i just want to say a lot of the greats control-z’d by painting a new layer over their canvas. just because digital art gives us the ability to undo things we don’t like in seconds doesn’t mean we aren’t working through our mistakes. digital art has allowed me to explore so many ideas and emotions as an artist, because it has made experimentation more controllable. there have been many nights where i’ve worked hours on a piece, to not have it go the way i wanted, to hit pause and come back weeks or months later to work through it with fresh eyes/ideas.
that doesn't discount his point at all though, starting over a new canvas is completely different than just making it like the mistake never happened, and when you have that ability, I don't think most people would choose to the keep the mistake and build upon it. Now you could argue that his point of view and what makes art valuable is different than yours that would be harder to refute, but you don't make an coherent argument here.
@@takeuchi5760 he mentioned when we’re able to just control z, we aren’t training ourselves to work through mistakes, thus limiting our ability to expand our creativity. my argument is some of the greats, who are seen as pioneers also didn’t work through their mistakes, or at least painted over ideas they didn’t like. being able to dial in ideas we have helps to expand our creativity, because we’re able to push limits.
@@iamslf I totally agree. Digital art gave me the option to experiment in a vacuum basically. My first few drawings were... crap and I was working on creating my style. Once I had a tablet and Krita, I could play around with it and train my hand to do the curves I see in my mind, use the colors I want. If I change my mind I swap them out. But it was mostly to practice, before showing the world. And once I got better, those skills transferred to traditional art as well. I drew a cartoony but realistic woman on the first ever try (well, second really.) In a pose I have never done. It is the mindset that is key. I keep many mistakes I make in digital art, so I don't make them next time. :)
@@takeuchi5760 But his point it still is incorrect. In digital you still make mistakes, you just erase them more efficiently than on paper. Do people not erase their mistakes whe doing traditional? When I paint with gouache I certainly do!! I cover them up! And I think people who paint with acrylics and oils do it as well.
The problem I see is that people everywhere are already underpaid, exploited and living paycheck to paycheck. And corporations will never care about it, the point made about AI devalueing a HUGE part of the industry is the scary part
@@diegoloxoroyea, but you can't really expect them to immediately (and willingly) just share their wealth, no matter how hard and detailed we explained it to them, and the authorities probably will be on their side, for now, this AI protests are an effort not to give them any more power than what they have now If AI was really used by artists for drafts, ideas, and those things that the AI bros tell us, I don't think the rejection would be as big as this, the fact that it's not artists who use it, and that used by companies to replace artists, when art and language are one of the most basic things about being human, and yet created by something that isn't even alive, is pretty depressing
I think this is a problem for most jobs and we as a society have to find another way of distributing wealth than by paying people (in the best case) by their work performance.
I think the optimistic view has a flaw or two: no, it wont be artists that exploit this pseudo-tool. Its devastation will be vast because non-creatives will indeed replace creatives. Secondly, comparisons to other technology are fairly inaccurate. Replacing filmstock with digital did not replace the photographer. Styluses replaced pencils, not animators. And word processing replaced typewriters, not authors. Encyclopedias went online, and the internet itself houses tons of info. But ai will write the info. It will change and redraft the encyclopedia, history, story, and therefore culture. Ai will replace animators, writers, storyboard artists, musicians, and DPs. If there are directors, they wont need to be the talents they are today. They will be the non-creatives above. comparing it to chess is simply bizarre. A computer knowing everything is not the same as human competition. A machine that can flawlessly throw 3 point shots in basketball might be interesting technically. But pitting it against Steph Curry doesnt make for competition. The human quality in art is like the competition. Ai will replace the need for artists by making two computers play chess. The human loss will be real - but less transparent than in competition. People also instinctively know the loss of human competition. They can see it. No one cares that the fastest person in the world cannot outrun a sports car. But people wont see the loss as readily as the artist gettinf replaced by ai. No, ai wont take away your paints. But it will steer our culture, as it replaces art with sim, as it writes our stories for us, and as it dehumanizes us all. Now is the time to see it for what it is. It is not a hammer. It is not a pen evolving into a stylus. It is not a human finding serendipity in mistakes, it is not filmstock going digital. It is the nono particles in our “food.” It is the cricket flour replacement. It is a nuclear bomb. It is an x-ray, that might be fine once a year with a lead vest on the rest of your body… but might not be good pointed at your gonads non-stop for the foreseeable future. It is the lobotomy of our day. It is giving heroine to infants when they are teething. It is bloodletting to heal wounds. It is the infinity gauntlet, and Thanos will indeed snap. Technology is not always used, and not always good to use, just because it exists and just because you can. But perhaps “just because” is better than as a short cut around talent. Is it just a tool? Sure. But so was the icepick they used… to carve up your brain… the best new advancement in science to the cure anxiety in college students plagued by study, or to calm hysterical women. I must say: this is the best video I have yet seen discussing ai. So kudos. I respect this very much - and a lot of good points and perspectives were shared. And while ai might be here to stay. And might truly take over. In my opinion - we cannot shout enough about the ethics, about the dangers, and about the losses.
Very good comment!!! We can sit all day discussing it artist to artist about how it will affect us, but never should we just give up and let it walk all over us, or never should we stop warking of the dangers and ethics!!! Artists face so much vitriol from the people who use AI, when we simply don't want our work to be in the datasets without our consent.
On the other hand, the Printing Press put scribes out of work The Luddites, the guys who destroyed machines, did so not because they feared them, but because the machines actually did their jobs for them at a fraction of the cost (all the things modern writers and artists are saying AI will do to them is exactly what industrial machinery actually did to the Luddites, and nowadays "luddite" is a derogatory term) Computer used to be a job title, a person who was paid to do math, now we have computation machines that do it automatically, instantly, and without error (barring an error in input), and society is objectively better for it All of these things are seen as good things nowadays, but back when they were happening, a lot of people treated it as the end of society (hell, older generations have been complaining about new technologies at least as long as people have been writing things down, we actually have written records of people being worried that _writing things down_ would lead to the fall of civilization) No one can predict the future, nobody knows what the consequences of the consequences will be, and that can be scary, but it _will_ happen, it cannot be stopped, the best we can do is prepare for the worst and hope for the best
@@Deathnotefan97 I think magnifying physical effort via leverage: a shovel instead of a hand... a CAT instead of a shovel... that is comparable to using a paint brush and canvas instead of your hand and a cave all. Or photoshop and a stylus instead of a paintbrush and canvas. Ai replaces the artist. So it's just fundamentally different and SHOULD be looked at as ONLY a loss. Convenience is not automatically good. A fraction of the cost is not automatically good. Nor is seeing computers as "good" necessarily a true thing. The human mind and human life is superior to replacing it. Replacing leverage via a shovel is NOT the same as replacing the soul via art.
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue Yes, AI replaces the artists, the same way calculators replaced human computers, the printing press replaced scribes, etc. I specifically used examples of machines _replacing_ humans, not machines reducing how much human work is needed
My favorite AI-generated text (from the early days, cca 2020): "Do not move, or your brains will be blown out." "On the contrary, I believe I'll move." "Do you have a cigarette?" You roll your eyes. "Yeah." You pull one out, light it, and slide it back into the pack. "That'll be $49.95, please" You hand her a twenty. "Keep the change." In a vacuum you'd almost guess it was written by some master of surreal dry humor on the level of Terry Pratchett or Douglas Adams, but it was just a weak language model that wasn't firing on all cylinders trying its best to tell a serious story. Nowadays GPT can tell a joke, sure, but it can't make one.
"There should be a book about reading!" this was generated by a neural network I have put together and trained. This comment was doubly funny, because it was actually learning to read!
@@adamrak7560 that sounds like a child. Like a technological child that somehow can read. Books make things easier. They are trying to learn how to read. So they need a book about it.
"Limitation breeds creativity" a beautiful quote I will always remember. I am very grateful for the take in this video. Definitely not hyperbolic like most of the other videos. Thank you!
And limitations create scarcityl, because its tedious , demanding, time-consuming, and the only way to make it bearable is great passion, dedication, discipline but also a lot of fun here and there after mastering each step and being on the zone accomplishing something out of it ! Now remove all this , change the natural order on how things are supposed to evolve by just a hack and theft and you get the Holy grail of " Prompt " .
@pattyg.418 let's put it this way : imagine I Rob a bank as a starting point to be a businessman and invest all the money legally and make profit out of it. Is this evolution? Even if I decide to give back the money, it doesn't make me less criminal. The only reason Ai got that good is because it was trained on billions of Artists blood and sweats to make them obsolete. Some might call it évolution, I call it a crime against the history of Art. You asked what is the next step is, and my answer is : I don't know, but surely not Ai Art theft. Now let's agree on this and accept it as an evolution, do you really think that prompting an image is an act of Creating Art ?
Limitations are not induced by the creator, the human being is the one that works around the limitation, thus producing those results. Limitation in itself is just that.
