I agree. I felt that the hair felt a bit more connected to the character and the shapes felt a bit more convincing. I feel that the hair doesn’t “flow” like it did in the draft. For example, the hair in the bottom right of the final product doesn’t seem connected to the character and it flows out and away instead of wrapping around and going back to the character. I also noticed that this ribbon of hair gets established when he uses the AI reference. I know that he was going for a character with a bunch of chaotic, swirling hair in a void, but I feel that the use of AI may have steered him in the wrong direction. I’m just beginning my art journey, so I’m not like an experienced art critic or anything.
I disagree. I think the real artist is the one who uses their knowledge to use the tools provided to their advantage. Ergojosh is just one of those people that I personally look up on in order to not be afraid to use good things in order to achieve great results. I'm also 100% sure that most of the people commenting can't even get remotely close to the artistry level that Ergojosh has achieved over these years. He's already proven that he is a real skilled artist and we should be grateful that there are people that aren't afraid of pushing the creative boundaries, whatever source they came from. Yes, put your shit on me for that opinion of mine, i don't care.
@@IAMDOKTOR dude, I agree. Nowadays artist cannot accept that using AI already is an industry standart in many companies. And while you deny using AI tools, someone who learned how to work with it - getting a job. And you don't. Cause buisness doesn't care about morality, it cares about cheaper and faster result.
All the ethics stuff pushed aside -- the issue I'm seeing with this is that it just feels like a lot of extra work to do something that looks worse than if you just drew it from your imagination. I think your initial sketches look WAY better than what we got as your final piece.
I was thinking the same, if he had planned better he could of thumbnailed his piece and structured hair in a ppeasing composition rather than using ai's jumbled mess of a hair. He could of asked online for images with the vibe he wanted or looked up underwater cosplays for floaty hair. I feel like there was better options than going for ai and using someone's jumbled art and harming the environment.
Also, if someone with way less experience follows this advice and goes to the ai references instead of the real ones all they are doing is learning things wrong and replicating the mistakes the ai is making, effectively halting their grow progress
Also to all of you claiming “AI is inevitable” know this - you are the ones making it inevitable by cowering and bowing your heads down or by looking for an easy way to get ahead or by succumbing to FOMO.
Absolutely not Ai will continue to grow wether you accept it or not, the succes and profit that companies will make of a Ai is invetable and accepting that fact and acting accordingly won't make things worse in fact getting frustrated with Ai for using pre existing content to make new art work is dumb and immature considering we humans need to do the same. Moral of the story you will have a much better time accepting and adapting then whining and complaining.
I think apart of the issue is that he’s already so good that he is better then the AI and AI doesn’t know art skills, techniques, composition,meaning and much more it just makes what someone wants to see that can look good to someone with out an eye for art and or detail that it’s overall downgrades his work since Ai use any work it can find too you can’t forget it uses beginners too or people who make art look good but not understand what makes the art good. That’s why I think it doesn’t look as good it also gives the Ai vibe of directionless and makes my eyes hurt if I don’t focus on the face. I don’t mean to be rude there are likely good uses for AI like maybe the magic color picker I heard of even tho anyone can do that themselves but AI is not made by artist and they really didn’t have artist in mind when it was being made others I think Ai would be so much better in results and ethics. Honestly the Ai would gain more using his art then he does using the Ai.
TLDR he doesn’t need AI he is way better at art then it and knows art techniques and other things the ai can’t understand so when it’s used it downgrades the work. He very skilled and maybe just maybe it would help a beginner more but would would fall in the same errors and places Ai falls flat.
Genuinely curious if it was an intentional choice to have random, short bits of broken hair floating around, or is that the product of tracing AI? It’s jarring for me. If intentional, why?
its definitely tracing the AI since AI cant make intentional choices and just throws in what it thinks an approximation of hair would look like. very weird he copied it into the work
That's Josh in a nutshell. He always seems to overcomplicate simple things just so he can keep messing around with his gadgets and apps. I honest think it would do him some good to dedicated sometime with pen and paper so he can remember art doesn't need to be so complicate.
@@twocansamm💀Literally. And he had to go to a grid website to get that? Clip Studio Paint has grids. He keeps making simple things look complicated and doesn't seem to have the experience or skill of a professional.
funnily enough the hair looks shit - exactly like the unstructured mess AI tends to make when it comes to hair. something an artist with intention wouldnt do
@@brandi598 you can’t even tell where most of it is coming from. like ive seen plenty of art with flowy-haired folks and I’ve always been able to at least see the flow of the hair. this you can’t even follow and if you try, it makes less and less sense
If you wanted the face to take inspo from kuvshiniov ilya, you would have looked at his art. If you wanted to make the hair look wild and dynamic, you could have looked at artist like alphonse mucha, redum, or yoneyama mai. You could've even took inspo from nature like with waves. Everytime you used ai in this painting you could've easily used an artist or nature around you. Just because these are decisions you made during the art process, doesn't mean there good ones
So you're using AI as a reference for... hair and... expression/face? Really? A man that's known for drawing only women needs AI as a reference for that? That's dissapointing.
This whole video just made no sense. He’s claiming he used AI for something which any artist of his skill could easily sketch out, & the whole time he’s claiming how minor the use was & how he didn’t need it. So then… why use it? Midjourney is a paid subscription. Basically, he’s coping in this vid prob bc he feels guilty & is using it way more than this. IMO this is a preemptive confession to avoid being ruined when he inevitably gets caught.
No Ai for reference is fine, thats like googling images or finding Pinterest reference , was worse is that he was tracing the Ai on top of hs drawing , which is really sad.
@@McCloud23892 Using AI as a reference or tracing makes no sense, because the images are not correct enough for them to be referenced from, that's why we use pictures for references. You can take an extra 15 minutes looking for photos, pieces by another artists and see how they draw what you need. If you reference from AI your work will be sloppy, that's why the piece in the video has random locks of hair floating around, not connected to anything and it doesnt look appealing. You can get random AI images that are flooding pinterest as inspiration, like 'Oh this character is a dragon woman I could make a dragon woman illustration'. If you have bad sources your endproduct will suffer as well. If someone can't curate some images and need to pay for Midjourney to give you something fast and sloppy, maybe they don't like art enough to be doing it lol
AI was kinda useless here, you have the capabilities to do without, it might have looked better, but you would for sure have improved your scattering and composition. A 115 hours seems way too much i am wondering how you can spend so much time on this even tho it is a piece that would require some time. Did you spend that much time because of how you implemented ai ?
