Will AI destroy the internet and take your job? 

I would never question your Intelligence Ma'am, But i am so shocked you have such through understanding and making such a great informative, educative video and kept it simple. I have seen so many tech bros spewing garbage and here you are making such a great Video. Love your work

@@sectumsemparium the user is AI.

​​​@@sectumsemparium In my opinion, she is the definition of a classy, strong woman, the epitome of what a woman should strive to be: intelligent or educated, kind, gentle, compassionate, loving, etc.

@@melindarivera6598 I agree, am talking about how she broke my own stereotype of how is she more knowledgeable than some tech bro pushing misinfo on AI saying, art is dead , movies can be made on AI etc

Yeah, I'm not in the field of AI but I have a friend who does adjacent work, and it's been really frustrating how often people assume modern AI is identical to the AI you see in scifi.

The way I explain latent diffusion models is to think about it as an advanced form of autocomplete. Imagine Photoshop removing a person from a photograph, and then automatically filling in that area with things from the background. It can calculate, estimate, or predict what to fill in that area with by looking at what's around it, using probabilistic algorithms. A human can do this with great ease. If you look at a photograph of a person standing in front of a brick wall, you can assume that behind that person is just more brick wall. If you see a patch of red brick wall, you can assume the rest of the wall is made of the same red bricks in the same pattern. That's pretty much what stable diffusion does, using the prompts as a guideline on how to use the datasets.

As an IT guy who works and worked with AI/ML folks, this is why I love the term "stochastic parrots" and I do stress to people that current AI is anything *but*. I prefer to use terms like LLM etc to properly differentiate from "true" AI.

Also the danger does not come from AI, it comes from people abusing AI.

@@ashemedai Chatgpt is dumb as bricks if you ask it anything that it cannot find an already answered stackoverflow for. Is a great search engine though. I mean it's a language model, expecting it to have an understanding of anything but basic english is stretching it already.

Same here. Ann is amazing at describing complex things in neutral, accurate ways. I love her for it.

*Food Scientist

Maybe it's not surprising. What I find staggering again and again is how good ChatGPT is with creating, modifying, mashing recipes, even though it actually should have no idea what it is doing. I use it all the time now. Learned a few new cooking techniques from it already. Another great thing about it is it's non-judgmental. Want to blend together a Japanese and an Italian dish? Go for it! No "But that's not how to do it..."

It does make sense when you realise she’s been explaining some comprehensive issues for a while now. But I agree all the same, Ann Reardon is amazing for doing what she does. 😉

​@@silkwesir1444 I haven't researched this myself yet, but I'm curious how you would go about using chatGPT for creating reliable recipes and learning cooking techniques. Do you have a background in cooking which helps distinguish what would work or not, or do you just run some trial and error at face value? I'd be very impressed if it's at a level where in a newly created recipe all the proportions are correct! Which is why I imagine it being fantastic for finding inspiration and innovation, but you might still have to rely on your own common sense and subject knowledge? I'm just wondering how easy it is atm to use it for this purpose without having to do additional research to figure out if the output is good or not, especially if you're not very familiar with the topic.

Your username gave me a good laugh!

Let's just be clear they are not in trouble for using AI, they are in trouble for using fictitious cases, basically not checking to see if the AI was correct.

@@TheBaldr Let's be honest. If you're willing to use AI in the first place for something like that, you had no business being in your field. In order to make things right, it'd take more work than starting from nothing.

@@ArtisanAsteroid It's much like was said in the video, AI can write these things *much* faster than you ever could. That's why people would want to use it. Especially people like lawyers that are on extreme deadlines. Why it wasn't ran through people to check for validity though I have no idea, that's something you'd normally do anyway.

bwahahahaha that is some comedic justice XD now we just need some company getting sued because they used chatgpt to generate code and it causing some severe security flaw going into a customers production system XD

It’s literally common sense not to copy paste from the internet, or AI in this case, and submit it as your own work. That’s plagiarism. Are people actually that lazy and stupid?

Have had a similar experience in courses about health

Any student using AI to do their work for them, regardless of whether or not they checked and corrected it, should immediately fail the assignment. You didn't do the work, you don't get the credit, just like the kid that slacks off a group project.

@@adde9506 I'm not sure I agree with that. We already see people using AI to do their work for them in the workforce. If a student creates a project and uses AI generation to get them started on a scaffold, I don't have a problem with that. What I want to see is good academic rigor, citation of sources, and synthesis of what they are finding/learning. They should be able to stand on the shoulders of what was created before, as long as they aren't claiming others' work for their own.

If you use AI to write the base paper, you should write another paper writing what you changed about the AI output to make it factual and proper

Aren’t all of these questions redundant if people openly share their data with the world up front? I moved from WhatsApp when Zuccergate happened but many of my friends proudly declared they “have nothing to hide” and didn’t care about their data being used. Welp, this is the price to pay and tbh they should have considered that their images or tags or videos or whatever might be used by whoever is creative and smart enough in the future.