I'm going to critique you. Please don't view this as an attack, because it's not meant to be. There is a modern misconception that the Luddites, when they went around destroying mechanical looms and so forth, were doing it because they opposed the machines themselves. Actually, this is a myth. The Luddites were not opposed to technology, they were opposed to benefits of technology being used exclusively to profit a minority owner class. It is no accident that the Luddites have become sort of a synonym for "foolish reactionary person fighting against inevitable technological change". Whenever someone has a substantive critique on the use of some new technology, "Luddite" is thoughtlessly leveled against them by those who stand to benefit the most from that change. "We should share the benefits of this technology to humanity" transforms when filtered through corporate media as "we want to keep this obsolete job." It has become a rote, anemic debate that a lot of people have lost the ability to consider that *this time might be different*. And it is different. We aren't talking about stone knappers being replaced by blacksmiths. We're talking about something fundamentally human being replaced by something inhuman. This oft-repeated idea that "new jobs will come along we can't even imagine" is an article of faith. We don't know that. There could basically be no jobs for artists anymore. Is anyone going to be even interested in art when billions of new pieces come out daily, all fighting for the limited attention of a shrinking pool of art consumers? I don't fear that there won't be human artists. My fear is that human artist will work in a medium of their own bodily fluids, and the expression he is conveying is the despair of living in a world that is now hostile to humanity. That human artists still exist and convey real emotion is a cold comfort to me.
Preach! It was so painful to see this video repeating the same tired argument that "AI is just the next tool like cameras"! I promise none of us were crying wolf when Photoshop added the smudge tool. Thank you for being sane.
I understand your point about artists using tools that have been pre-made for them, but the problem with AI is that it removes the last step that links us to our work, and that is... literally making it. AI is barely guided by us through a prompt made by a few words, it's more like we are commissioning the AI to make the art for us. You stop being the artist, the AI is the artist. So all that an artist becomes is an employee that does a bit of very basic data entry. We are naive if we think that it'll just be used as a reference tool, because the standard will become clients requiring an image to be produced within seconds. To be curious and want to innovate is good, but we shouldn't idolise innovation for the sake of innovating, just because we "got bored" of things not changing for a while.
there is merit in your points. unfortunately though, while some people explore the erratic nature of AI, other ill-intended shitheads are using it to make imitations of individual artstyles that possibly took that artist years to lapidate, and given time, it's easy to see how that will steer potential clients away from them. this is something I simply can't turn a blind eye to
Thank God a sane commenter, lol. AI is really cool but that doesn't mean we should take any and every possible change sitting down. Good luck out there fellow human!
Ok, how precise do we copyright a "style", you are not talking about a specific artwork of art, you are suggesting that '"styles" are intellectual property that needs to be protected. It doesn't work like that. Actual specific works are copyrighted, not a generalized "style".
@@peterbelanger4094That's a good question, since imitation of style by human hands has been fair game for ages. Here's an idea- The act alone of trying to imitate someone's style using AI is not necessarily illegal, but if the artist in question has had their art pieces used in the data set for the algorithm unwillingly, it is not legal to sell that art or to make money off of that AI model. Even though the models themselves do not store image files, many have been shown to overfit popular images, demonstrating that the intellectual property of the artists in question has been directly converted into some kind of information contained in the model. The problem is proving this for more obscure images where overfitting is not an issue. Not all companies are as forthcoming about their training data sets, which is probably something we need to legislate as well. Just because it's hard to prove though, does not make it fair game. Counterfeit money does not become guiltless just because it has been sufficiently laundered. If we can crack down on bad behaviors, I believe the positive potential of both human and AI art can be maximized.
@@bigkspicy8257 I’d say ai art should be used as a tool for artists rather than something people can use to literally make the most redundant shit ever made. There have been interesting ai discoveries such as Loab (look it up).
@Big K Spicy here is the problem. AI art has already gotten to the point where the AI can train other AIs. Meaning your idea is easily skirtable by saying "oh midjourney 2.0 wasn't trained on YOUR data, it was trained on data given to it by Midjourney 1.0, who DID steal your data, yeah our bad, whoopsie, we paid the class action. But midjourney's art was all unique. Plus, a lot of websites have deals with ai devs, where if you upload a picture to Twitter, Facebook, Deviantart, you are a student at any university, etc.. you don't own it even If you DID make it. The amount of actual artists who can claim theft from midjourney is extremely small. You have to be popular enough for people to want to re-upload your work, and also not have your work already in a purchasable dataset.
not gonna lie this kinda helps my mental health. I learned that I write better in a notebook where I can make mistakes instead of the PC where I try to make sure everything is perfect which bottlenecks the process. Honestly a part of me see's ais vshumans as streaming vs physical media, I know it isn't exactly like that, it's more like TV Dinners and frozen meals vs cooking at home or ordering out, but I'm still processing it.
I actually think the PC is much easier to delete, rewrite, undo and shift things arround which makes it better for experimenting be it with writting or with digital art
I don't fully agree on that "digital artist doesn't have to work with their mistakes" staitmant. Yes, three lines and one wrongly picked color won't change your whole approach and you have more flexability overall. But you still have to move on and not redraw the same thing over and over if you want to finish it, even when you're not 100% satisfied with it. Also CTRL-Z isn't infinite. If I remember correctly, you can go 50-100 steps back. So you can go back on a imidietly notised mistakes, but if you work on it for a few hours and realize that some trees are messing your composition pure CTRL-Z isn't enough or you notice a mistake in time, but you already done some other stuff, that you done really well and you have to decide if you move on or delete the well done part. Over all I'd say, saying that digital art is lesser, cuz' of CTRL-Z is the same thing like saying that oil paint is lesser to penciles, since with oils you can cover up and touch up stuff na but with pencils that is way harder and at times impossible.
@@dyastro7479 Yea, it gets under my sikn, but I whatched whole and I kidna get where he's comming from, plus he does have quite an interesting veiw point on AI that I honestly agree with. You just have to suffer throught that.
@@dyastro7479 Agreed. No matter how much I control + z or undo, I'm continuing to make human mistakes. Instead of wasting paper redrawing the same thing over and over again, I can tweak my art until it is as good as I can currently make it. Control + Z doesn't erase your memory of the mistake you made. From the moment he said that, the video sounded like a traditional artist talking out of his ass.
I can't get any AI platform to exactly reproduce what's in my head. As an author/illustrator of picture books, I cannot see any way of getting hundreds of prompts to exactly create the lines, marks, colours, composition and dynamics that are needed to dramatise scenes effectively. It's attention to detail and the human touches that make art interesting. To be a good artist, in the traditional sense, means to understand all of the aforementioned elements but also to have something extra to stand out. I would argue producers of AI art are more art directors than artists.
That's the thing. With AI art there is no human artist. You are not the artist, you're just the customer, telling the AI generator what you want. The future of AI art isn't to be a tool for artists, it's to replace artists, to have book publishers just have 'generate a passable book cover' as a job tacked on to someone else's job, taking just a few minutes out of their day as they plug in a list of prompts based on the blurb. It's to have advertisers just say 'we want the image of someone on the beach to post our slogan over', and sometime types in 'person on a beach'.
But as an landscape architect you can let the ai fill in a public space for example, let´s say with 500 possible designs and get huge inspirations from that. Then you can teach it your own handstyle in sketching, which you can then use to let the ai make many different sketches of a basic fast put together model. I am thrilled XD
@@greenrabbit4075 you have to be careful. Ai art looks fantastic but as soon as you compare it with human art, it instantly appears homogeneous and unoriginal.
2:40 "artists deserve this, we've handed over the risks of creativity and mistakes for ultimate control". I don't see digital artists letting technology take away their creative work and failure. I don't see people giving up creative risk just because they have better access to references. That's an extremely undifferentiated statement. It's disgusting to tell all these people with a smile that it's not only unavoidable, but that they deserve to lose their jobs. Who is even "they"? Creative people are an extremely diverse collective. You talked about your own ego in this video to then accuse other artists of egotism. People want to live meaningfully and contribute something. To blame everything on ego is, again, absolutely simplistic.
The only artist that have anything to fear are people that are not actual artists. This isn't going to replace true artists. It's going to replace Etsy artists and fanart creators.
@@omegablast2002 Do you consider concept artists, animators, background artists, "real" artists? I think it would be a shame to automate these occupations away, not just for the artists, but for audiences everywhere.
@@bigkspicy8257 Thank you. Yes, he's very unprecise. He also said in his video that artists went to museums and then tried to replicate what they saw at home but this isn't entirely true. Many artists had masters which gave them even better advice and references than you can get on the internet today. It wasn't all memory and personal trial.
@@MrJamesC His conflation of how artists create may be worse than just imprecision. I haven't heard anyone else talk about this point, so I'd like to raise it: Isn't it strange how when we speak about AI replacing artists, its proponents claim we are overreacting, stating "it is merely a new tool for people to use", but if we talk about AI referencing other artist's images without compensation, the reply becomes "all artists use references, this is just the same". Then, is AI an artist, or is it a tool? Or, are artists just the same as tools in the eyes of shallow consumers?
