idk. I quite like hyper realistic paintings. I think the skill gone into it to make it look almost like a photo is really cool.

I guess it's because I'm an old-school color pencil and pencil artists but they can never seem to get my style of art exactly perfect. I mean the weird thing is that there's like a weird logic to the imperfections to the point where I can actually point out the differences. I'm thinking this will be like how walking is today vs what it was in the old days. Something that you do yourself for pleasure or just to do

i would unironically watch pizzatastic, and the sequel

What a well thought out video. Didn’t even feel like 20 minutes because you kept it interesting all the way through👍

2074 is a laughably conservative estimate for when you'll be able to create entire movies from text prompts, i would be surprised if we didn't have it by the end of the decade (barring some kind of anti-AI revolution, AI takeover, etc. etc.)

And we couldn't have AI do the boring paperwork instead.

I love the new channel name and direction, and the animating!

More legislation needs to happen. Unfortunately most of the people who write laws still haven't figured out how to use email.

I think AI Art should absolutely be open source, because stealing drawings from artists and then not even allowing the artists to use it is stupid.

What scares me about AI is that creative skills like art, programming ect. will diminish in value and all we'll care about in the future is social skills. As someone who has terrible charisma and low social skills, who never made a single friend, what carried me through life was not my connections but my useful labor. In a world where a machine can replace my labor, I become completely useless to others, because I can't provide the value of being an interesting person.

Very nice video. I enjoyed a lot your use of generated imagery to tell this story.

I want add to the "Sufficient human creation" part of the video. In the Kashanova case, the author did edit some of the AI images with photoshop. But the USCO did not determine it sufficient enough to reward copyright. From what I remember, they said that the changes were too minor and needed to be noticeably different from the original. It still doesn't answer how much human input needed, but it can't just be simple changes from what I gather. I heard from some that 50-40% has to change, but I cannot confirm. Anyway Great video!

You summarized the issue so well, especially the parallel with Charles Baudelaire

It's almost as if painting and photography branched off to be two separate fields of art instead of one replacing the other

The thing about progress is that you can get in front of it and either lead it or be lead by it - or - you can get run over by it.

The World of Tanks advert was better than some full videos I've seen on RU-vid.

I also agree on your point about different art mediums. Traditional painters and traditional animators still exists and their craft is expensive.

This has been a perpetual subject of fascination for me, and I love that I just clicked off of a computerphile video about glitch tokens. The uncanny valley is a mind-bendingly rich source of artistic inspiration for me. I love the channel, man. Keep up the amazing work!

The way I see it, I just think AI generated imagery will be branched off into a different genre entirely, and its overall relevance after the big AI boom is going to be reduced to just simple tools that artists can used to assist their original work. In my experience, AI is most useful as small tools that can assist the human in doing daily tasks, and this AI-generated media won't mean much if there is no sense or meaning to it. I believe that people will instead learn to use it as a tool rather than a replacement, because AI can really only parrot existing work.

The problem with the AI art-photography analogy is that, while photography did inspire people to create different styles of art than realism and broaden people’s horizons, AI art can make any kind of art. There is no other style that people can go to to exert their creativity. AI art can do all styles a human can with ease, leaving all human art obsoleted. Unless we create a whole new art form that AI cannot replicate, no kind of art is safe from being totally replaced by drawing automata.

It's weird to think though, if AI art kills real art, it will just continue to recycle the art it has already been trained on. No new styles would ever be created again.

>Orson Welles voicing Kermit the future is freaking dope after all

Very thought provoking video, the kind of stuff i enjoy from you

It always bothered me that nobody cared when AI was just doing writing, like writers aren't artists or something. :v

I think my biggest annoyance with the current batch of AI bandwagoners is their insistence that THEY made the art. I would respect AI art more if we all thought like the copyright office and agreed no one owned it and no one made it. This gets trickier with human-made art cleaned up by AI but I have no delusions that I had much responsibility for a piece I generated with a couple of sentences.