@@mattc7420 why be so defensive ? What agenda ? I asked a question and expressed my opinion. If you found the answers to my questions to be obvious please share your point of view.
Your AI use turned this composition into incomprehensible mush. I'm afraid you haven't taken enough of a step back to realize that, and/or that you're so convinced that the opposition to AI is just dogmatic that you're writing off legitimate criticism that could make your art better.
@@mattc7420 actually I watched every second of this video and listen to his every word. And I've followed Josh's work for years. You're assuming things that aren't true about me, and you're probably assuming untrue things about this technology as well. Do your research - no one who respects art in any form would give a penny to a company like Midjourney.
@@NunchuckPup I can understand that you find any use of ai immoral that's an argument to be made but the results have nothing to do with the usage of ai in this particular instance, nothing would've changed if he'd find actual hair references to use, he carefully composed cut located and warped every single strand of hair in this image and kept virtually 0 of the ai image, not even as texture. if you don't like the final result that's fine but just recognize that it's not because of ai you simply don't like Ergo's piece.
@@Gyork_ do you honestly believe that AI images are no different from photos and artwork created with human intention? If I have to explain to you why the disembodied shreds of hair in his final image simply look bad, I'm not sure you're here for a good faith discussion.
Yes! The AI made it look worse like what😭 also he spends the whole video correcting the mistakes from the AI references so?? You’re just proving our point?
You do realize that even if you claim you only use 0.000001% of AI in the piece, you mentioned using Midjourney which mean you PAID for them to further disturb artists with whatever they're doing.
@@nanoreyyy It doesn't use a lot of energy. That's a myth. You can use Stable Diffusion on your PC, running it on your GPU. It doesn't require more energy than gaming.
@@NorthgateLPthey dont mean using it yourself, they mean specifically training AI, powering AI data centres, etc. Corporates have reported surging numbers of greenhouse gas emissions since they’ve invested in this bullshit
The way you would think this was satire with how the composition and personal style of the original sketch deteriorated with each time AI is used (which, yes, even the “referencing” from AI art ripped from Pinterest counts as)
A) giving money to a tech company profiting off stealing from and replacing artists is where you went wrong. I could give a shit about if you got a lil lightbulb idea from some AI slop you scrolled past on instagram. At the end of the day if you have an AI subscription you are paying money for a product that has generated billions of dollars for some rich assholes who didn't do a lick of work to make it happen. All of those AI generated images were only possible because of the stolen labor of millions of artists who will never see a dime of that profit. B) every change you made as a result of using ai made the painting weaker and less intentional
Wait until you realize that most of these tools are also available for free. Not there's anything wrong with paying for a service, if one chooses to do so.
@@Singularity606 Lol okay so you're explaining to me that i'm wrong and it's because there are people out there putting artists out of work with their "stolen data shuffling algorithms" purely for the love of the game. brilliant love it
Kinda disappointed in seeing this take from you Josh. There are definitely ways that Generative AI *could* be used ethically in the future, were it trained on artwork from consenting sources. But your use of AI in this way basically solves none of the issues that most people have with it. Generative AI as a technology is built on the principles of theft and operating without consent, and even if you used a program that was entirely trained on ethically sourced training data, the amount of energy needed to generate these refence images, (which, by the way, will *never* serve as better or more "realistic" refences than just using a photo) is proportionally massive compared to almost any other human energy use. Most peoples problems with AI "ethics" don't stop with using ethical training data, it also extends to not wanting to unnecessarily destroy the planet we are living on. Additionally, my own other main problem with utilising generative AI is a lack of intention. Any artwork, including photography, cosplay, pottery, comics and illustration, is created with intention, with a message to tell or with something to convey. AI lacks this intention. Any AI reference that you follow closely enough will just be adding essentially no information to your work, and if you, as you say "know how to trace something that adheres to your own intuition of shape design", you didn't really need to use the AI as a reference at all. You say that you spent a long time looking for photographic reference, and couldn't find any that looked similar enough. But for AI to be able to create an image that looks like that, it must have been trained on images that look similar, there is no debate on that. I did actually find several (non AI) underwater hair photoshoots similar to your AI reference with just a few minutes of searching on Pinterest.
AI art exists in the well-understood framework of copyright law, including fair use. It's not "theft" and nobody needs your consent to look at an image. Being upset is not going to change that.
@@Singularity606 difference between looking at an image and taking the literal data and feeding it into a machine. atleast know what you're defending before doing so
@@pinnappel713 What did you think "looking" means in this context, lol? Yes, you can use the data. Just like a human can. And the courts have already said so too.
Agreed. That 115 hour work time is staggering, considering AI is ostensibly supposed to ease the process. Spending that much time on a project, then deciding NOT to make your own intentional creative choices and let a machine do it for you is wild. Really, what incentive is there unless Midjourney is cutting you a check?
"I'm the director", "I'm in control", "I gave it my vision". I feel like I've heard similar words from someone else. Shadiversity comes to mind with his "Love Letter" to AI. They sound like manufactured excuses to me.
Because genAI is much more flexible, if you have an idea/style/pose you want to reuse/improve or iterate on you can just copy paste lora/seed/prompt and have it apply to whatever part of image you are working on. If you don't like the result you just iterate through generarions until it'd just like you wanted. Making a workflow can take hours or days but once you have it, it takes seconds to apply and use it... way faster than in normal process.
In my opinion the initial sketch had the best idea, the pose and expression looked the best and looked mysterious, having the hair be so wild was also a good idea, unfortunately using Ai to create random wild strands and implementing them made it look really messy and where the hair is coming from doesn't make sense, I'll call it the hair dimension. I would still go back to that original sketch and do it without the Ai and let people decide what they like more.
Dude, i think you are missing the big point here. Sure, the sketch before the AI hair looked "cleaner", the intention from the very beginning was to fill the artwork with flowy abstract elements to give the piece more umph. The hair was just the best element to fit that exact goal. Also, who in heck cares where the hair is coming from? The art clearly depicts some magical scene, so the hair could have floated all around the place by the mystical force of the orb or whatever. All the AI did was to throw in some direction for the flow of the hair, pushing it to a 3 dimensional movement was all Josh's own doing.
@@viktoria_pikovsky He shouldn't have just copied it and it does matter where the hair will come from as it can just make it look bad, there is just floating hair that seemingly comes from nowhere and doesn't makes sense at all, Ai doesn't know a lot and will just throw things here and there because it doesn't know any better, people will see that it doesn't make sense and especially artists or people that know something about art. If it was all coming from her head and the hair would make sense it would be good, this just looks weird and will look even more wrong the more you will look at it, if you really want to use Ai then use it only for inspiration and not to copy things from it because the mistakes may be visible at the end.