I would certainly have had different concerns about uploading my images to the internet if I could have predicted they would be used in massive data sets to train AI. I bet a lot of artists would feel the same. But now the idea seems to be that we've all consented retroactively because our images are already on the internet.

AI doesn't always need labelling to begin training. Text generation in particular can operate with just text input. Labelling is required for classification problems, not problems akin to time-series. If you've just done one semester on AI so far a language model of the same architacture as the LLMs is probably too time consuming, but try building a markov chain model for yourself so you have an idea of how language models are actually trained.

@thetableoflegend9814 - "scrapped" OR scraped? Huge difference, young AI-bot!

😂that comment made me laugh out loud.

Yay, success! ❤🎉

And it's all candy and butterfly's, until it you realize machine can spew eldritch amount of text, that can take days, weeks or months to confirm if it's true or wall of text made of stupid.

Yeah, along those lines also when I've asked it to help with stuff for job applications or similar, even when I give it very specific points to make, it just sounds soooo generic! It's a bit too verbose I think. I asked for a 200 word answer and it insisted on giving an introduction AND a conclusion in that short answer.

Sure. But you wouldn't do that if there was a risk of harm to other humans. You would probably say "I'm not sure." An LLM on the other hand doesn't really consider that - they are trained with the implication that "I'm not sure" is a bad answer (it's really never the answer the user wants), so LLMs generally avoid that and instead just string together plausible words. It doesn't mean that the misinformation / data confidence problem cannot be solved, just that the current training approach has a gap.

ChatGPT is actually incredibly powerful if you know how to use it. I use it everyday to help with my coding. Yes, if you blindly copy what ChatGPT offers, you will write garbage, but when you have very specific and targeted questions, ChatGPT is hundreds of times more powerful than Google. For example, giving error codes to ChatGPT is much more effective than simply Googling them and hoping to find a relevant forum post by someone who had the same problem. The difference can be solving a problem in a few minutes instead of a few hours.

Artist/builder and hobbyist researcher- this made me literally lol

She does an amazing job of explaining complex information in a simple way

Not the main issue in my eyes. While I agree that many issues with A.I stems from uneducated use, I believe there are far more significant threats it poses. Even if everyone on earth knew what A.I is and its flaws, could we all agree on how to use it? The most ethical applications that support people rather than profit? Could we agree on sanctions and bans where we feel A.I shouldn't be allowed to roam freely? Could we stop A.I from being used as a weapon for political or monetary gain? Could we detect A.I false outputs before they have the power to cause damage? Even with complete understanding, bad actors exist, and some in very high positions of power. And that's with complete understanding, coupled with what you said, A.I has the power to drastically degrade the collective intelligence of an entire population as more and more people de-educate themselves with its use. Then there's the problem of stagnation. When A.I becomes so prevalent that the majority of data sets on the internet are A.I generated. This leads to endless reiteration of uninspired works and misinformation via confirmation bias. A.I becomes cheaper than paid labor and this stagnates our own ability to inform and entertain ourselves. A.I becomes a necessity to compete in this landscape and originality becomes a scarce commodity with a short shelflife as it's consumed quickly by the unrestricted training modules. A.I is not some terminator threat to destroy humanity true, but it doesn't have to be. A.I can simply be an accelerant. The tool used to improve humanity's ability to harm itself at an alarming pace if left unchecked. It's not there yet, but it's growing very fast and governments already can't keep up. It will only get worse without proper intervention.

So how many pieces of furniture do you own that was custom made from a carpenter vs machine milled and sold by IKEA? You had no problem with it until now.

"some of you will die, but it is a sacrifice i am willing to make" - lord farquad 😭

The problem isn't really with lost jobs that come from advancing technology - the problem is that we live in a society that doesn't take care of its people. We don't have a UBI or universal healthcare. We don't have adequate processes or systems in place to help people transition from one career to another. In an ideal world, jobs being taken over by technology (presuming it does it well, which is a separate argument) is a GOOD thing, because it SHOULD mean more leisure time for more people, and more freedom and opportunities to pursue things that excite and interest us. But we don't live in that world right now, because as a society we value capital over people and "hard working values" over prosperity and happiness.

Doing research presentations last semester and same day I gave a presentation on the pros and cons of ai that I tried to be nuanced about, someone else gave a presentation about how ai is great and wonderful and we should all become programmers. Even as a comp Sci major it made my blood boil, people shouldn't be forced into one field because it's all that exists for them

@@etherealclarity so what would people do for money and fulfilling other needs if there aren’t any jobs because of AI? Do we go back to a bartering system or something to get things we need? Not that I believe every single job could be automated, but for the sake of argument let’s imagine AI is capable of putting everyone out of a job. Having a sense of purpose is also important to a lot of people, and not everyone gets that from, say, their hobbies or creating a family (if they are capable of that). Also, what effect would AI taking everyone’s jobs have on the relationship between government and society?