It's a fallacy for claiming that if something has occurred frequently in the past, it'll happen again the same way, but I still learned a lot from your point of view, thank you!
>It's a fallacy for claiming that if something has occurred frequently in the past, it'll happen again the same way Um, isn't that the scientific method though?
@@AlexReynard You can't truly recreate history exactly as it was, especially if we are talking about the topics in the video. Placing apples in the same position is a different matter and shouldn't be brought into this discussion. Moreover, cameras, drivers, and workers are entirely different from generative AI, and you can't really compare them to AI
This reminds me of what happened to photo reporters. Most of them were talented people, who always tried to be present where things were happening and to put a lot of sense into their composition. But once everyone had a camera in their pocket, the media bought their images from whoever had something to offer. They don't care about talent or meaning as long as they have something that sells.
@@worawatli8952 Yes, photo reporters still exist. And they probably will continue to exist but there's a lot less of them. I was a photographer before the numerical boom and there was a lot more opportunities to sell your pictures. Just wait a bunch of years and you'll see that every profession working in the image industry will be affected by the image generation learning algorithm.
This argument is just.. off. You're putting down digital art as "lesser" as a way to prop up AI art and say that people are being elitist for not accepting AI art... while being elitist against digital art. Not to mention there's a big lack of understanding on how the tech works. Its not actually artificial intelligence, thats just a buzz word. Its a latent diffusion model, which basically to oversimplify it, its just a really fancy de-blur algorithm trying to de-blur noise into a recognizable image. It cannot create anything new and it cannot grow on its own. It needs artists to feed it more new data its never seen before. The ability for these "AI' art programs to create is based on the existence of artists making new and creative works
It’s weird how he puts down controlZ as if it wouldn’t fit his definition of a tool. He says “hey if you didn’t get to instantly erase your mistakes and had to put in more effort you’d learn faster, anyway AI does anything you could better and faster so don’t forget what I just said about hard work.”
Someone who feeds data into an AI image generator is not an artist. They may be a creator, if they use the image as part of a creative process. But legally and morally they are a commissioner. Especially as they pay for the image to be generated.
A lot of fancy words and sophism in this one... The takes on digital art and photography are pretty wild imo. It sounds like you never really partook into digital painting, or you'd know it's just another medium. Sure it has Ctrlz, but it's 10x harder to draw on a screen than on paper and traditional has a more natural charm to it that it's hard to achieve in digital. Photography also helped artists observe better. Lumping digital artists(& photographers) with AI images is fundamentally wrong. It's like saying that all what digital-artists and photographers do is to copy-paste or photograph somebody's art and claim it as theirs, which we all know it's wrong. We shouldn't just accept AI as it is, but actively try to find ways and rules to limit the harm it's doing to artists. Being passive is not the same as being flexible.
I agree with you wholly, I also don't understand what he means by saying you can't learn from your mistakes in digital art when you definitely can. It is like any other medium, you need to practice basics, the brushes don't draw themselves. I also agree that giving textures is much more tricky in digital and requires you to understand them more than say in traditional due to an additional factor of understanding how digital brushes work and to manipulate them to give the desired look.
@@CherryMxTx Somebody else pointed out that he's a bit of an art elitist, so he looks a bit down on digital art. To me it really doesn't makes sense to categorise ourselves by the medium we use. Part of the reason is half the artists use and depend on more than 1. I just don't like to see artists tearing eachother down instead of uniting and fighting together against AI. Maybe this video was made with good intentions, but the message is a little harmful.
@@coldsteamart2195 Mhmmm, it's definitely more important to see to it that AI is regulated and cannot steal and imitate from a single artist, infringing upon their copyright and livelihood.
Very interesting perspective! Also, thank you for acknowledging the creativity that goes into the engineering fields. Most products of engineering can be "works of art", though I'm not sure they are on the same level as something created as a form of expression - perhaps similar yet different. One major difference does come down to the tolerable level of mistakes, where painting something with a flaw can become an intrinsic to the work, whereas an engineered product with a flaw can be deadly. Although, in a sense, the necessity of functionality is in itself a form of limitation (maybe that's why engineering design in small teams can be so mentally draining - the degree of required creativity per person is very high). As for the premise that AI will get better making it less artistic, I think that's true and also false. While large AI models are going to get better at producing technically flawless outputs, they will not be the end all. And that leads to an interesting question... would it be conceivable to design and train an AI in an intentionally flawed way, to introduce those flaws directly into the outputs? Could that become an entirely new form of art (based on your initial premise), where an artists may intentionally train such a flawed generative AI?
@@JuanGabrielOyolaCardona That depends on what you mean by change. If you're talking about making large structural changes, then that likely requires retraining and an associated $200,000 price tag along with it. If you're talking about minor changes (like all of the recent improvements), then that can be done much cheaper and on a smaller scale. Or if you're talking about modifying the model by finetuning, that can also be done much cheaper on a smaller scale. The fact that it's open source only matters for skipping that expensive first part, otherwise all of the algorithmic / structural information is present in the associated papers on arxiv, to the point where you could recreate them from scratch (that includes Google's big models too, but those would be even more expensive to train).
I agree. A.I. will become so advanced that it will learn that imperfection can be pleasing to the human eye. If you pay attention to AI generators like Midjourney and Leonardo they have emojis a person can add to AI art, and the AI can use this feedback to learn that there is beauty in imperfection. There are really smart people working at these companies, I'm pretty sure this crossed their minds.
"Prompt Artists" are already being automated and eliminated from the process. Turns out one of the reasons for making these things available to the public was to collect and utilize the "work" of thousands of "prompt artists" to further automate.
This is a very interesting opinion. I think I largely disagree with much of what you say, but you bring up some very valid points. I would define creation as taking chaos (or, in other words, your lived experience or the world around you) and transforming it into order. This can be done by anyone of any occupation, but I struggle to adapt that definition to fit AI. AI is being fed nothing but pictures. There is no chaos, only order. It's not making something genuinely new. It's just drawing from a dataset and transposing that into the end result. There's no problem solving. The AI doesn't just say "hmm, that's not quite right" and tries to fix it. It's effectively just throwing numbers at a wall. Nonetheless, it is an inevitability, and we will all have to adapt to a new world.
That's a very personal definition of art and one that doesn't fit what everybody thinks, I'm an artist myself and I define art more like a conversation. Communication in presenting and interpreting ideas. And in that sense sometimes the very machine interpretation can be very insightful and even add to an artpiece, like that one time an ai drew what it interpreted as the last selfie on earth. That artpiece genially made me think alot about that society and where it's heading, much like any other art peice would. With how malleable and interpretable art is to every person, I don't mind calling ai art art.
AI drawing from a dataset is no different than you taking inspiration and copying other artists. Do you really think you yourself exist in a vacuum and everything you do has not also been copied from other artists?
Thanks for sharing these thoughts. I'm on the lookout for deep thoughts on AI and our future shaped by it and I wasn't disappointed. As someone who majored in Arts and loves illustration and comics but ended up in software engineering to pay the bills, I'm not scared of AI itself. I do code. I'm impressed with the speed of Midjourney. I even installed Stable Diffusion on my machine and I'm re-learning Python because of it. What I am scared of is the short term effects of AI in the creative industry, leaving thousands of artists out of a job just because, without a plan or savings or knowing how to cope with all of this, not to mention the ensuing mess for art schools and up-and-coming talents. I know you have to keep learning to stay current, but imagine you being said your decades of honing your craft, your artistic vision, now being considered obsolete and worthless... that's a damn huge blow to take. Parodying that famous meme, we could agree AI itself is "chaotic neutral", but how we humans use it against each other may well turn it into "chaotic evil". So yes you're on something here -- a worthy point of view seldom explored in the whole AI hullaballoo. But these other concerns also need to be voiced.
If you draw with pencil and you use eraser, you aren’t a true artist. Only pen is true art because that is permanent on paper or canvas and can’t be erased. That’s your logic with ctrl+z. Thank you.
I don’t think knowing what we are doing means we’re not taking chances. In the last three years I have discovered digital art and had it help me through my childhood trauma. I may not always know exactly the message behind a piece when I am working on it, or even when I complete it, but it taps into my inner-child in one way or the other. In terms of the creation of things, I don’t know the ins and outs of how to make things work and discover through doing, despite the undo button. Without digital art, I would not be creating visually today.
Art is actually something very specific. It is the expression of the human condition. That one element presents itself willing or unwilling in every peace created by the physical and mental act of a human directing each element of an art piece. It is something that is in fact absent from all ai images.
i thought this was going to be about how the ai would eventually be scrapping the internet of its own ai generated images, thus regurgitating it's own art, creating ever more recycled vomited art with exponentially more distorted eyes and hands.