@@AiasArts Here is a counter point- How do you know it wasn't intentional? Going by Josh's idea, he WANTED to have shit ton of hair floating everywhere. That includes random bits that doesn't seem to make any sense. Sure, the AI doen't understand yet hair physics and whatever, so it isn't the most reliable reference for it. But Josh does. And he is good enough artist to see those mistakes and correct them. So it either Josh WANTED hair particles floating around that don't seem to connect to the head, or he got such a strong tunnel vision while tracing the AI, that he hadn't noticed that the shapes he saw in the hair don't end up connecting to the head. And seeing his skills, I have suspicion that it might be the former. And besides, you are so focused on blaming the AI, that you are completely forgetting the human element in the video. Josh knew what he was stepping into when he traced that AI hair, and did everything he could to get the most out of it. That included tracing the potential mistakes the AI made, in hope of being able to fix them.
@@viktoria_pikovsky Obviously, in the broadest sense, Josh had "intention" to create the artwork-- he went through the steps to do it. But the artwork doesn't *look* intentional because there's no logic in regard to overall composition and the hair's properties. This is one part because he relied so much on the AI's composition which doesn't have intentionality and another part because he didn't have the artistic sense to recognize it (lack of artistic intention). His original sketch looked so much more intentional because he used fundamental understanding of composition and hair which he has developed for years through practice and just... experiencing the world as a human.
some people take longer to draw it’s a part of the learning process it’s not funny at all to laugh at that. a person can take days to draw something much less detailed. respect artists
the practical point off gen AI is for ad agencies and game studios ( big and small) to skip and not paying artists like ergo josh and churning out gen AI output instead which then gets corrected by their low to not payed intern, or to low payed outsource studios in countries with far lower costs of living like ukraine or philippines
@@manuela0986 I don't consider artists those who use AI and defend it. Moreover, bragging about hours amount took to finish the pic while using AI is disrespect for REAL artists who draw using their hands and mind only. I have no respect for this person and their "efforts" and I'm fine with that, thanks.
The thing with "just use ai as reference" is that there is such thing as good and bad reference. Like a low res photo or an image thats too dark to make out details. Ai does not make good reference, real life does
Yes, this take is so wild and stupid because the entire point of using reference is to give a real life guide or learn from other artists. AI truly has no place in this process
no professional artist would recommmend to use genAI as ref because of the points u already mentioned, we even do not recommend to ref from other artist because u not only learn their way of thinking but also their mistakes, therefore a good reference always comes from irl
Wow. I used to listen to this guy for art advice, but now that I know he's extremely out of touch, maybe I'll go learn from an artist who actually cares about art. Way to destroy your viewerbase man. Enjoy the massive wave of people unsubscribing. Seriously, what did you think this would achieve?
💀💀💀 the hair still looks ai generated, there's parts of it that doesn't even flow properly or connect to anything at all😭. 115 hours of what? Trying to overcomplicate the process to make it seem like there was so much skill involved, no artist BELOW or ABOVE you is going to look at your process/art in awe. You’ll never get the praise you always desired from this.
It feels like ai was used here in oder to prove the point that it is a useful "tool", but, to be honest, its seems to me that it was kinda useless here, because obviously the artist can depict all this floating hair without these messed up reference schemes, the rough sketch of a hair was more then enough to make a final good result of it. What's the point of using ai here? I don't get it
@@TheCrazyOne2 His "real" fans are going to still support him and he can also get an industry job anywhere of his choosing he has a huge following he's not going to be hurt at all. Also since your "Mentally Unstable" like you claimed to be who gave you permission to post without a supervisor? get off the inertnet now and take ya meds
That is blatantly incorrect and a lie because there aren’t even that many votes total. Its currently 564 likes to 496 dislikes. It used to be about 62% positive until an unprecedented amount of views from Reddit began earlier today.
@@ergojosh Are you seriously caring about numbers right now? That's such a 4chan thing, I can't take you serious if this is the type of comment you decided to comment on.
giving money to a company that is stealing from every artist without compensation to stay ahead of the curve is like setting yourself on fire for warmth and saying everyone else should do it too
"I don't feel confident drawing hair in a 3D space, so I used AI to make the hair look like an incoherent spaghetti noodle mess." Really dude? Your art advice has been so helpful to me for so long, your mentality of grinding and practicing has helped me through my doubts and insecurities. Now you're telling me you needed AI to draw wavy hair?? Instead of, idk, practicing??
this, i get whats he’s trynna say but like… why though 😭 why spend so much time developing skills just to not use them or put them to practice. what happened to the joy of self creativity and improvement!!
The anti-Ai sentiment usually boils down to artists with frail egos. These technology eras always happen, and the pearl clutching along with it. The same thing happened when artists embraced the digital era, traditionalists called simple tools like copy/paste "cheating". Same thing occured with people who initially began the photobashing era. It's always "purists" vs "fake/cheap" artists. AI is simply another tool in its infancy. Same as copy/paste, layering, infilling tools, photobashing, etc. Basic us vs. them-ism. It always happens this way, and as always those most susceptible to herd mentality will "clutch their pearls", gasp, and copy all their peers moral grandstanding and altruisms, because they lack objectivity to see art for what it is, a subjective creation beyond ego.
Bye 👍 it's one thing to explain your own opinions, but the vibe of this video is just weird. I only got halfway through because you sound so angry like you're burrating your audience for disagreeing with your view on AI, calling it "immature". Thats really disappointing dude.
I hear you on that. But I thought my emotions were justified and left them in. I have feelings too believe it or not. I don’t really want to contribute to the current meta that if you “show emotion you lose” attitude. Soon thats gonna be the only way to tell if you are talking to a human on the phone anyway lol. But let’s not mix words here. I didn’t say “if you disagree” you are immature. I made it pretty clear what I called out as immature behavior.
@@ergojosh well, it's not that " if you show emotion you lose", it's more that "you got too defensive because ppl felt betrayed and disappointed" and in your last post u called your viewers ignorant and having "their heads in the dirt"...