I also see a lot of youtuber pushing AI generated low/mid-content books like drawing books and children's books and promising their viewers that they can make a lot of money this way. And a lot of people are falling for it and rushing off to throw up their AI book on Amazon. Where they then claim that they own the copyright to the content. I've tried AI for translations and the result required extensive editing to be readable. They showed that it was just a machine translating words but not understanding the context of the sentence and so often context is key. Like you said, the machine doesn't get jokes, or word-plays, or any sort of nuance. And they don't get cultural context (important in translations).

Idk what callus means

​@@littelitt now this is a prime example of who's at risk of being replaced by AI and who's not

@@stellar783 that’s what callus means?

@@littelitt Callus doesn't mean anything. Do you mean callous? A callous person is hard-hearted, and doesn't feel any sympathy or empathy for other people.

This is exactly my concern, too. You’re absolutely correct.

Well yes. And you're part of the problem if you've ever purchased something made by machines rather than made by hand by an artisan -- a decoration, a rug, furniture, a book that used to be illustrated by hand. This is another shift, just like how textile workers watched the loom take their jobs -- the loom which was built because the creators watched textile workers do their jobs, just like AI being trained on human-created visual art.

Right! Artists have almost always been incredibly undervalued in society, and this is just adding injury to insult

It's almost like you didn't even bother to watch the video. You saw the title and just jumped to the comments. Also, what you say is pure conjecture and therefore misinformation until you've proven it. Anne actually proved you wrong in the video for why companies don't want to go to AI for artwork and such.

​@@Eventide215 Ann also covered the comic book that was initially copyrighted, then revoked once they discovered it was ai generated. If people are all honest, then sure there wouldn't be any fear, but people lie, companies lie, and there is a monetary incentive to lie. It's naive to ignore that aspect (or you just wanted to be mean to a stranger on the internet, in which case you should be ashamed of yourself)

It doesn't help when the owner of the specific AI service saw pretty much impossible to credit all the people who made the images they were about to feed to the AI, so they feed them without crediting anyone. Can't really blame general society when the key people behind the AI are the ones lacking critical thinking.

@@arturoaguilar6002 i would say thats not a lack of critical thinking, its actually very smart given the situation. sadly its also unethical af

same with Deviantart, artstation, any art site really unless they have a strict No Ai image policy. is flooded with these things.

I just tested your claim on Google, both with and without quotation marks, and couldn't replicate it. I see a few stock photos, some illustrations, and the rest are just plain alligators. If RU-vid allowed it, I would post a screenshot here to prove it to you, but I can't. I can assure you I see no "AI generated mush". My first assumption is that you have enabled Google's personal recommendations based on history, so your Google searches are showing you AI-generated images because that's what you've been clicking on. You can disable this option, and your searches will be fine.

@@noxteryn I don't click on them and I don't seek them. to check I went thru my history and my exact search was "realistic anthropomorphic alligator" and it remains true that most results are ai nightmares. feel free to test that query and see if it's true for you. this wasn't the only search result where this has happened but I can't remember what I was searching for outside of that one. see if your results reflect what I'm getting now with that exact prompt

@@Lord_Slug You're right. The query "realistic anthropomorphic alligator" does produce a lot of results from AI-generated artworks. I even tested with with adding negative keywords like "-ai" and still got a lot of AI art. I noticed that removing the "realistic" part helped a lot, and shows cartoony drawings. I will admit that is indeed a problem, though for the sake of argument I would say that the query itself is somewhat obscure. I mean, even without the AI thing, I would have naturally assumed that such query will show furry porn or something. But I will concede the point. Yeah, this is troublesome.

Adding to that, people keep saying that Ai take references "just like humans", but I wonder if they actually have ever used references or tried to paint (digitally or traditionally). You can see a picture of a banana, and to you, even if you don't notice for yourself, it's more than pixels and color changes. You are likely to know that bananas are sweet, soft, easy to peel, have a distinctive smell, and are food, all that information goes into understanding the fruit and of course, the way you will depict it (if you don't know about it, you might feel the need to try and know as much as you can), but Ais can't internalize any of that. The visual information of a picture, is just one layer of it's significance and that is lost in current Ai models and I honestly don't spot a "prompter" who is concerned about this lack of versatility. Every style, has an origin, an intention, something that the artist want's to focus on, or exaggerate, all of it has a reason and to reduce it all to a prompt and patterns the prompter often don't even know/care about, is kinda lame to me. When you study another artist, you do more than trying to copy and learn from their work.

YES!! This is a huge point for me. It has no soul - something we already need MORE of in this modern world, not less

@@Stervelar Exactly! And I think a lot of artists wouldn't even mind their art being referenced, by a human. Because unlike an AI, the human decided to use that art because they built an appreciation for it. If I wrote a Star Wars fanfic for example, it would be made with the two decades of burning love/passion I have for the series. It's something I actually respect, have reverence for. What I make wouldn't be perfect, maybe not even good, but we all have a heart like the original creator George Lucas. As you said, even a banana is more than a banana to people. Food is *literally* life. Art (the product) is not really life, but the essence of it sure is.