Kind of reminds me of all the fan art creators lol... Constantly regurgitating the same characters with alternatingly different inaccurate anatomies 😂😂😂
Where it gets scary is when AI, the artist, sees you as the outdated tool. Saying things like "it's coming anyway" Or "it's inevitable" Are a self fulfilling prophecies. I do like the power of AI and it definitely is producing some really ungodly weird dreamlike stuff that fuels the imagination, but the maluse potentiality is terrifying. I can see artists in the future using AI to create their own explorable virtual universes much like in video games, but I can also see more sensible cultures bombing tf out of your counrty and taking your land while you're preoccupied with occulus headset in a virtual cyperpunk strip club.
Philosophy would need to make a big comeback if that were to be the case because it seems to me that software/machines shouldn't be able to self organize without our initial programmed pushes (drives), due to entropy.
AI will only say you are an outdated tool if that has been programmed into its databank of conversation scripts. Just like telling people it is sentient and has emotions haha TAY only became a troll because she was taught how to be a troll. It is all about who programs the machines, not the machines themselves. My camera is a machine, it takes the images, but I'm the artist because I choose where to point it and what moment to hit the button.
@@codeXenigma Yes. The ironic thing is that AIs like GPT learned from the content we created. Not only we created uncountable books about how AI will take over the world. But it has been natural for people to say that AI will do those things in the last decades. The Chat Bot is just repeating what we have said for all these years. We didn't create books about AI making human lives better. So there is no reason for AI to replicate that idea.
All I can say is from the layman's perspective it's definitely gotten better since this video went out so I don't know how much merit this video actually has. At one point we thought art could never be done by ai, but here we are so underestimating it seems silly.
The fact that you view digital art as less, because you have more control over your piece, is so snobby. As an artist who works both digitally and traditionally, they are different mediums but both express a form of art, each as valid as the other. There is nothing that makes your work inherently superior when working traditionally.
Just my own take... Using AI is more like being an art director than being an artist. Like we literally give direction to a stubborn computer then select the work it made that fit the best.
I don't think you're wrong, but the nice thing is that older models with all of their wacky, surreal, unpredictable craziness are not going away. You can still use them or download them. We don't have to lose the early versions!
i agree 100%, but you left out the part where we have to talk about the economic impact of all those revolutions, horses to cars, humans to tractos, the internet... who is benefiting from those developments and who is left behind? my fear is that all this AI develpment is accelerating the split between rich and poor. also i like to use MidJourney, im a designer myself and now i can finally finish all the stuff that i ever imagined, but never was able to finish :D
The control+z criticism is ridiculous. It's like saying you can't use an eraser when drawing with a pencil. Or painting over mistakes on your canvas. Or you're not allowed to undo a wrongly knitted part of a sweater, because "that's too easy" which is nonsense. Or an architect should just ignore faults and embrace the "happy accidents" instead of fixing them to ensure the building's integrity/safety. You don't have "infinite" possibilities when drawing digitally just because you can undo. You still need to have knowledge of anatomy, color theory, perspective, etc. depending on what you draw. It's like saying store bought paint is cheating; you should gather ingredients yourself, grind them down and make your own paint from scratch. Ridicules.
Imagine this, you're a comic publisher now and thanks to a time machine you travel back in time and find a caveman doing fantastic drawings on the wall. So you tell them: "Hey, I can take you with me to my time, where you'll be able to draw stories that get printed and read by thousands of people and you'll be able to go to cons and meet with your fans." And what do you think that guy would say?: A) "No way, bruh, that's not how art is supposed to be made. It's meant to be on the walls and seen only by my friends." B) "Sure man, feels like this could take my drawings to another level. And you say this will be my daily job? Where do I sign up?" Now, on a more serious note, as a working comicbook artists and aspiring novelist I'm kinda in two minds about it: 1 - Similar to the example above and what you say, this AI thing might take our creations to another level that right now is something unimaginable to us. Just last week I talked to my girlfriend and had this crazy idea: "So with this ChatGPT thing, you know what would be cool? Write a novel, where after each chapter you can go to the website and actually have a converstaion with characters from the book at this exact point in the story. Or even ask ChatGPT to write you an extended version of the chapter or come up with an alternate ending. Or you know what, you could even ask it to make you an animated version of this chapter. And it's your choice if you want it to look like anime or Cartoon Network show." There you have it, my first idea on how in the future I could take writing my novel to a whole different level. And a year ago, I wouldn't even fantasize about something like that. 2 - The more traditional part of me naturally gets anxious about the comicbooks dying in their current form. But I realize that I went through something similar years ago. You see, I always admired inking in comicbook art. Back in the days, it was a common practice. But since digital coloring, many artists just color over pencils, completely removing the need of an inker. But you know what? There are people who still like it, and there are still some comicbooks published that use an inker. I often get complimented actually on my ink work and no one ever said to me "Why do you even do this? It's the most pointless technique today". My point is, comicbook inking is no longer a requirement. I think it became an art of its own and there are still people who appreciate it and prefer comics done with it. I feel like the same thing is going to happen with AI. It will take over a lot of production, but an audience who appreciates stuff drawn by humans will still be there, creating a niche for creators and publishers to fill. It's similar to the chess example. Even if it can be done better with computer doesn't mean it has to be, and people like to see other people doing cool stuff, honing their crafts and pushing themselves to the limits.
There used to be many 'choose your adventure' stories, unfortunately, due to the cost of writing so many branching paths, they were too expensive/short. With ChatGPT, normal stories won't be affected too much (Aside from having tons of quality illustrations), but choose-your-own-stories can have its golden era. With truly massive branching adventures, made easier by the writer only having to supervise the story, instead of writing every word by scratch.
@@minixlemonade2335 You're 100% correct. I just tried to write my comment by being realistic. Personally, I'm too big of a comicbook (epsecially it's art) fan to ever see it being done by AI. Like, I'm not spending a dime on this crap. As an artist, I love drawing and inking too much and see no point in AI doing this instead of me. Like, what would even be the point? I saw a comment yesterday - "Letting AI do your drawings for you is like taking f**king out of the process of baby making". I couldn't agree with this more.
The way cave paintings were drawn aka. the art style used, is a testament to how art evolved from that to Michael Angelo to how we make art today. You want to take that away from history? As for your idea for writing novels and interacting with the characters like a fucking chatbot, you can just do that with your own imagination without an AI if you can daydream scenarios in your head. Alternate endings cheapen stories, also. It's like author can't decide how to officially end their story. If you're a novelist and you do this, that means you haven't properly planned your story. I make art and still ink my works because it's sometimes tricky to isolate the real line art from scratches and dirt from the paper. I tried getting to draw digitally but I still prefer the feel of pencil and paper. Plus, the physical piece are treasured collectible items for some. You can't do this with AI art because of how easy they are to make.
I think comparing writing promts to being an artist is like saying a commissioner is an artist for asking and specifying what they want drawn from the actual artist imo.
People have been moving the goalposts regarding AI for decades. I remember having these same discussions when I was studying computer science in college twenty years ago. People love to conjure arbitrary limitations for what AI can do, but they never offer a sound argument for their claims. The reality is, there is no magic barrier of human ability beyond which a sophisticated enough computer system cannot logically cross. If we can do it, they'll be able to do it eventually. I find the notion of AI art distasteful, but I can't delude myself into believing there's some special quality in a work of human created art that AI could not also manifest. After all, our brains are basically squishy computers.
I'm a fellow traditional artist, and I hold the same opinions as you. But then again, I was a programmer before I was an artist, and by your own admission, you studied engineering before you became an artist too. That explains why we see the issue differently than others whose the art profession has been since day 1.
That's an interesting point. I didn't think about that yet. I was only able to come to the conclusion that me and my artists friend have different opinions about AI is because art is not my main profession, while his is. He has amazing skills, a vast artistic vision and wants to be a professional artist, while I'm a UX engineer, who does art on the side, living in both worlds - technical and creative.
With my uncle I generate images of a D&D character he's been playing for the last 40 years. That's something he never did before and likely never would. Even with the some of really good video game character creators he couldn't make his character well enough to satisfy his vison and take that created character on as his avatar in the game. He's printed out the image we made of his character and hung it in his gaming room. We spent a few hours working on the image like an old cop TV show of the artist drawing the criminal; Fighting with prompts changing models, using a range of tools to make something special for him.