@@ergojosh I get that there are people arguing in bad faith (unfortunately, that's the internet for you). But there's also a lot of people making cogent points that you seem to be missing or ignoring. It reminds me a bit of some critiques I had in art classes, where some students would get hyper defensive and miss the opportunities to learn and improve their work. Sure, some people just had dumb critiques. But arguing with those people is just wasting energy and distracting yourself from the opportunities to grow. Please consider the categories of the good faith critiques: - ethical considerations of using & paying for Midjourney - AI's effect on the clarity of your composition, and how committing to its use may have made you blind to some unwanted outcomes. - the benefits of using non-AI reference (other art & photos) that are created with intention, and how machine learning programs might flatten out that intention - What might have gotten lost from your first round of sketches, which many people agree had a lot of thought and energy and compelling ideas that got lost in the final product - How the ways you presented your argument played a part in making people respond with such strong emotions. Perhaps having their trust broken has more to do with it than just hating any and all use of AI. This was most certainly the case for me.
I decided it was necessary for reasons Ive already stated after seeing the intense reaction and reading the responses. It was clear to me that there needed to be some detailed example out there to add to the discussion.
@@ergojoshYeah and your video made it worse. They told you it would be shit. You made the video anyway. Surprise, it's shit! I guess that's what you get for thinking you're so much smarter and superior to the lowly underlings in your fanbase huh
@@ergojoshYou even added the "REAL artist" in the title to be as condescending as possible toward all those fake artists out there who don't want their work fed into a machine without their consent. You really gottem, man. You're a REAL artist and they're all struggling, who even cares about their opinions?
9:09 "yeah i also could have made an alligator head" yes, not theft 9:20 "my camera to photograph my hand" yes, not theft 9:24 "images on pinterest" yes, not theft 9:25 "references that i purchased from real people and i purchased them from artstation" yup, it really seems like you understand how not to steal from artists 31:25 "i hope you see now that AI can be used in a way that doesn't infrige on any individual artists copyright, this is all my work clearly" Yeah this where we really see how confused you are about what's wrong with AI, the first part of that sentence is factually wrong, you cannot generate an image without infringing on artists rights. You're completely missing the point when you argue that your painting is original, who gives a crap? it's the fact that you pressed that button to generate what you wanted, you helped that company. Listening to your video it's almost like you're trying to justify that using reference is okay, which is a thing nobody in their right mind disagrees with, yes AI is a tool that can give you references but that tool was built by scraping the entire internet, abusing a legal system not yet ready to protect people from this technology.
He also sounds like he is so angry in the video. Sounds like a bunch of copium trying to justify why he didn’t want to put in the work. If you use AI, you support the theft, it’s that simple imo. just sad seeing this from one of the biggest art creators…
@@naircat You didn't understand their argument. They never said that referencing an image made by genAI is bad, just that the tool itself has many ethical issues that shouldn't be ignored; and by using them-or worse, paying for them-means you're supporting the profit and growth of a massive corporation, instead of the people whose content was scraped (for free and without any permission whatsoever) to build said tool. A person stealing stuff from others and profiting off of it isn't legal, and a massive corporation doing the same thing shouldn't be either.
Because most artists are all elitist and selfish narcissists. When printing press was invented, writers cried that it takes away the skill from manual writing, they did not care that it makes it cheaper to make books and to spread knowledge because they were too preoccupied with feeling hurt. Now we are in 21st century and nobody cares that ChatGPT did the same thing, make notes for them, brainstorm ideas, design websites and program apps easier and cheaper. And writers, scientists nor programmers complain. Why? Because they are educated, unlike most twitter artists who are highschool dropouts. These people write scientific papers and apps or video games for months to release them for free. Artists release stuff for free too, but not to share knowledge nooo, but to flex or get praise. Why else would their blood boil when someone uses their work? With which we are getting to the point of my comment. This was never about stealing. No. Adobe is using their own stock photos to train their AI and people using it still get hate. (But fun fact, TOS of every major social media platform states that EVERYTHING you upload is public domain and/or owned by the platform, so literally like 70%+ of photorealistic models didin't steal anything). This is nothing but pure jealousy and angst at their own inability to adapt, hate that other people get to enjoy what they do without years of effort. They don't care that some highschool student might use AI to produce the next viral video game or comic for people to make happy or laugh at, they don't care that people are using it to restore old photos of their passed-away loved ones because they don't have the money to pay for commission. No, they are just horrible people set on making this world a worse place to live in.
Been subscribed for years, won one of your "draw this in your style" contests back in the day. Really disappointed to see you take this stand, knowing full well this technology is built on the theft of your peers with the sole purpose of cheapening their work. So many artist friends of mine in the industry have already been thrown out for this technology, and you've chosen to spit in their faces. Do better
The base creation of AI "art" tool as of now, are the scrapping of unsolicited artworks of artist. There is ZERO justification of using this technology can be ethically right. Art is not just production of visual, but also it's relationship with the artist
Still 739.000 subs that don't act like headless Chicken. 2k gone as far as YT shows. If thats "killing" his career than drinking water gives u superpowers.
@@De_Gecko define "headless chicken" Because is common sense saying genAI in images is a parasyte, and normalizing it just gives power to industries to keep stealing
I know you're absolutely not reading all the comments going against you with this video, so I just want to mark that it's a terrible take, like the others. I imagine you want to normalize this kind of thing as much as you can since it's also part of your Introduction to Digital Illustration in Procreate pack you have being sold on your website. The more people you convince, the more you can point them to your content and eventually sell more of that. What I'm seeing is not "How a REAL Artist Uses Ai", it's "How a Content Creator/RU-vidr Uses Ai to sell you stuff". I appreciate the hustle, just don't call yourself an artist, it's fine.
The issue with AI was never that it can't be used by actual artists to assist their work. This issue was that it isn't ethical. AI is built on stolen art. It doesn't create something from nothing, it creates it from other people's hard work without giving them any credit or even really changing anything at all. They don't get a voice in it, they don't get any credit from it. It's just stolen from them. It's not the same as looking at the way another artist draws something and taking inspiration from that at all. And all of that isn't even factoring in the massive toll it takes on the environment. This isn't about references. This isn't about inspiration. It's just giving more credit to something that is fundamentally built against artists.
Professional artists are better and faster than AI, for sure, but why shouldn't they try to find new ways and new ideas from it ? I think what's the most interesting in AI is that some pictures are very unusual. I don't understand why people here think it's better to imitate an artist or use a photo from a photographer who don't get any money from you either for using they work.
I do agree. Right now, a lot of people don't like AI due to it costing artists jobs, and the learning data for the AIs being scraped without credit. That's why people are mostly mad right now. But there are also bills in the US government that aim to regulate AI and demand the data has to be credited. But once that happens, it could be a tool for expirementation or expression like any other.