@@stargirl7646 The saddest part is I've heard few people concerned about it, like frogs in boiling water unaware of the danger (though I know a frog actually jumps out) They can take our money, they can take our jobs, but the worse we can lose is our soul. I think something similar has basically happened with the food industry, fast food specifically. We value a product so much, that sometimes we forget the personal aspect that food offers. It was always supposed to be a more involved and social process. Not that there's anything wrong with a burger, just that cooking for others or even yourself is both a creative outlet, a means of socialization (as is eating the meal), and a way you love yourself. Similar to how a shower is self care.

I don't think that the creative process itself is under a lot of threat to be honest. Humans have always needed to keep busy. Leave a human alone in an empty room for a few minutes with a button that gives them an electric shock and they will usually start pressing the button, even though they know what it does. What's more important is that if AI can create images that are "good enough" it might start not just taking job opportunities from artists, but supplanting those artists entirely. On big productions like movies or video games or similar things, it's a corporate process that's prone to executive meddling, which is ultimately going to lead to inferior products just because, while they're e.g. of 30% lower quality, they're also 50% cheaper. And you may very well end up losing that creative spark that makes many of those works so special. It's not really that a human produced it, it's that it was produced with _intent,_ which AI cannot currently hope to do, and likely will not be able to do for decades if not centuries to come. There's nothing inherently inferior about "artificial" life over "real" life... it's just that for now, the "artificial" life we create sucks. With AI taking jobs from us, in the long run it should mean that we become more prosperous. If we have to do less to achieve the same, it means our working hours can decrease without our wages or standard of living decreasing. And if this is true, it'll leave more time to pursue hobbies and rather than worry about what you're going to eat if you don't find a job that pays better soon. I'm just worried that capitalism won't let this happen, as it's built on exploitation of a class-based society, which comes under threat from automation. Either our economy will have to change massively, or capitalism is going to keep from us the most important advantages AI promises in the first place. In conclusion... If circumstances allow, humans will keep being creative. And the more things become automated, circumstances should allow it more, not less. The restricting factor is the way our economy is currently structured, not the increasing prevalence of AI.

Same but cuz I'm an artist amd is rlly the only thing I can stand

Try one of the freely available ones. Ask it some hard questions that require more than just a google search and it falls apart rather quickly. They have no thought or actual critical thinking, they just match one side of the equation to the other. You can't make a machine based on TRUE or FALSE logic gates have the nuance of human thought. Don't think that'll happen unless you have a computing revolution that somehow increases the computational power by magnitudes of millions or billions. I'd worry more about having to clean up the mess the current models make and having a boss that's too dumb to know that Chatgpt is a language model not a code generator.

​@@Ash-gk8jp Because there's profit to be made.

Maybe the are just giving us access to faulty AI with the intention of advancing AI to the point it can assimilate more quickly and respond.

@@rolboo6158 Im an artist too, i feel you 😭

What issue with copyright is there? Forgery is already illegal. Doesn't matter if you use a quil and ink or ai. If ai is responsible for the copyright breaks if it users. Then so it is the inventor of the pencil. It would mean every murderer is free to go, because it would be the weapon that's guilty

@@group555_ 1. forgery =/= copyright infringement, that's some one selling a piece claimed to be created by some one else. CRI is pretty much the opposite, when you claim work of someone else is your own original. 2. The problem is AI is treated as a black box that's propitiatory info so we DON'T know what it's doing (and neither do it's "creators" because it's designed to re-write itself.) That lack of transparency makes CRI a very hard thing to prove in court, whereas if an artist copies a work, you can prove they were familiar with it and it's more than just derivative (legal threshold in the US is 70%, ie. if I take a copyrighted picture and rip it up and put it back together, call it collage and leave out a quarter of it, it's still copyrighted.) Think cars. If a car designer messes up and the gas pedal gets trapped under the floor mat and people die in an accident caused by the pedal getting trapped, the car company (Toyota in this RL case) has to recall affected vehicles, study what happened, say what went wrong, and develop a fix for it-- in this case they trimmed the accelerator pedals and made it clear that after market mats had to be secured. But when Tesla cars don't recognize flashing lights on stopped emergency vehicles means to be careful and plows into them at full speed and kills people, Tesla pleads "AI" and "it's proprietary" and maybe they will push an update or maybe they don't because it keeps happening anyway and people keep dying. And NOW there's a huge legal battle that's taken up time to force the company that's responsible for putting 2 ton chunks of metal zooming around at 70 MPH in the middle of our cities while telling the owners that it can do all the thinking because it has more sensors than a human has eyes... And lest you put it all on drivers, remember that consumers have the expectation that companies tell them the truth when advertising. One of my daughter's friends is blind in one eye due to cancer, their parents bought them a Tesla so they could "drive safely" but meanwhile a right blind 17 y.o. figures it's all good because the car can see when they can't.