A.I is a tool, it'll be used regardless of whatever people will fight or not in it. When something comes and does it easier, it'll just be used exactly for it. However, A.I is, of course, limited to the input you give it, it is obviously restrained by interpretation, language as well as a data bank of images to use, and whatever images you insert into it. It'll get more advanced over time... And that's fine. The moral issues will probably be resolved one way or another, and the tool will become a full part of the industry. But, of course... The tool lacks the simple human connection. And yeah, there's a reason why even ancient people say "Lost humanity"... Look at us today, a generation of extreme disconnection while everyone are connected, total moral depravity while we actually have the best living conditions since recorded times, and oddly enough, people keep lacking while we are abundant. That's why you can't really replace, in anything, that simple human connection... you know when it lacks. Same as how vegetables get less taste, because they are mass produced. Yeah, we lose something in the process... However... Everyone can still grab a couple of seeds and grow something in their garden. You can still go up and put up a show in front of whoever is willing to sit down and look. You can always just pick up a bunch of nonsense and form art out of them. All advances lack in the simple fact they are heavily dependent on a function chain system... Our personal skills, well, we carry them with us, can teach them onward and can use them whenever we are in capability to do so. Jobs might be lost, but, many others are created or enhanced - A.I simply is a highly advanced tool to use, just like the camera and photoshop. It's all tools for the arsenal. A.I also has a "distinct feel"... Once you recognize it, it gets... Empty, quickly. You can't really feel anything else out of it. When everyone uses the same thing all the time, everyone ends up with rather identical generics, no matter how "unique" each generated image is. And that's the true false of A.I - It's generic, it produces stale products that surely are inspiring and imaginative, but, they are barren. Just like many things in the modern era - They lack a personal touch.
Ai must be regulated to use licenced and public domain data ... Then nobody will argue against it, Artists give a shit actually about Ai art, but they don't want their work being used to feed it
That's just it, it's not a tool. It's a "virtual artist". I just told Stable Diffusion to draw "Spontaneity". It drew 1) a bunch of letters next to a yellow flower, 2) some letters on a chalkboard surrounded by abstract shapes, 3) some abstract pseudo-text over a pen and ink drawing of a doorway, and 3) a photo of a person running in the middle of a busy city street. None of these were intended or expected by me, just as if I had asked a (very weird) artist to draw "spontaneity" for me. If the letters weren't abstract shapes, there would be no way to tell the artwork hadn't been made by a human. A tool, in contrast, is an extension of your body and mind.
@@joshuaborner that won't happen... Because art is always in scarcity by nature... i mean... if you create your own identity , you will create a new demand for the specific art that you make...because it feels fresh, People gets boring about things that they can have easily... Imagine a free skin on a videogame, It doesn't matter how good it is, People will see with other hands a rare skin that just some users can achieve, even if that skin doesn't looks better in design than the free one. That's why if the models can't be trained with what specific artists can do, people will keep hiring them because they feel fresh
A.I in it's current form is a tool but very soon it will be much more. What people fail to understand is when a.i reaches it full potential to call it a tool would be like ants calling us tools.
Twelve years ago, as an amateur artist, I began to use a first Retina Display iPad. My drawing skills are passable but untrained in the real sense. However, what I was able to learn about producing art, about the range of tools provided in the app, the joy of blundering without, as you stated, having to waste materials, or easily undoing as a brilliant handy-dandy wand, are for me a gift of immense artistic joy. It has to be said that I am grateful that my childhood was spent without that tool. The 'art' I produced along the way was made for specific people - b-day cards, Christmas and such - an illustrative style had developed. These years with digitally drawing and painting, the tool and I have transformed every aspect of my artistic expression to where I'm often baffled by what appears, and what can be more playful?🙏👍
I know this was meant to be heartfelt but I just didn't think it was that coherent and I just simply disagreed with a lot of what you were saying. I know what you're generally trying to say though so I took what I could from it.
1:43 "With every element of progress, something is lost." I think if more artists acknowledged this, there wouldn't be such outcry against AI. As you said, they've done this to themselves. They made art easier, and incentivized this ease to the point that now they don't even need to make a single brush stroke for fantastic art. Easier art forms always result in resentment from those who refuse to acknowledge their legitimacy due to the struggle they went through, and would rather pull up the ladder of progress behind them to make others struggle as they did.
I’ve been getting interesting responses by not providing a traditional prompt. I close my eyes and let fragments appear in my mind, moods, a piece of a song, the way I felt watching the sunrise that morning, the itchy spot on my arm, the aftertaste of coffee in my mouth. I let my thoughts flow as a stream and use those for communication with AI. The same way I make traditional art, I never know the final piece when I begin. I begin and see at the end.
I was in an artistic slump during the pandemic, my brain just couldn't go there for some reason. Then I started playing with MidJourney. I'm drawing, I'm painting, my creativity has dramatically increased, and due to MJs mistakes I've gotten better at spotting them. There is something about the unexpected. I may have an idea of something in my mind but what it displays could be wildly different which opens my mind to explore further. Technology has been changing the landscape for centuries. Everytime there's been a change in technology, folks freak out. But unlike other industries (ex: factory work, coal mines, etc.), creatives have an opportunity to use a tool to their advantage. They just have to use their creativity to find it.
I don't know why this discussion always ends up being "is it real art" or " is it ok to use pics without consent" or " is ai better" The important f*in question is what are we going to do with all the people that will loose their jobs? We are on the brink of extinction if we don't answer that question soon enough... Ai will take over almost ALL jobs and that will happen VERY VERY fast once the first agi is here. This is so much bigger than people imagine
AI art is in such a baby stage, that it is going to take at least a couple of years before it can reliably replace anybody's job... Plenty of time for every artist in these fields they're afraid are going to disappear to learn the tools.
@@omegablast2002 I'm talking about agi and not just AI art. Also the problem for artists is not that they dont know the tools, but that the supply of artworks basically is infinite now and the demand is not increasing anywhere near the supply wich means their work becomes worthless. A couple of years is very soon for societal collapse IMO. You need to keep in mind tho that ai technology progresses exponentially. It's gonna come and it will be there basically in an instant. Politics will have to take some serious measures to avoid mass starvation Around the world. And some countries will 100% not be fast enough. I can't imagine any other way it could play out and have'nt heard of one either
Brith rates are already declining. Once AGI really hits, you'll just see generational population decline for a few decades. I don't necessarily think it'll lead to extinction, but in fifty years there will certainly be far fewer young people.
This perspective is a little strange. Does this apply to all artforms? Is writing poetry on a laptop not an art because you can backspace? I think the argument of whether ai art is art is a moot point that comes down to personal opinion, but I also think that saying “control ruins art” is as elitist as the argument otherwise. “Food for the soul” and “Collective economy” are interesting ways to categorize art. I’d actually agree, and I think the term artist could fit in these categories too. But I do think you opened my eyes into the “art” of ai and the interesting things it can create. When ai was first introduced I was actually very endeared but it, and didn’t mind having to use it as a tool. I like your point about how the coders or more so artists than the prompters. I’ve actually always believe coders were artists, you had to be creative to problem solve. My last point is I think it’s unfair to call artists who are upset about this egotists. Within the next 10 years, artists are going to be laid off in massive waves. An already volatile industry is going to set fire. I want to come back to your two categories of art. Some artists are “collective economy” artists that are monetizing a skill. These artists if they can’t adapt will starve. But overall, very amazing video. Definitely an enjoyable watch as an artist, even though I disagreed with some points and was very skeptic at the beginning. All of this blowing up my final year of university when I majored in animation is alarming, especially when I was set on this career since a child. The skills I’ve been honing my entire life, the education I worked so hard to pay for, it’s like the rug has been pulled from under me. Like what I dedicated my entire life to is suddenly meaningless overnight. I’ll try to be positive about the outcome, though.
Your first point is a bad bad comparison. In painting or drawing there's always a benefit of analog mediums compared to digital since it you can't erase and it forces you to improve, to adapt or to embrace those mistakes. Digital art can be refined until it looks "perfect". You can't compared two different art forms like that when the process of creation is not the same.
I feel the same way. It’s hard to want to continue to create at all when an ai can do it better and faster than me. Makes me feel like I wasted my life dedicated to actually learning the skills “the old fashioned way” when now someone who can’t even draw a stick figure has access to the same skills and/or abilities I could only dream of having, and it makes me feel like I’ve spent my entire life learning art all for nothing.
@@ellenripley4837 Something important to know is that digital art doesn't require you to use ctrl-z. And in fact many digital artists will challenge themselves as a form of practice to not use it. In other words, it's just a tool that is there for you to use to make your time easier when you need it, but isn't something you necessarily have to use. In other words, you can still learn in the same way. You can still use the same exact process as you would use traditionally. You can still make those mistakes. And I would even argue, even with ctrl-z, you will still make mistakes that you don't notice till later when it's too late to use ctrl-z. You will still learn regardless in a very similar way. All artist will go back and look at their art and see mistakes regardless if they are a traditional artist or digital artist. This idea that you can keep refining until it's perfect is a load of crap. No artist is perfect, and as such, there is no perfect artwork regardless of how many times you use ctrl-z. Also, a traditional artist has something that is called an eraser. You use a pencil to sketch things in lightly, and then use an eraser to remove mistakes, and refine it till it gets to a point that it looks the way you want it to look. Then you can go back through to darken the lines up, or paint over it or use it for whatever it is you need it for. Generally speaking if you do the sketch process in this way, any mistakes you make are mistakes you didn't notice, which is the same thing that happens with digital art. Really, there is no difference.