@@h.vallis6934 Sure, using AI that is using our own drawings to generate its pictures. Seems backwards to me. There are also unusual drawings?.. I don't get your point with "some pictures are very unusual". Perhaps you've not seen enough of odd drawings? Who is saying to imitate? Well, nobody is getting even the credits from generated pictures or payment either, would you say that's better? Why even use someone else's photos also? Plenty of artists use their own references.
@@neru_d Using our own drawings and pictures to create our own AI style is an option. By unusual, I meant 'never seen' or weird. Having a degree in contemporary art, I've seen my share of weird and wtf things but sometimes AI generates surprising images. That's what I'm looking for.
I've been a fan of your's for years and have loved watching your art journey. There's a lot of people already saying what I'm thinking, we're disappointed in you. I don't support the use of AI nor the downplaying of it ruining artists' lives. I've unsubscribed and maybe others will too. It's up to you to choose which crowd you want to be in, I'm sad at your current choice.
I don't think he's gonna change his mind either since he's busy arguing in the comments. Honestly, I have no idea how he didn't see this coming. It's like common knowledge that artists hate AI.
Speak for yourself. I learned about him because of his use of AI and I'm now subscribed. As a creative with an art degree, I've seen the possible utility of AI for awhile and it's great to see artists sharing this, it will be helpful in the coming decade for digital artists.
@@_lil_lil It will replace our jobs. It already uses our work without our consent. It's also helping to melt the icecaps. Having an art degree doesn't make you smart.
this video is basically like “i’m trying to find a solution for an issue that didn’t exist for hundreds of years by using a machine that mainly steals from artists to make a prompt work which actually doesn’t look that good compared to the usual refrences.”
Real artists don't need to use a souless generation for their art. Real artists are creative, passionate, they learn along the way of their art journey, they take inspiration and create their own unique style. Real artists understand the patience it takes to become good enough at art, Ai won't ever measure up to that. Hard L and to any beginner artists or just any artists, don't let Ai stop you, keep creating.
All this showed me is how wildly terrible ai is at making things better, you're original drafts wrre better, had better structure and concepts that were cool that the finished artwork didn't have whatsoever, this feels weird and as a fan im kind if disappointed
So you make a community post where you ask if people want to see a guide on using AI. You receive negative feedback from the vast majority of your subscribers and you go ahead and make the video regardless. Just one question, if you don’t care what your community thinks why ask for their opinion in the first place? Or did you post it anyway because it’s so controversial and you knew it will get a lot of attention. Even the title you chose leads me to believe this…As they say, there’s no such thing as negative publicity. In regards to the artwork itself, yes you didn’t just copy a generated image, but you over complicated your workflow with all these additional steps for no real gain in my opinion. Like what boundaries do you feel that you pushed with this technique? You have pieces much better than this one
Absolutely insane and devastating seeing an artist make a whole video about AI defending himself while not grasping the most basic understanding on why AI is just wrong, not a tool, just plain wrong. Hopefully reading the hundred of comments you have here will make you understand it, even tho I doubt it since you didn't get it till now. AI is a tool, as you call it, based on the theft or artists and photography that got scraped without anyone's permission. I will avoid talking about its impact on the climate and our world, you can easily google it. Using it and promoting it you are actually supporting people that made their fortune by taking advantage of others, but you know that or you wouldn't be so passive aggressive about it... Either way, it is truly a shame to see this. I hope you learn from all of this, I hope you get to talk to your peers and understand why it is wrong.
Es un DISPARATE lo que dices. ¿Quién eres tu para decir lo que está bien o está mal? ¿Desde cuando la generación de imágenes es un robo? No tienes idea de como la IA genera sus imágenes. Se entrena como nos entrenamos nosotros y si no estas de acuerdo...NO LO HAGAS.
@@JafetBotton For how much translation can help me here your initial message might be lost in it but I will try to reply at the best of my ability to what I think you're saying based on it. We do know how AI models are built, scraping without consent from art pieces, to voices, likings, videos, pictures and most sites who you wouldn't want to be affiliated with. And saying that that's how we human learn it's absolutely delusion talking, please inform yourself there are many news sites you can read from how it works. We can easily say if it is bad or not, and it is bad. I won't use it but it is also our place to try and lend a helping hand to others when they make mistakes, help them take better informed decision. I hope you can understand that.
@@theherald_oLamentablemente parece que el que tiene poca noción de cómo se genera una imagen mediante la IA es usted, dado que la función generativa parte de redes neuronales entrenadas o alimentadas por inmensa cantidad de datos provenientes de Internet es IMPOSIBLE que sea o un plagio o un robo. Como dibujante y pintor he tenido la suerte de "entrenarme" con grandes artistas o con menores cuyas obras se pueden encontrar en plataformas web o redes sociales. ¿Estoy plagiando? ¿Estoy robando? En todo caso se debe ser más como Picasso dijo: "los malos artistas copian, los grandes artistas roban". Esa PATRAÑA de creer que uno es "original" cuando bebemos de diversas y múltiples fuentes es lo lamentable de esta situación dándote el lujo de DESCALIFICAR el trabajo de un artista solo porque usa una herramienta (sí, una herramienta) que para mal o para bien es el futuro. Es el mismo prejuicio absurdo que antes concitaba el uso de la fotografía y antes el uso masivo del grabado para componer escenas o dibujar figuras. ¿Qué diremos del uso que hicieron grandes artistas con la cámara lúcida o la cámara oscura? La tecnología está hace tiempo entre nosotros participando de lo que ha hecho y hace Photoshop para el retoque de imágenes o del futuro mismo de la fotografía y la música con los nuevos modelos de la IA. Basta ya de prejuicios absurdos, descalificaciones, cancelaciones y caza de brujas. ... Unfortunately, it seems that the one who has little idea of how an image is generated by AI is you, given that the generative function is based on neural networks trained or fed by an immense amount of data from the Internet, it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to be either plagiarism or theft. As a draftsman and painter I have been lucky enough to "train" with great artists or with minors whose works can be found on web platforms or social networks. Am I plagiarizing? Am I stealing? In any case, we must be more like Picasso said: "bad artists copy, great artists steal". That hoax of believing that one is "original" when we drink from diverse and multiple sources is the unfortunate thing about this situation giving you the luxury of DISQUALIFYING the work of an artist just because he uses a tool (yes, a tool) that for better or worse is the future. It is the same absurd prejudice that used to arouse the use of photography and before that the massive use of engraving to compose scenes or draw figures. What shall we say about the use made by great artists with the camera lucida or the camera obscura? Technology has been with us for some time now, participating in what Photoshop has done and does for image retouching or the very future of photography and music with the new AI models. Enough of absurd prejudices, disqualifications, cancellations and witch hunts.