Some of the panic is just 'scare hype' though and should be ignored (an attempt by the AI companies to paint their creations as way more capable than they actually are). The real issues are with things like copyright and racism, and not with 'the algorithm turning self-aware'.

What Copyright? It's perfectly legal to imitate an artist's style.

@@sd-ch2cqracism? Yawn. Yea ok.

Oh gosh, EXACTLY.

At some point if no one has jobs then no one has money, then rich people have no one to sell to. The star trek world is a post scarcity one, universal income may indeed need to become a thing when no one has a viable job because all the work is done by bots.

Yes it is.

Yes! It’s all very well to imagine a post scarcity future, but right now our tech billionaires seem perfectly happy to twiddle their dials in ways that increase their profits at the expense of everyone else. We need to wrest the control out of their greedy fingers, so these tools are used in ways that benefit all of us. If these dudes are concerned about AI destroying the world, they just need to limit its scope. Don’t hook it up to real world abilities. Put humans in between before any decisions are made that could end us all.

@@tcunero and how many people would starve before that happened?

Hard work has never mattered. Its always the end result

@@kvasir8931 and sometimes getting a result does actually require hard work?

If it helps, you're at uni (and probably paying for it) to learn, to be guided to develop knowledge and skills and experience. That's the point of an essay, the thought and the research and making your argument. You did that hard work ~for yourself~ and you grew because of it, y'know? Try not to worry about what everyone else is doing, and keep pushing yourself to do the best you can! You'll come out actually having gained something for your money and time besides a certificate Besides there's nothing new here, people paying for essays has always been a thing - it's just now it's free, worse quality with higher likelihood of errors, and more likely to get caught out. And even if they got away with it at the moment, it doesn't mean stuff won't be scanned in future, trip some flags, and have them called in to explain their essay that they didn't write, and what they meant by ~this part~ or why ~this citation~ is made up. This stuff is suddenly kind of a big issue now, so it's gonna get a lot of scrutiny - so it's not worth risking it anyway

WTF?! I’m so sorry!

Results get graded, and you can even be hired on the basis of those results. But you will need to actually perform tasks and make transformative work to actually be successful, which are dependent on skills, which is what you gained by actually doing the work. I hope you don't get discouraged :)

This is exactly what people said about the camera, and then the digital camera, and then the iPhone camera lol

@@E42545 even with camera photos there are still lots of human aspects that go into them: the framing, the backdrop, composition, and you know…physically going somewhere to take the photo. I’d argue comparing all of that to typing keywords onto an AI generator without much modification is a bit of a stretch

@@jaychang6723 if you saw the way the photography community reacted to the announcement of the first smartphones with excellent cameras, you’d know it’s not. Obviously all art (including photo) requires *some* kind of human input and is subjective even in its definition of art to people’s desire to consume it. Generative Art both requires human input and is clearly something (I’m not saying everyone) people enjoy. This is absolutely the same mindset of all the people who gatekept and screeched “low effort!” and “muh job!” when people started getting good phone cameras and inexpensive DSLRs for Christmas and taking beginner-level portrait sessions for $20. Imo there’s no such thing as saturation unless you’re not special or unique and are easily replaceable to begin with- and life and creating gets a lot more comfortable once you realize that we all are.

@@E42545 You are comparing photos still taken by humand to pictures generated and stolen from actual artists. Do not downplay this issue you clown.

I'll say there is work that goes into generating these images, and often people are sketching out ~something~ and saying "make this look like my prompt", so there ~can~ be effort and even creativity involved (to a point). But it's the model that's actually generating the image obviously, and are you a "writer" if you give a prompt to ChatGPT and post its results? Are you a "writer" if you curate the results by tweaking the prompt, and only posting the output you like? What if you remove the AI from the equation, and you're just giving a prompt to another human who's producing the results? Are you an artist if you tell someone what to draw? There's an argument that maybe you have a "vision" that you're using someone else to create, but is that really what's happening when you don't have full control over the output, and it's more "see what you get"? What about when people are copy-pasting blobs of keywords in their prompts that other people have worked out give good results instead of bad and meh ones? Personally, what really gets me about people calling themselves artists is when the image has obvious problems, like backgrounds that don't make sense, impossible anatomy etc. If you're an artist, why not take pride in your work and fix it, and only put it out when it's good enough? A lot of it comes off like they don't actually care, they generated something that they think looks cool and they just want to say "check this out!" Which is fine, but it's more like "look what I found" than "look what I made". And sometimes "did you even look at this yourself?"

Oh dear…

That video came to my mind too when Ann mentioned fact checking and ability to trust your sources.

I can honestly see a time soon when it'll be perfectly understandable for someone to say, "Oh, I don't go online" because of the trash heap the web is going to turn into. And that will probably get better eventually, but not before it gets so tiresome that millions of people don't even bother.