Something I always feel gets missed is that art isn't solely for interpretation and expression. It can serve a purpose. If a tabletop DM just wants an image to give their players, why not - it's something which they feel represents their idea well enough. While some tablecloths might be a finely woven tapestry fit to display in a museum, most people just care about something to drape over their table which looks decent enough and matched the furniture. Art can be a tool to apply, not just a form for expression.

This is a really well thought out video

Great as always!

I'm genuinely both curious and terrified of what will happen when there isn't a single thing left that can't be done by a machine. Where will we work? How will we make money? Would we all be broke barely able to get food or would we have our lives completely solved without a single problem left?

AI and it's consequences are proving to be disaster to the art community.

The most unrealistic part of that opening is Netflix still being around by 2074

It's ironic I was talking about these exact subjects the other day with a friend. Great video for sure.

If ai art is inevitable then we live in a dystopian future.

I don't have any patience anymore to participate in the AI art debate, because all it does it take a toll on my mental health. What I will say is: The idea of a future where you can ask a computer to generate all of your entertainment with no human intent behind it at all is utterly dystopic to me. I want to hear people's thoughts and share experiences with others. I want to hear YOUR experiences (random person reading this). You can't have that if all your content is specifically catered to extremely obscure and specific interests. How will we be able to talk about a cool movie? Social media algorithms have already made society worse in a lot of ways. Shoving the ethics debate behind AI completely aside, there's a big difference between a human being behind whatever technology exists in the future versus giving away all of our creativity and innovation to computers. I'm sure that there are SOME people out there who love the idea of being plugged into the matrix, but definitely not me lol.

Based on my experience as a programmer, they way a lot of technologies progress is a bit like that old math problem where you keep traveling half the remaining distance to the destination. You get further with each iteration, but there’s always some remaining portion. AI art will probably have an element of that. The other paradigm I see a lot is that the advancement of technology allows for a more advanced end product. For example, there’s no way we could have the games and other software we have today if we still used punch cards or were writing machine language commands one at a time. It’s likely that AI art will allow some works that would have been impractical to be made. It’s hard to say what those are, though since they mostly don’t exist yet. Not saying there aren’t going to be pitfalls along the way-we’re in for a bumpy ride over the next 10-20 years, but it’s going to be interesting-I guarantee that.

17:15 The bit about the invention of cameras reminded me of something Alfred Hitchcock said in an interview. "Technical perfection can only create boredom, because it only reproduces nature. Why the hell would anyone go to a movie when they can have the real thing? So imitating nature can only lead to the death of an artform."

This sounds terrifying, and i think i mught get an existential crisis from this video

I love the assumption that we'll always have power and that we'll never be cast back into the darkness.

I personally dont give a fuck about AI stuff, I find its fun to toy around with. However the second companies start replacing animators, voice actors, writers etc with robots, then I'm gonna have a problem.

Inevitable..? It's already here. Thousands of deviantart accounts, which get subscriptions and paid prints, are nothing but AI generated pictures of women and cartoon animal women. Ubisoft is already using AI to write dialogue in their games.

I think like how the camera made realistic depictions as art redundant it will simply make things like digital art eye candy art without a higher meaning redundant. People are just going to actually have a motivation for their art beyond pretty picture and probably turn to post-modern styles. The famous artists of the future are going to be people like Banksy not the millionth VFX artist

That's some nice fence riding you did there

my mans spittin fax fr fr ong. thank you for sharing your outlook on this Mr. Husk