@@JafetBotton I'll just open with saying that I won't go entertain this discussion with you any longer because I don't think you truly understand what you're talking about. I never even mention problems such as plagiarism or theft, I first of all mentioned the problem of scraping the internet of data without their consent, something that is far different. If they were trained with datas that were compensated and given to them with permission I wouldn't care less, but this is not the case. Thinking that a machine built like that holds the same value as a human brain is something I not only don't agree to but find delusional. Stop using AI bros rethoric, read about what GenAi really does to our world and to the artists and worker. I won't reply to you any longer but I genuely wish you a good day.
Sorry Josh but this is an L. As others have pointed out the issue with AI is that it's built on a pyramid of stolen work. There is no legitimate use of it. Using it like this normalises it and makes it seem ok in certain use cases, which opens the flood gates for other use cases and before you know if we've lost the battle that we've been fighting so hard for the past few years and AI is replacing full job roles. A REAL artist doesn't use AI, not because it's cheating, but because it's morally bankrupt. Edit: I want to add an addendum here because I noticed in your description you use medical AI as an example of 'good' AI and are trying to equate your usage of it to that. AI is not the enemy. Anyone with a decent brain between their ears knowns that AI in itself is not evil and has existed for a long time, will continue to exist for a long time and has many increidble uses that can better peoples' lives. The issue is specifically for image generators being trained on stolen work, 'AI' colloquially referring to those image generators cannot be justified because it's rotten to the core. The only way to make them acceptable is to wipe the slate clean, start again with a model of consent first, compensation and credit or training an AI on your own work that you own outright. Using the existing image generation tools we have today is a far cry from AI being used in the medical field for the good of society.
I'm kinda curious how compensation and credit would work with ai. Would it be payment for the images the ai is trained on or for the images the ai makes? I can actually see the first one working now that I say it out loud, although I do think image generation could be considered transformative enough to count as fair use.
Sorry buddy. The only thing that's immature here is you making a 30 min vid to cope with the fact you used AI and calling everyone critical of the tech immature. Jeeezus
Is this a hoax? 110 hours and this is the composition you got. Dead eyes, nonsensical hair strands, and you didn't even bother fixing the hands. AI - It's got what empty suits and 'REAL artists' crave.
The AI hair that you traced honestly doesn’t look good in the final artwork. I don’t get why this was necessary . You are telling a bunch of impressionable beginner artists that is is okay when it’s not.
I don't think he's saying that at all. He's saying use the tools available and incorporate them into your artistic style. You must have knowledge before using the tools.
@@Frimzeey I know, he is saying that AI is a good tool to use to build off of previously known knowledge. But why not just learn the skills yourself instead of relying on AI to help him, (with the hair specifically) it just seems so weird why he is doing all this extra effort, when the original hair draft that he had without using AI, looked so much better than the ai tracing.
@@Frimzeey Yes, but he ha this giant audience who sees all of his videos. It just doesn’t make much sense to me because he was so anti-ai before with making a lot of videos on it. now he is saying it’s revolutionary and a great tool to utilize. that’s just beside all of the the ethical concerns ai comes with. His point that he wanted to make was clearly made and it’s a pretty terrible point. it seems like so much effort to do all of this rather than have your own idea executed yourself, and not some ai machine do it for you
@aidenjonesart I understand your point to a point however things change and so do people. Unfortunately, AI is the future and you're either going to utilize the tool or you aren't. Maybe he was speaking on the topic of non artists using ai in its entirety and claiming that they made it when is 100% generated. However, in this instance he's using ai in a productive way in conjunction with his art. Hence, "how real artists use ai"
@@RhysBennett-dm5wjthat's not the point of the comment, yes Josh has improved a lot since he started the channel, via honing his skill and it shows, but you can always improve more, AI will never develop your skills, only takee away from it
Making a second comment about the AI use. What I'm seeing here, Josh, is your design process get ahead of the philosophy you've brought to the work. You have a lot of techniques and processes to bring to bear on any drawing problem - that's basically the appeal with digital art as a genre. And that motive leads towards maximalist digital pieces that are crowded with designed elements: lots of layers, lots of details, everything rendered out. It appeals to a certain kind of technically-minded artist. But when you apply the AI to the hair, it's to make an effect that isn't aiming to convey the real information - it is, instead, "good bullshit", as they say. And AI models are appealing to that end, because the easiest and most straightforward use of computers is to *generate wrong answers infinitely fast* - humans can't jump to thrice their height, but we're convinced that Mario can. When you are in this realm the art is now more conceptual than technical in nature: the process you use is no longer a strictly representational thing, and it doesn't reflect a straightforward metric of skill. Rather, it says something about your philosophy, attitude and approach. The justification you are being asked to make through the philosophy is: there are thousands of ways to make good bullshit, so why pick this one? Why does that cohere better than, say, throwing a bunch of toilet paper around your room and sketching the result?
Extremely disappointing to see you double down on this and make your insecurity about it everyone's problem. There is no valid argument for using these programs as they are right now to do what you could have done anyway if you were willing to actually put in the work to deal with the skill issues and weaknesses in your workflow. Let alone to now promote it to almost million people! How many new Midjourney subscriptions will result from this, directly supporting the theft and exploitative practices behind the technology? How many new artists will stunt their growth thinking they can control generated references and compensate for hallucinations and frequent mistakes found in them, when someone with your experience couldn't? For an example, hair is a complete mess, and the problem with the elf ear for isn't just that it's AI, it's that you didn't give it enough thought to exclude nonsensical generated artefacts while redrawing. But yes, using AI and promoting it is an issue in and of itself because it 1) signals to the public, to studios, to investors and to your peers you're okay with this theft 2) promotes the technology and gives the companies behind these programs more ammunition in securing investments they need to exist while also leading to further direct sales 3) you might end up with a plagiarised drawing without even realising, these programs frequently overfit from their training data and 4) stunts your growth. Please just be honest with yourself and your audience. This is scabbing and badly done.
i also love how he brought the perspective grids for tracing like what the fck. you know yourself as an experienced artist everyone can trace without those complicated grid. you just want to appear it to look "hard" because you don't want people to look at it as an easy step (because it is). it's obvious because of the way you're so aggressive and defensive when talking. because AI is known to make everything easy, you try to make it look as if you're still doing "hard work".