Oh sweet another Kyle Hill watcher! I think that the fact that we have content creator so different from each other discussing this topic speaks volumes on how sever the issue at hand is

@@littlestbroccoli hey, I was just thinking about that possibility too! Thanks for putting it into words. I can definitely see a time where there’s so much trash online that we end up going analog again… maybe that wouldn’t be a bad thing lol?? 😅

I do understand your frustration. However is there a difference between this and any other job that technology has taken over? A cobbler? Blacksmith? Printing press replacing scribes? Clocks replacing people that used to come to your door to wake you. It just seems that this is that time in history for another skill.

Photographers said the same when everyone started carrying a high quality camera in their pocket.

⁠@@tcunero your view of the world is so bleak!! The examples you cite weren’t exactly how humans expressed themselves. They were jobs that came about because of a necessity and disappeared when the necessity did too. Art and artists have existed since the dawn of humans because we have a natural need/drive to express ourselves so it would be very sad to see them disappear.

@@MetalheadAndNerd that argument is BS.

@@tcunero BS. Through and through. Back to primary school, history class will help. Also a class about " how to shut up when not knowing jacksh*t" will help.

Exactly! The fun of art is MAKING it. It’s an expression of our human souls

By that reasoning neither photography nor collage are legitimate art media. By the reasoning of not being a substitute for skills, digital painting should never have been adopted when acrylics exist, and acrylics should have been rejected when oil paints existed, and oil paints should have been rejected when tempera already existed. Each innovation changes the skills necessary. Let the new tools find their place, and use the tools you find best for your own goals.

​@@TheYargonaut ... What. The reason photography and digital art didn't wipe out portrait artists or anyone who chose tubes of paint, a brush and a linen canvas over a digital one is because these new mediums opened new pathways for the art world, and *created* new *artistic* skillsets for us to learn and then, use. AI art does. Not. Do. That. It seeks to REPLACE artistic skillsets entirely. The process goes as; Coming up with a series of one to three word descriptive prompts in a string, chucking it into a program, and you get an end result. If it sucks? Try again or use a reference image for the AI to REPLICATE from. Any insinuation that this is some form of elaborate, creative and artistic process is going to insult any photographer, photobasher and painter, and they will go "what in the bum-licking hell are you on about." Art, the general premise, is a human thing born from our psyche. Music was created and evolved because we like when certain sounds are arranged together. Creative writing and literature was born from our desire to want to communicate and portray ideas in a manner that you can make others imagine it in their head, even if it might be different from what you might have envisioned. Visual art was born to portray the things that your mind projects in a way that someone can see it and understand it. And sure, any artist often is going to make a lot based on our existing surroundings and the things we take in throughout our lives. You could say we copy and mimic things a lot when we create, like referencing an image for a drawing, or using an already existing beat or rhythm when creating a new track. And what makes someone 'creative' is to adapt the information we know in a way that has meaning to it's creator, *which is why people pursue to learn how to make it.* AI image generators do not do that because it's a program. An AI program does not have the capability to learn from human experiences, or gain a talent or learn skills, and rather instead creates predictions on other's human experiences. It REPLICATES, not creates. And the person using it? They aren't going to even develop any skills artistically. They aren't learning to draw, or paint, or how they should creatively compose any part of the image because the program just does it for them. Hell they wont even be reaching post 8th grade creative writing levels to create elaborate prompts because all the AI needs is at most a noun and a couple of adjectives to regurgitate an outcome back. Most people I see online don't even go out of their way to think of prompts themselves and literally just ask other people on what prompts they should use! AI image programs aren't tools for artists and it doesn't make people artists. The people that benefit from them are the ones who can't be arsed to actually create something themselves and instead just want the thrill of wanting to have the label from a bunch of people gawking at what they "made" for instant gratification (that probably compares to a fraction of what an average real painter experiences when people enjoy their results and feel that their actual hard work pays off hmmmm.) AI art literally invalidates and steals off of the people who spend years learning and practicing their craft, I've already seen plenty of my favourite online artists have their works funnelled into AI models and data sets, and have their body of work and style REPLICATED down to the very core. Just there, free to download for anyone to use. I wouldn't be surprised if I was a victim of this too in the future. Will I be mad? Ye, for a bit, but I'll just keep at it and evolve my work to gain interest if I have to, and I'll appreciate those who want to experience my thoughts and ideas, whilst someone else goes to become a factory printer who'll just keep making the same thing from a dataset that'll probably get boring to look at eventually. Side note (because I feel like I might get this comment in one way or another;) no this isn't gatekeeping. Anyone has the potential to become an artist and it is easier now than ever with resources like RU-vid to teach people, and you don't need much to start out. Grab a post-it note and a pen, or grab your phone camera and snap some pics. Just have the will to do it. You may not like some of your early steps, and it may take some time to really get on your feet, but you'll be able to look back, laugh about it and really see how far you have come, and how far you can go! And lets be real, with the recent CRS report on May 11th says anything, it's that the only place AI art is going to find itself is inside a courtroom for copyright infringement! 🤫

All of this. Thank you.