One thing that I haven't personally seen discussed yet with A.I. generated art (or more specifically, the tech bros who want it to out-and-out replace human artists), but I can't stop thinking about is, in the far future, let's say 2300, where all art is A.I. generated, there just isn't going to be any more innovation in the art field. Today, you can't look at something created by Steve Ditko and say it's the same as a Michelangelo. Sure, they're both artists that created art, but there's a vast swath of difference in styles and methods of creation. The artform changed. But, in 2300 when all art is text-prompted compilations pulled from hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pre-existing art, there's no innovation to be had. There's not some young, budding artist that has a style all their own that will revolutionize the art world. It will forever be the same remixes. Sure, it's a pool made with millions of samples, but it's a *stagnant* pool made with millions of samples. Naturally, in an A.I. generated art world, there will still be niches to be found. I can easily see a new niche of artists arising to fill this gap I've outlined above, where their whole job will be to simply create new art in their own style that's purely used to give the A.I. new references to pull from. Already you can see it with artists creating unique pieces to train A.I. in a way that's more ethical than just ripping art from Google Images. And of course, this all heavily depends on where in the graph we are. Are we at or very near to a plateau, and this is where A.I. generation stalls out for a few years or decades? Or are we still in the midst of climbing our way up to the peak? These are questions that can only ever be answered with hindsight, but if I had to guess... I unfortunately have to say that we're still climbing to the peak. Only time will tell.

This is going to put artists out of work. And unlike people who worked in mines, this is putting people out of work with their passions. I mean maybe there are some people who passionately work in mines and that’s all they’ve ever wanted to do with their lives. But there are a lot of people who don’t and only do that because they don’t have the money, resources, or time to pursue their passions. No one is an artist because they were “forced to” or because they had limited options. Art is already a frowned upon profession that the only people who pursue it are the people who want to.

Great questions asked in this video

Ai art is like watching robots compete in sport championships.

Honestly, I think that a lot of the argument comes down to "how much time have you invested into creating something", but my personal opinion is that creativity isn't dependent on the time spent to hone skills or create the work itself. Does it matter if a writer pops out a book every year or spends a decade to write his next one - if they are both equally enjoyable, insightful and/or well-written? To me, art is creativity+technology. The technology part becomes easier, as it ideally should be, lowering the threshold for entry. The creativity though is all up to a human (at the moment at least). I personally think it's great that the threshold is lower. It's like this with music. A huge torrent of musicians have been able to release their music into the world, and there's so much more choice to find what exactly you want - it's amazing for me! Plus, DAW software has made it easier to record, you can just record a very hard part in multiple pieces instead of trying to do it all at once, which is again good for expressing creativity. But before, you had to learn to play for a long time, had to assemble a band and impress the gatekeepers - record labels, concert venues, distributors, etc. - to get your music out there. And finally, I think it's also important to acknowledge - and I don't mean that as an offense or devalidation in any sort of way - that all the artists, be it visual, musical or literary, have actually accumulated a sum of knowledge from a huge chunk of previous human history, thousands of years of it. We build on top of what was created before. The AI does the same, only unfortunately - and I do think this is a real issue - the people who it affects are still thankfully alive and well, and this can take away from their income. But this is a different question - of AI, automation and capitalism in its current form :)

As someone who makes digital art, I usually use Topaz Gigapixel AI to enhance the art I already spent the time to create, and I've even used EbSynth as a way to speed up the finishing touches on animations, so yes you are right when you say that AI can be used as a tool to make your art look better, but should not be used as a form of cheating in order for some people to claim credibility for artwork that was generated by a sentence that they put into an algorithm.

9:49 Third world, accustomed to piracy at industrial scales: YOU CAN *OWN* IMAGES?

Correction on the monkey case, the court never ruled that the monkey owned the image, Peta just kept suing the photographer so he gave up and said the monkey owned the image

One of my biggest existential fears about AI generated art is that should it proliferate to a certain threshold, it’s quite likely that any corporation or other group of people with the proper motivation could start a push to view human made art as obsolete or at the very least not worthwhile, thus delegitimizing creative self expression’s value as a whole. And if self expression doesn’t mean much in the eyes of the greater populace, what will replace it as a source of meaningful contribution to the community?

All this does too is it will make humans more tech dependent and creatively disabled. Also the tech is evolving still who's to say you just need to write prompt and that will be enough. No more tweaking at odd things or such.

The seal with the dial-up sound at 2:29 killed me.

This video gave me a headache and took my will to live... great video 10/10