Bruh, you used AI and it still looks mediocre. At least design the hair to get a better composition that has some rhythms leading towards her face. Most of the hair just looks like filler shapes and only exist as noise in the composition.
@@shoop9274 You must not know his fanbase. Most of us are talented and very capable of drawing without the use of artificial intelligence. This isn’t just some random RU-vid section
@@shoop9274 Shoop your take is horrible. You don't need to be an artist to see bad art. Imagine you go to a restaurant and order a cake. The cake arrives, and it's filled with shit. You try to complain...and the chef asks "bruh show us your cake. You can't complain unless you're a good chef." Of course you don't need to be a chef to know what bad food is. You can see that cake is SHIT. Likewise, we can see that AI made his drawing SHIT.
@@friendlyneighborhoodartist it's kind of fair, when they are complaining about the quality of his work, like their opinions have authority. If not, they could say "I personally don't like the composition".
What did you guys expect from a youtuber art influencer? These people are beholden to algorithms. This guy KNEW this backlash was going to happen and is capitalizing on the controversy. That's why I try to follow people like peter Han, Aaron Blaise, etc. who are real artists with true industry experience. Ergojosh is just another hack on this platform trying to capitalize on clicks.
genuinely disappointing seeing this, especially after your video concerning the point of creating, and finding passion in making artwork with all the issues overrunning the art world currently. what really baffles me about all this is how pointless this feels to me. your process is incredibly inefficient. the entire point of creating is being able to solve creative problems intuitively and using the knowledge you've ammassed over years and years of practice to create what you want. you don't need an inaccurate tool to do what i know you already know how to do. your initial sketch of the hair looked much better composition wise, and also had better flow and personality overall. but if you want to keep using this energy wasting garbage in your artwork, by all means go ahead. just know it IS hindering you as an artist, and also worsening your artwork as a whole. glad this is the hill you're dying on.
Even if the final piece isn't the greatest it's still better than anything you could ever hope to accomplish. You'll need atleast 20 years to even hope to get to where he is already at.
@@Toribell1928 Do you think better couldn't be done with the latest drop of Flux? This is originality for the sake of originality at this point. Artists eating their own arseholes to feel better about being inferior.
@@TeaTimeTablethat's bold of you to assume that about a person you dont know. Plenty of great artists that dont have a social media presence. Common sense, please. Better arguments, less shilling and personal attacks.
@@letym2271 Iv seen his art which Is why I made the comment in the first place. Instead of trying to be captain save a Ho how about you go back to playing animal crossing and mind your own.
"this isn't about who's good and who's bad..." It is actually. Theft is bad. AI is theft. I can't believe an artist like yourself would side with the artist-thieving-tool. But I guess if it helps you speed up "your ideas" a little faster, then screw the other artists, huh?
Wow... very disappointing, you knew this was going to get you views and put you against the community you tried to grow. I think I read a comment of yours saying that you already used AI for some time and other works, why did you hide that you used it until now? how do you think your community feels about you "cheating" on them? In your description you say, "-a better future with more harmony and more artists", like who? like you? People who dedicate effort to learn anatomy and drawing skills only to use AI and be influenced more by machine actions than human decisions? You KNOW these "tools" aren't ready for use, Im sadly sure you don't even look at your finished art anymore, it feels like you don't admire your work... anyway! bye bye
@@_I_BlueI beg of you and any other ai user who calls artists this to please, please google the term. Just read the Wikipedia entry on Luddites, even. It’s not just a term that means ‘person who thinks technology bad and scary’. The OG luddites were right, and the parallels to this topic are alarming.
Real bold considering you're "Aspiring" to even remotely get a chance to work for any of the clients / companies he has. Has our young aspiring artist secured a "Job" that pays the bills with his art yet? i'll wait 🤭😗
@@TeaTimeTable Imagine, going after people and being mean to them like you are when he made his whole youtube career by being an open hand to artists. A plethora of artists want nothing to do with AI, he could have moved through this very carefully. How nasty you are as a person to act like this because his entire audience is angry.
I don't get it? even if your pro-AI, why use AI when your not in the industry? Its not like you have to generate 100 character concepts for a game project for a deadline? Like there's no rush just learn the process, your/still a RU-vid artist and influencer.
That's right! I disliked this video, not because I'm anti-ai. But the thing I feel like a lot of people are failing to point out here: is a sort of lack of "artistic integrity." It seems like he's "rushing" to take the "easy way out" when he doesn't have to. It's hard to trust someone who is like: "let's do this because it's easy and fast", instead of hey let's look for the best method no matter how long it takes (when there are no real pressures of course). AI is a way to go with art, sure, I guess. But have you "really" tried other ways?
111 hours is insane💀 what the hell were you doing that it took that long, I've seen wlop create masterpieces in just 6 hours. If 'using AI as a tool' increases the time to make art that much, then i don't think it's worth it chief.
because wlop is actually good and has really strong fundies, josh uses AI to cover his weaknesses instead of practicing. So these "shortcuts" end up being the opposite
Can't really compare WLOP to Josh, we don't know their fundamental practices or training. We don't know how long most pieces take. WLOPS most DETAILED paintings could have taken a month to draw, to save time they obviously draw materials MUCH simpler but still good enough for the first glance to be good. Josh's art is usually a lot of rendering and specific details while WLOPs is more about the skin of the character, and now days, the background using 3D.
@@conocido4416 Also most of this video is nothing but practicing? He's consistently fixing and refining, and shows that if you actually listened and watched the video.
What a lot of people aren't getting is that everyone agrees references are okay. How you get those references however requires ethics. The holocaust isn't good because it inspires award winning books like "Number the Stars". I'm sure many people would agree we don't need to indulge in the creation of more holocausts because some good fiction came out after. In a similar vein, you don't go out and dissect a random on the street because you need a reference for your gore piece, you find what already exists or you make something in an ethical way. Photobashing is not a new concept, you can do what AI does too, only infinitely more controlled, purposeful and ethical. I'm not against using the AI images already generated as references. They exist, it's visual data, you can use that. I am against generating more, it's not ethical. You don't have to bloody your hands for red paint.
that insane hair perspective you were looking for could've been done with a ribbon brush and it would have made more sense in the long run too like...there's literally bits of hair here that make no sense, it's like she was in a fight and someone ripped pieces of hair... plus the the flow is so random, some parts that are supposed to be "in the background" and not get the viewer's attention are so pointlessly overdetailed with little whispy strands and then others that could help draw more attention to the hair are flat and boring for someone who spent so much time over-analyzing their own piece and excusing ai it's definitely surprising how you missed that
Yeah the insane monologue on top of it just took me out. Him saying that it’s easier when he does the most complicated looking process I’ve ever seen lmao
This really serves as yet another reminder how poor our culture has become without ethics being taught in schools. Using algorithm generated imagery, with full knowledge of how it was developed on massive theft as well as how environmentally destructive it is IS an ethical lapse. Ignoring the theft and damage for the reason it might make an 100+ hour painting better in some intangible way isn't a worthy rationale but a complete failure in judgement. That you try to present this as a valid reason to use environmentally destructive plagiarism software makes me question anyone referring you you as a "real"artist. Thinking critically means bringing everything you know to the problem with a certain vigor. You failed.