​@@OfficialR3M1X That's a fine argument that AI art is low-effort, low-skill, or not deserving of prestige, but it has no relation to whether or not it's art or whether ones using the AI are artists by the bare meaning. If you enjoy the other processes, the existence of AI art & artists can't take that away from you. And if other people are happy using it to avoid some of the accidental complexity of other media, good for them as well.

Basically "if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck Im the one who decides if its a duck or not"

It's totally reasonable to want to only promote art of a certain type or made by certain people in certain ways, and this has always been an issue sharing art - is this stolen? traced? posted without permission? is the person who made this also drawing terrible things or do they have a history as a person of harmful actions? Do we do research on every image we see or just the ones we share? And what happens if we mess up? The question of what is or isn't art has been debated for as long as humans have had a concept for art. It's also come up every time new technology appeared. Photographers dealt with it to - how can it be art, if all you do is take the image and frame it as art? Having reservations about the ethics of AI generated images, or wanting to uplift art made without it both make a lot of sense. I'm just not sure how, if you cannot tell the difference between two images without knowing the full processes of their creation, you can't say one "is art" and the other "is not" unless you are defining art in some way that requires us to know the full process of its creation. Which, if you are, I'm curious what your definition is -- As I've said, there are hundreds floating around out there at least, so there is not going to be a definitive or scholarly answer on if something that uses AI image generation can be art, I don't think. I also wonder what you think about art that uses AI as a tool, but also involves a human curating and editing and manipulating it in some way? And in which ways make it art (ethics aside) vs which do not? Like if someone asks mid journey to iterate in specific directions and keeps adding new conditions and new curation, that may not be, but if they take the image from mid journey and use it as a reference, that resulting human painting would be. So the answer lies somewhere between them? I'm curious where you think that is. What if an artist feeds exclusively their own art into the program? Or only their own art and public domain works - like from over 100 years ago? I really do hope that young artists don't give up because of this. There are always going to be people who produce art faster and with more precision than you, be that visual art or music or writing. But the purpose of creating art is to realize your own unique vision. I think the flip side to all of this is that if we could make an AI art generator that is ethical - taken only from public domain, say, it could allow more people to realize their creative visions, to tell their stories, to make references, to share ideas, all kinds of things -- that would still not be art made by a human hand, but if it is made to realize a human vision, even if you don't call it art, even if you want to make a space that excludes it from the collection, couldn't it still have value?

Visual art will be more of a hobby, like woodworking or rug making. Woodworking is a fun hobby but not particularly lucrative because machines can do it better, faster, and cheaper. Whatever you think is special about visual art used to be seen as a special about many other kinds of creation, there's no moral uniqueness to machines getting involved in visual art as well.

I feel you. It’s pitiful how many people want to pretend they did something when they didn’t. By definition and the The US copyright court state that these generated images can not be labeled as art , nor copyright protected simply because the were not made by human hands: these programs have no agency or reason and can not explain why certain things were executed like they were. Besides the prompter(commissioner’s) input , which is just a request, no human makes these images. So yes , there is a very good reason to not consider these images worth sharing. People getting hype on these things are usually after the gimmick, not the work itself. And anyone who says these are “better” than actual artists- 1) no they are not, plenty of artists draw better than these things, they do quality over quantity. These programs are spam machines. 2). These algorithms, got this good because the database laundered work from artists that were better. So I agree, why share work completely generated by a computer and have no effort outside of someone having good fast food ordering skills. Only plus is that all these images are public domain. I also don’t understand why ai shills and non-artists are pushing artists to use this technology when they could already draw without it. But whatever, don’t let this tear you down. More people are realizing these negatives and standing up to it. Programs like mist and glaze poison these laundered datasets composed of stolen data, more places are scrutinizing ai and its negative effects, numerous governments are stepping in and there is much talk of regulation, some sites are developing ways to detect ai images and ban it, there is the copyright thing. There is hope. And artists don’t need a glorified pony generator to create, their skills can be transferred to damn near any medium. An ai prompter is useless outside of a computer. Hopefully that is some sort of comfort, sorry for the ramble.

I understand your concerns. But shouldn't technology avance though?

People who use AI to create images are just art directors. They tell the entity what they want and how they want it, and the entity makes it. People who use AI to create images are not artists. For myself, it frustrates me when people post AI-generated images, but the person hasn't gone to the time or effort to fix the image.

@@michellev2630 I feel like AI art has increased the value of artists posting in progress work and time lapse videos. I don't know if this is on a whole good or bad, but it's changing the content artists post.

FYI this isn’t what generative image models do- they look at thousands of images and learn what a thing looks like, and then *generate* a completely new image from that information, literally based on a cloud of noise (think like TV static). There is no direct taking or collaging of anything, it’s the exact same way people make art out of “nothing” from things they have seen before.