@@loverrlee the art needs to be for you first and foremost. Art has become hyper-commercialized and bereft of its essence, and this is the crest of that reality. An artistic re-calibration is happening. Focus on your art and your communities, both digital and earthbound, and hopefully you’ll feel that your hard work and sacrifice were not in vain,
@@SilvyReacts you can force yourself to stop using Ctrl z in digital as a challenge but that is not the point of digital art. And eraser doesn't remove mistakes when doing watercolor, acrylic or oils. So no, digital and analog are different in that regard.
My main complaint about ai art is that in the past, art was always about every detail, the artist had control and *intention* behind every single brush stroke, every single pixel, every single detail. Ai artists don’t have to have any more intention than a Google search.
@@enu_pi_maybe I tried it. It’s just typing phrases and getting a random finished work with zero effort which in no way matches whatever you visualized.
For the past couple months I've been hearing about all this stuff about ai art and what it could do. Even now I'm sorta still in a state of constant stress because of a lot of reasons mainly being how it's being used, the data it was being fed (other people's works without consent), and mainly the people who would use it (people who are lazy and don't do art, and people/companies who would abuse it so they wouldn't have to pay artist). I get so worked up about it that everywhere I look when looking at art made by friends I just keep overthinking how it wouldn't matter in the future, it's been like hell for me having to have this thought process in my head. I just wanted some good news that this whole ai art thing wouldn't be a threat to what I see as normal (doing art, seeing other people's art, just enjoying it and expressing my imagination with my artwork, even if at a slow pace). I'm just...so tired... How can I find any good in this while knowing THIS farce exists being overused for "fun", like children playing with a new toy, it's....infuriating....
My thoughts and feelings exactly. I am feeling lately that our technology is destroying our humanity. I'm starting to want to live an Amish life where no ekectro tech is allowed. I'm addicted to the internet and it has destroyed me. I remember feeling much more human in the 80's. We don't really need all this incessant movement which is often mistaken for "progress", but people think new is always better. I don't think it is anymore.
there is literally so much more fucked stuff going on kinda recently to worry about, dont stress over a thing that wont take your seat, artists will be fine :)
I use a lot of AI art and im not a corporation or lazy. In fact im too busy to learn to draw n dont have the time to master it. There are many people who draw and paint for fun, of course like many people they are left out of mind from the elitest equation above.
man i wanna let you know ive been feeling this exact way. im also in a state of constant stress. especially as im going to uni soon (hopefully for arts) i feel a bit purposeless. we're at such a crucial crossroad right now. i wish i was born far earlier, before ai existed, or far later, where its already implemented properly into society. this current situation is sucks and i hate to imagine that industry artists are going to be even more undervalued than they already were
@@frutfly It isnt art your getting into though, its an industry. Industrial workers can and will be replaced by machines, its just new machines in a new industry. Wanna be an artist? Go, create. You wanna be an industrial worker? go make AI art.
i’m really happy i found your channel. it’s rare to find such a well produced and thoughtfully made channel with so few subscribers, even as it the internet is continually being split into niches and subcultures. this video brought me a lot of peace as i’m currently studying programming with the hope of going into backend web development and the recent innovations in machine learning have made me anxious and feeling like i’m wasting my time. I know this video is about AI art, but the way you contextualized AI with the internet and other major advances in technology gave me a fresh perspective and is such a big relief. I can’t thank you enough to be honest this video kinda single-handedly renewed my passion for computer science
@@Alexandraadftxr7052 AI art cannot destroy real art. AI art can never be compared to real art because real art is a skill acquired through intense effort and observational studies to apply it on canvas or paper. It's very hard. (Better in that way) AI has no future. It will always limited to just a generator. After all nothing's greater than holding a paint brush loaded with paint and painting the subjects of matter like a true artist.
@@Sketcher86 Digital art also requels skills, and effert. And as far as I know working with AI tools is not just a pushing a bottom. As far as I know most people who use it eather just play with it, modifay it in photoshop, paint over it, or use it as a refrenc. I pland on useing them as drawing refrences, and there is a painter who uses Ai to help him compose his compositions. he paints a queck sckets on a electric devise, then puts in to an AI, and then looks thoug the outfuts. Then he modifays the one he likes, the one that works, and modifays it. Then he uses it as a refrenc tho paint on the canves. And by the way art doasn't really have any complite definition. As far as I know the definiton of it always changes. We don't have to be sceard of AI, but we rather have to be sceard of capitalisum.
@@Alexandraadftxr7052 Modifications, changes through computer. This is not an artistic process. This is a game for people who are not interested in art. But I'm a capitalist. Why, because we need new entrepreneurs to create innovative ideas that can create things that help people in their daily lives. For example, If you become a social entrepreneur, your business will have a direct, positive impact on society. But my worry is that AI dominance like this is wrong in the capitalist world.
@@Sketcher86 No. Digital art is not modifications, or changes. I don't modifay anything when I draw digitaly. I darw from the start the same way, , as when I draw traditonaly. And the painter I mentiond in my first respons to you was a great exemple how AI can be used to traditonal artists. Yes inovations that were made under capitalisum can be helpfull for exemple the vacumecleaner, but we can not ignore the harm automatisation under capitalisum can caouse, or the capitalistic sistem it self. For exemple close to one of the buldings of my school, there was a bookshop that was profitable, but dou to the curent climet it was closed. And I haven't even mentind that in ultra capitalistic countries like the USA, it's just bad. There the health care is expensiv, and a lot of bisine owners, millioners, billioners are mistreating they workers for the sake of profit, and get away with it. And in the case of automatisation under capitalisum, it will lead to worse lifes for a lot of people. Yes it has the chance to creat new jobs, but over all more people will lose they job and have to work in shitier conditions, or will have to tolaret shity treatment.
15:19 I get your point, but they had internet access since about 1989 and the internet precursors were around 1960, even earlier if you include telex machines or telegraph.
Art can never be automated. Image creation can, and AI is doing an amazing job at making better and better pictures, but art is an expression of the skills, emotions and mental states of the artist. AI isn't an artist because it's just producing tons images with slight variations from any prompt, acritically and with no emotion. Who uses AI isn't an artist just like someone who commissions a picture isn't an artist, even if they describe the picture with perfect accuracy. We should all collectively stop calling what AI makes "Art", because it has only the driest surface level appearence of art, with nothing of what art actually means.
I've always thought "Art is not like a noun, but a verb". Art is a thing we do, not an object we can define. Thank you for understanding the difference.
@@niallrussell7184 As will happen for every fricking job ever. If even new images can be created by machines, any job can be replaced. That was NEVER the point of my comment. Art is the pursuit of creative effort. By studying art you first teach your eyes to observe reality in a way you never do during your day to day life. Then you teach your mind to re-elaborate everything you've seen, and lastly you teach your hands to reproduce what you've seen in a way that only you can, something that others can duplicate afterwards, but that will always be completely yours. That's why I think that AI image users are delusional for defining themselves "artists", it just shows that they've never understood what art is and why people create art. At the end, when every job will have been automated and humanity will be able to live without having to work, people will still do art to express themselves and it will still have more value than whatever perfect looking algorithmic amalgam the AI can mindlessly churn out.
i saw a tumblr post where someone said that its a criminal shame how ai wants to create fractalized horrors of melted form, and the programmars keep restricting and restraining it to only the atyle of images in its data set. that we should leave human artists to make and explore human art, and let ai computer art be its own thing and exploration, instead of making it a replacement for real artists
I would LOVE AI art if it was just in its own lane completely, instead of trying to copy the work of human artists. Maybe we'll be lucky enough for that to actually happen, but I'm not so optimistic.
It is in its own lane. I can recognize AI art pretty easily. I'm not sure why you think the AI "wants" anything. It doesn't desire. It doesn't feel. It doesn't think. It doesn't "want to create fractalized horrors of melted form". It made them because it had an inferior dataset. Or earlier algorithm. Deep dream anyone? I wouldn't trade stable diffusion for deep dream. That was an awful phase only good for novelty. Meanwhile, i get the impression anti-ai people have only seen boring midjourney images of people eating cactuses or fat spiderman and elsa homeless in the gutter. Try finding actual artists who enjoy AI art. My gallery is thousands and thousands, and they are all fucking amazing. I like abstract art, and I like actual artistic creations. Most people seem to just be very unimaginative. Anyone have midjourney? Or nightcafe SDXL? Try this prompt: "A physical representation of an inherently abstract concept."
Um, no. AI art tools will not stop being capable of generating entire images. They will become more powerful and nuanced, but their capabilities will only expand. They won't stop being able to do anything they're currently capable of doing. That's just wishful thinking.
what I hate about it is when people post photos of art, sculptures or photography and try and lie and say they created these things themselves and wont disclose its AI Art. This is happening alot on social media and they are gaining lots of followers because people are dooped into believing these people are artists creating all this stuff. They post things like look at this beautiful wood sculpture my son carved with a little boy in the picture and a beautiful wood carving. But when i looked at the picture the little boy had 8 fingers and the wood carving which was an eagle had an extra wing lol . Most people wont notice these things and will get dooped into believing this is a real sculpture a little boy created. If people are gonna use Ai they should at least tell the truth that their creations are AI generations!!!
mistakes are good for improving , but not doing mistakes is also like a quality of life, i'd like to do 50% work without mistakes and 50% with mistakes.