The use of ai is disappointing. It’s all so disconnected. Rather than what you so wanted to happen, a “sea of hair”, it looks more like she’s just gotten all of her hair chopped off. There’s so much empty space. The hair comes out of nowhere, it makes so sense, you as an experienced artist should be able to do it on your own. As artists we use many tools, though the programs trying to eliminate us should not be put up onto a pedestal. The people who type in prompts into these shitty ai bots are not artists, and you cannot let them get to you. Learn.
@@marykateandnoashley Honey, I've spent maybe a total of less than 15 min here. The op of this thread spends most of his waking hours trying to fight AI. A technology he can not stop. As for my art skills, I can draw just fine.
@@Singularity606 No U didn't, especially when u also argued with many others like me and showing that u r a complete doofus on different subject matter
10:16 “when you hear ‘someone used a tool’ and you associate it with something else, that’s extremely immature“ im sorry but the vagueness/‘nothingness’ of this description of an ai integrated workflow is setting off my ‘scam’ alarm bells
This is the lamest thing I’ve even seen, you have completely destroyed the community you’ve grown with your skills and effort for years, you are a professional artist, you know best than most where and how to get great references made by real people, yet you do this? I hope the paycheck was worth it
@@Singularity606he’s selling a course for procreate that includes the use of midjourney, so this is an ad so he can sell more stuff, exchanging his reputation in the community for some dollars
@@Singularity606Usually when someone makes a 180 on their values and the community they have built up over years and years, something that is also their livelyhood, the explanation behind is that they were compensated to not have to worry about losing those things. And we know that AI rigjt now is the hot button thing that tech companies keep pouring money into. Its not too far fetched to think he was "sponsored" into making PRO AI content considering he asked his community if we want to see this video and the response was a resounding NO, and yet he still uploaded it, as if obligated.
Well - I see your procreate comment, if its gone you deleted it. Because I didn’t. There isn’t a single video in my course where we discuss Midjourney. Its a Procreate course. Honestly I don’t understand why people feel the need to add blatant lies to their argument when you already feel so sure of your position. This is one of the lower performing videos on my channel. Ill probably get 20 bucks from the adrevenue by the end of the year. There are no sponsorships. People are angry, I get it - but please don’t turn to lying and trying to make up stuff to create extra drama.
OK I watched the whole thing. Josh didn't even NEED to use AI at all. He used prompts to generate hair and elf ear and said "well what's the difference with referencing real photos?" His skills actually contradicted the message he tried to convey.
This is like cooking rice yourself then ordering curry from the store & going "😊I made this." And expecting to be accepted as a professional cook? Lazy
It's more like using pre-made ingredients to enhance the flavor of your already amazing dish. 😊 don't hate on something that you most likely don't understand
Lmaooooooo. "Pre-made ingredients". You mean paint? My brother in Christ please learn how to draw/cook instead of TYPING words on a computer (microwave/ai generator) to make you a meal/picture and call it your own. Lazy weirdos. @@Frimzeey
(Read only if you want to have an actual discussion) I’ve been an artist for 15 years, my thoughts on ai are the same thoughts I had when first embracing digital art as a legitimate medium. Ai is just another tool people can use to gain inspiration (which you need to create great works in the first place). I won’t lie and say that I don’t see where this could be an issue with regard to legitimacy. I don’t believe that AI can generate artwork, but it’s an untapped reservoir of inspiration. Actual artists aren’t intimidated by Ai because we have ✨process documentation✨. In short, I wouldn’t bash an actual artist using gen ai as a reference. This should be reserved for people who have no process whatsoever, type words to get an image and call it art. Solution to ai art: normalize process documentation.
*I wouldn’t bash an actual artist using gen ai as a reference* Seriously baffling that people get on their high horses to bash him about doing exactly this. Mind numbingly stupid as well, IMO.
@@kipz which proffesional artists ? Because the AI is absolutely useless to the ones who have an identity and their own styles ... AI is just a parasyte, Useful to people who wanna be a parasyte on the artists that had more pation than them
@@kipz you're delusional if you think any artist with critical thinking skills is going to use gen ai at all. The whole business is sitting on a mountain of ethical problems & already pending lawsuits. The only professionals actively encouraging the usage of gen ai are the ones well-off enough to not be affected by the backlash.
@@RoseDelightful Let me ask you something. Do you think a huge corporation would not have the means to train their own AI with work that is not copyrighted, with work that they got commissioned, or have the rights to? Do you think if they have the resources for this and that it would save them time and money that they would not use it? All of you people arguing this way are just incapable of imagining hypotheticals or using any type of nuance in in your thinking. It's always just THIS exists THIS way so THIS is BAD
@@kipz Actually some companies are, in fact, training their own AI on work that is not copyrighted. Tyler Edlin made a video about this kind of behavior recently but it roughly goes like this (as far as I remember): - Company offer jobs to artist - Say "we're just gonna do a few tests to see your art skills. Sign this document it's just legal stuff no need to fully read it haha :)" - Make them do said drawing/concept art tests and exercises which they now legally own all the rights to - Say "sorry you're not good enough for this job" - Free AI model to use forever! Without paying the actual artist a single cent! It shows that it's not "professional artists are going to use AI in their workflow" but rather "companies are going to exploit artists using AI without even hiring or paying them". I'm sure a few artists will in fact use AI here and there, but it's mostly gonna be used as a way to exploit artists, the same way artists' work was stolen to create models for generative AI.
Wow, came here cause I couldn’t believe this was true but wow. Generative AI is made on the backs of those who aren’t allowed to say no, have the rights of their own work and artistic voices stolen, and you pay a monthly fee to benefit off of the theft of their hard work, joy, and livelihoods. What an absolute traitor.