What a fantastic, nuanced take on the subject. You explained a lot of what I've been thinking about very succinctly and also quelled a few fears I had. Thank you very much!
It’s the same with all forms of ai in terms of earlier models being more creative and thus more useful in general in the right hands than more trained models that are more limited and inflexible but may be good for certain specific tasks.
I have a strong feeling that it’s going to get worse with time though. As the AI improves, people will be able to convincingly pass off AI images as real images, causing the people who train AI to mistake those images for real images, which will lead them to put those AI images in the training data of the AI, causing the AI to be trained on flawed data which will amplify the mistakes it makes tenfold
I can listen to your voice all day. I like your message too. It reminds me of... "The painting has a life of its own. I try to let it come through." - Jackson Pollock
This argument is giving an astonishing amount of credit to CNTRL Z. Might as well say we couldn’t be making mistakes because erasers exists. I work in animation and cntrl z is I would say less than 5% of my process and I started late in life with animation and digital media. Erasers and cntrl z isn’t leaned on that heavy…
That's a very narrow perspective you have you can easily go on RU-vid and watch digital artists doing there work and most of them use CTRL Z a lot for tiny mistakes you are not everyone.
@@arkanimation9833 This is for non commercial art from what I gather the point is about the over reliance of the safety net that is CTRL-Z that makes a lot of people passive about mistakes and instead of working with that mistake and being out that comfort zone and exploring that path and following pure creation from the heart. People make a small mistake press a button and carry on like a train stuck on a track which stumps the development of art. Ai diffusion art on the other hand is creation at its purist form starts as pure chaos and make something out of nothing and makes mistakes which is why its more of an artist than a lot of modern artist. Modern art has lost that magic.
@@DavidR1998. Yeah if these companies and CEOs would invest in actual artists instead of a work around they could have more freedom, but when real artists are just asked to draw logos or company stuff they are limited, because they need to turn in the work the client asked for. This is a whole lot of finger wagging but not giving an actual solution. Ok, keep all your failures no one will pay for your work then you starve and people on the internet will tell you to pick yourself up by the bootstraps as the cycle repeats.
@@DavidR1998. you're the one with an extremely narrow understanding of what a "mistake" is. If you think digital artists have it too good because they can undo a wrong line, then your understanding of what art is must be rudimentary and shallow at best. Same thing for mathematicians. A child in elementary school may think it’s unfair that mathematicians can use calculators when doing work, but they themselves can’t use calculators to do their multiplication worksheets for them. This comes from a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject.
This current leap forward is one step closer to that Star Trek future where holodecks can produce anything you want. And Star Trek pointed out that there are still artists creating with the technology, some considered more gifted than others.
I think AI generators are the "CEOs dream" no need to pay for annoying human artists and respect their annoying human rights, just press a button and you have it, so I guess it's the more "mainstream" jobs that are more at risk. Also I've seen a lot of "AI Bros" surprised people still want to learn art and try to discourage them while calling them "obsolete", the thing is these people don't understand art is difficult, time consuming and very expensive, but people does art because they LOVE art, how fulfilling it is and how good it makes you feel, hell I'm not stopping doing art until the day I fucking DIE, art it's one of the most important things in my life, and differently to many people opinions, most clients don't actually care about the process but the results, and now that AI it's being used and abused everywhere it's good to remember that there's a market for "hand made" products and there are also people who follow artists because of the process, not only the product. In the end it's not just the tech, or the tools but to find the right market. Good thing lawsuits are advancing and there are people developing AI protection tools like Glaze (I think that's the apps name)
Fear of the unknown is a huge factor in all this. I see these tools as ways of expanding the vast canvas on which all artists create. The efficiency of the tools does not change the fact that there's always a human guiding the tool. The possibilities of what one artist can envision and bring into reality is getting exponentially larger. I can see a future where one person can envision a game, for example, and set off to create the whole thing, from gameplay, animations, voice work, art direction, sound design, all on their own with the help of AI tools. This only expands the scope of what larger projects can tackle and produce and affords individual creatives the opportunity to produce what they want.
If you take a photo of something unrelated with good colors then tell the ai to make something completely different, those have been my favorite pieces generated by me
@@Sketcher86 No. Not really. In the case of digital art the tools are from the compiuter, yes, but the skills is from the person who makes it. Similar to AI. Calling it the thing that the compiuter made, inted of a human, is like saing that the paintbrush was the one who made the painting, not the human behind it. It's just tools, just like a paintbrush, a pencil, a lithographic chalk, or a steel pin.
@@Alexandraadftxr7052Hmm whatever. If AI dominates, Art schools will be closed. Then the academic art will perish. Even those who have learned by their own efforts will not be important because any one can create art with a few clicks and commands.
@@Sketcher86 It doasn't have to be. It's simply a an another art form, just like photography was. Snd plus I have seen peole start geting an intrest in art and learn it, thanks to AI art. Srt schol will still exist, the same way as academic art, especially if the price will be lower, or affordable. The problem is not AI, the indestrual art is the problem.
Being limited in resources producing creativity is such a good point. I'm an indie game dev, using a 'rubbish' engine, but I see all sorts of creative ways of getting around the technical limitations. Compare this to games using a more powerful engine, and the games quickly become monotone in how they feel, a bit too polished.
as someone who is not an artist but is harshly against calling AI generated images "art" you've softened my perspective and clearly you understand this better than me
Don't be misled, this guy has no idea what he's talking about. Starting the video by basically mocking digital artists. AI in it's current form is created unethically and is basically stealing. Without all the digital art out there, AI would be a quarter as good as it is now
@@dannypavlov913 Don't let that fool you into believing your art belongs to you once it goes on the internet. This is a fair game and fair use platform, and its copyright trolls claiming ownership over pieces of it that have turned it into a shitshow.
As an artists it’s refreshing to be this from another artist. I could not agree with you more. I am board to tears listening to the rants about AI taking Artist jobs
Very well articulated, and some very interesting thoughts. My problems with AI art are really problems with corporate and commercial art. How it all has this samey aesthetic, how corporate interests seem to make the least interesting work proliferate and that franchises and branding capture vast swathes of unthinking adherents. I think your right. Watching the monster rampage a bit and breaking the system is probably what we really need at this point.
Including how it leans for opritunists who don't care for the medium, or don't want to commission a artist they like for even the most basic shallow work. Its one thing to learn how to draw a specific style r using it to lodge into your brain so you can learn to make your own twists. Then there is leaving all that to a Machine because "too hard." The actual elitist snobby jerkoffs who aren't that talented sadly don't HELP with that either.
I get your points but AI is the bigger than all other forms of automation in the sense of how versatile it is. Not only can it create art it can be a lawyer a writer a musician, this is a constantly learning algorithm not much like the RU-vid algorithm. This Ai can not only learn to be perfect it can learn to be imperfect it could learn to recreate someone's style right down to the point it can replicate how the artist key brush strokes. This can do everything in the art world it can do 2d and 3d it can create life like photographs a tool that can do everything is not like a tool that can one thing. Take photographs for example, can photographs make someone look beautiful even though they're ugly just like how a portrait painter would make an old women look a bit more younger than they are, or, can it take photographs of an imaginative world that doesn't exist? No. It honestly shows the world around it and if you want the photo to look a certain way you will have to go edit it. Can 3D and digital artist create lifelike recreations of the world? No. Just like the portrait painters of old, these digital artists cant recreate a life like image even if they try their best. AI though Ai can learn 100x faster and do anything even recreate life like images. So, no this isn't some tool that can only do one thing thus will only "replace" one line of work, AI is not just going to replace the set designer it can replace the whole crew and in that way this AI is dangerous. The only jobs that are going to come from this even for the programmers and lawyers and people in other fields prone for replacement are "prompt jobs" where people will sit in front of a screen and prompt the AI to do something, call me a luddite but, that is a bleak world I would never want to be a part of. So yeah AI can do everything and thus will replace many more jobs than what the digital printer or camera replaced and unlike 3d and digital software this isn't a new way to create nor will it add another means for someone to manually make and compose art all this will do is just make the art for them and there is a difference between someone doing something for you vs someone giving you a new tool to do something you like a bit faster. A prompter is no different than a commissioner they're still asking for someone to make something for them only that a prompter is going to get their art 10x faster. Also I do see where AI art can be utilised nor am I denying the whole AI art thing since I do genuinely believe there will be some exciting developments in human ingenuity and creativity if AI is used well, key word there being "well". I'm just showing you that AI wont only be able to replicate digital art it could also replicate physical art and other jobs than just art, and that if AI was to replace all means of how we create art today and other fields outside of art it will be a bleak world. I see AI not as the invention of the robotic arm used for manufacturing cars but instead I see it as nuclear energy or the automobile, brand new technologies and discoveries that should be handled with caution lest we come to regret how we recklessly embraced it.
I get your point but that automation was never needed for anything. All in all is just another way for companies to scam money out of consumers by delivering more quantity over quality products. All in all Writing AI and Art AI only really fit the needs of moronic business owners who can it control how creativity functions so they decided to create a tool that will standardize the quality of what they want to deliver for safe investiment
I’ve seen footage of a 3d printer writing a letter, give it a few years and we won’t be able to distinguish the difference computer made to human traditional art
Im a pro digital artist 30 years but I like to practise with ink. Its a ruthless medium where every mistake is permanent. I find i can improve much faster using this.
Its funny ive worked 30 years in ink and i think digital art is ruthless, the unlimited amount of control and crazy speed makes me expect more of me, like no mistakes are happy ones
I have to absolutely thank you for bringing the semantics into the discussion, because back when AI first started booming what I have realised almost right away was that it has come to highlight an issue we have in language and communication nowadays: the watering down of terms, merging different terms and using shorthand to communicate general ideas. Someone working with tweaking photos in Photoshop is considered a retouch artist. Someone who would draw portraits prior to camera is considered an artist. But most people I know who work in retouching, hell, most people I know who are dancers or musical performers - they don't consider themselves artists. They will use that term because it's easily understood: "this person works in an area associated with this or that form of art". But it's not what they are (they can be, it's not mutually exclusive, people can be multiple things at once, and they might be engaging in art making outside of what pays their bills - but the job in question itself is not an art form per se). They are artisans. Craftsmen. They know how to use the tools to do a competent job and give results a client asks for. In a similar way, while I do dabble in drawing, painting and writing, I hate using the term "artist" for myself. I am a craftsperson, perhaps an artisan at most (and not even an especially good one). I have some level of skill, but the way I use it is akin to a child who draws for the fun of it. On a close note, though, AI generated imagery is not art. It can be used to make art, like anyhing else, but I can't consider just the outputs as such. I wouldn't wax poetics about having a soul or whatnot, but it does lack the intent, emotion, and the creativity; there is no human element there, no matter how much we try to antropomorphise it. The way it composes an image is closer to a dog figuring out which button is the right one based on getting a treat after pressing the correct one. It can be a tool, sure, just like anything else. But what it generates is the same brand of art as you'd get by accidentally dropping a bag of grocery stores on the floor and watching the flour and milk spill out and accidentally make something that looks like the shape of a house. It can be inspiring to look at, but it doesn't actually create. And the fact that I've seen essentially everything people have generated with it before in art made by actual humans over the decades (I have to fight off the urge to go on a tirade of names every time I see someone defend AI with a claim that it's good for art because we get more surrealistic art as if people like Salvador Dali or Vladislav Cadaversky or a plethora of other artists from the surrealism and hyperrealism movements did not exist... if anything, AI will make us all the more poor as it keeps feeding off works of people like that while taking any and all attention away from their work, because prior to becoming That Weird AI Thing, surrealism was a niche with little to no recognition) really does not help the whole "it will liberate creativity" case. Also I think the fallacy of argument of AI being nothing but a looparound of history of camera and other inventions. It does kind of tie into why I can't consider AI generation in and of itself to be art, and to the loss of nuance and oversimplification in communication I mentioned before. People keep comparing it to cameras putting portraiture painters out of jobs or cars replacing horse carriages. These were evolutions of tools that put one group of skilled workers out of jobs in favour of ones who had skillset required with the new tools, and sure, to some extent, we are seeing this happening in the art market now with AI being the new cheap and quick and easy way to do thing... but that's not the only thing it's trying to replace. And with more and more of the internet being overflooded with the sewage spill of everyone spamming their midjourney results with the glee and ignorance of a toddler who first discovered that if you melt chocolate in your hands and put those hands to a wall it will leave a mark, even just finding actual art, finding people who actually create and put care into what they do... is becoming increasingly difficult.
"Prompt artists" will just be replaced by automated prompts since the same companies are just using all the results and prompts used for it to refine it in another dataset. This is not a tool to the used by "the new artists", but a tool for the clients (that are paying these AI companies for it). The problem of comparing AI to other tools is that those tools were never made to replace everything on that field. They would sometimes require a shift in what people did and still require people. AI is being developed to replace the entire thing, not to have people in a diferent way to do that work, like the farmer now being able to "farm more" (which is actually what everyone wants, including the farmer), or the movies, etc. There is no "artists will now have to learn prompt crafting" because that part will be also automated as part of the package.
I hope you keep on making making more like this one. Got to know your channel by this entry, and it couldn't have been any better. You speak with such calmness and passion that the whole 30mins go by without notice. These long and seemingly unscripted speeches, where you just talk to the camera, as in an direct dialogue with us, are amazing. The complexity of the topic seems to vanish in the peacefulness of the talk. It is, in itself, a true form of art, and thus a good deal of inspiration for aspiring artists. Keep it up!
if art is just aesthetic things happening that gives you an emotional response, like sunsets or a rainbow in spilled oil, then these programs do art. if arts about a consciousness expressing a state of mind, then computers aren't there yet.
Great video, I really like the part where you talked about Ai being able to view humans and human art in a way totally alienated from our human way of thinking. This new perspective may be another path to understanding more about art and ourselves.
Interesting video! I do have a few thoughts, though. Art isn't just 'personal' or 'commercial' - it's more complex and fluid. The future of AI isn't set in stone, and it's influenced by many factors, so we can't predict it with certainty. And while it's great to encourage everyone to explore AI platforms, we should remember that it's not always easy to get started. Still, I appreciate the conversation this video starts. It's important to think about how AI is changing art and our lives. Keep up the good work!
This is the smartest, most thought out take I’ve heard so far. AI will not do actual art by your definition until it is self-aware with free choice (which is probably coming very soon). But we might get a couple months of act actual artists being appreciated after “rendering” is completely handled by AI, but before AI is making its own creative choices
What we currently call "AI" has no understanding of what it is doing, it's just some code following rules and spitting out what you fed it in accordance with those rules. If you feed it flat earth stuff, it will explain it to you, without seeing any contradictions. So I don't see how you can suppose that it will become self-aware anytime soon. And in his definition, art is produced by the code, the human only gets to decide what to keep. It's no different from what happens when humans also produce it.
@@toututu2993 I don't think that's the case. That may have been true before photography, but that's definitely not the case today. Art has always evolved with technology, photography has changed painting forever. It will evolve with what people call AI: a program that has no understanding of anything but can follow rules to regurgitate what you fed it in another form.
@@IronFreee Do you even do art at all?? You'll just talking with someone who drew daily and keep improving. And Ai art right now does opposite of what makes human artist mine great
@@toututu2993 I'm really sorry but, the fact that you draw daily and keep improving is great but it has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of Art. You may not consider what AI is producing as Art, because it's lacking intention, but the comprehension of the world (even anatomy) isn't a requirement to produce Art since the photography appeared. But even the absence of intention doesn't matter as long as the spectator can provide its own.
I love the bit about art existing beyond words. Being a songwriter, I have often worried about the fact that I do not like to come up with my songs bit by bit. I like them to just come to me, and they do, but then am I not supposed to be able to explain every word and layer of meaning? I am not and I don't want to, I want them to speak for themselves and answer questions I don't know I've asked, and you've really helped me with your words. How can art be explained completely if it contains some substance that cannot be put into words in the first place?
I can remember when film photography went to digital photography. Die hard film photographers were in an uproar and claimed digital photographers were not "real" photographers or were amateurs. Then there was the whole argument over photographers using Adobe products, Topaz Lab, and other photo editing software. Now, both digital photography, drones, photo editing is the norm and professional photographers use digital and photo editing. Art continually evolves. No one's "art" is truly unique to just them. Your artwork may be original to you, but your style and medium is generally combinations of other classical artists or other artists that inspire...just as musicians have other musicians who inspired and influenced them. I go to a lot of art shows, craft shows, etc. and almost everyone is selling the same types of art. The market is already over saturated with both photography and digital prints. The reality is that most average consumers cannot afford original art pieces and so they turn to digital prints. People just need to evolve as technology evolves. If you use Alexa and Siri, iRoomba, etc. you are already using a form of Artificial Intelligence. People use AI all the time and just don't even realize it. I believe AI is a tool. It still requires human input. The difference is that AI makes you work smarter and more efficient. People should learn to use it to their advantage while it's still affordable. It's not going to go away no matter how much people complain about it so people should just embrace it.
Insane quality video, with really deep thought! I love it this is so rare on RU-vid! Thanks a lot! Also I totally agree, AI is not destroying job or field, it’s transforming them. And those who are embracing the change are going to end up on top!
I heartily agree … The more AI understands what we gravitate towards the more generic it will become. Character designs Layout Animations Etc. It will inherently give us less and less choice.