@@E42545 absolutely reductive. There is no human experience to filter or stain the work. It is clinical and theft.

@@E42545 Nope. Absolutely wrong. Ai generated images even have watermarks on the generated work to the point where it's even become a default hashtag to say #nowatermark

You do realize that most RU-vid channels have close caption available by you just enabling it.

@@shainazion4073 Yes, I even mentioned auto-generated captions in my comment. They're not perfect.

@@gwyndlin My Grandmother was totally blind, she went blind in her 50s. I always was aware of others disabilities. I have a deaf cousin also, she taught us some sign language throughout the years. She reads lips though to help when in the hearing world.

AI diverse models?? Omg that’s so messed up!

Like I've said in my comment just before reading your, I am an author and I don't have the financials for a real book cover. I can do them myself, but this time, for this series, I wanted something original so I've used Midjourney, paid for the images and go the right to use them as commercial profit (don't worry I'm not a worldwide author, I do not win more than 10 euros per month with my 8 books) and I assume it. Promise, when I'll be rich and famous (what, I can dream, no?) I will use a real graphist for my covers, but right now, it's not even thinkable.

@@yazdhenab. You didn't need to use AI for that though. You can purchase the rights to a stock photo for distribution, and assemble the cover and text in a free image editing program, without the need to get AI involved. I did that for my book covers when I couldn't afford a painting. That money went to the photographer, where it belonged.

Yeah I know deviantart (website many artists are on - for those who don't know) made their own AI system. They announced all artwork on their website currently was automatically opt-in. It took the artists rallying together to get them to change it to an automatic opt-out. But who knows how much of the current art was used...

"Not only that, in many generated images if you look close enough for some of the prompts of "in the style of" you can find that the original artist's watermark is still seen on the AI-generated image, just all messed up since the AI does not actually generate these images so it doesn't really know what to do with the watermark." This is a misunderstanding of what the AI is doing. It's not putting together a collage. It just thinks that something like a watermark belongs on the image about in that area from "looking" at other images. Imagine showing a child 100 images and many of them had watermarks, and then telling the child to create something like those images. They're very likely to draw in a watermark. Now, increase the number of images being fed by likely millions of images with a better ability to mimic what they've been presented. The art isn't amalgamation or collage, it's learned. It's just learning the wrong things from the images being used. And, yes, this points to these corporations using copywritten material to train their bots. Using copywritten material to train their bots without paying for it is a big part of the problem. Were artists properly being compensated for their work, they wouldn't have a problem with the algorithms. The problem isn't the AI's ability to generate art. Industrialization and automation have vastly changed the work that people do. They've eliminated many jobs, but have also created others. There's always going to be a space where artists continue to make art and get paid for it. But, there's going to be new spaces and new work that these tools open up. You should be compensated if your art is being used to train AI. But, you should also expect that there's very little that's going to stop this AI freight train.

thanks 😀

Most AI projects are open source, meaning that there is full transparency in how they're coded.

Agreed

I am mostly afraid of who is profiting from it.

“I’m not afraid of the super-above human intelligent system capable of coding, complex problem solving and of which I have no idea it’s goals or motivations, I’m afraid of humans but I already understand that threat.” You. An idiot.

@@ruthspanos2532 Why? Do you expect work to not generate profit?

Same. My job is low skill, low income, and my days are spent thinking about how poor I'm gonna be in 5 years' time.

i dont think a lot of jobs are necessarily going to go away because of robots. half the time the general public can't figure out how to use "self serve" machines, and the other 50% of the time they straight up just break down

@Eden my workplace is getting four robots to do exactly what I do. Those four robots only need 1 person to keep them running. I was, unfortunately, not that 1 person they decided on.

@@danielsolomon3794 🤦‍♂️super cringe take…. 🤦‍♂️

My first experience was with that cleverbot site. Much more A than I, but a really interesting and fun toy at the time.

Nothing beat Santabot for old chatbot hilarity. He got shut down at some point way later than I would have expected, but then at some point he started having issues scrambling conversations between different users. He used to sort-of keep track of conversations before that, in the most simplistic way. Probably something in the code would save one set of words and would occasionally spit out, "Are we still talking about [that thing from earlier]?"

I miss smarterchild

but humans are pretty much the same, our brain doesn't develop without influences from around us so you uncounciously take a lot of inspiration from other things people have created

@@ribeyesteak9641 that is completely different from a computer copying a bunch of pictures. The human mind does not work like a computer and there are many, many small decisions each artist makes every time they make a piece of art which makes them unique and interesting. AI can only produce a mathematical equation that "averages out" existing imagery

@@MsVersalia what you said about how ai works isn’t correct. Funnily enough though, say that exact statement to a neurologist about the human brain and they will assume you have a degree in neuroscience, because as reductive as you think it is, it’s exactly how the human brain does work on a neuron level.

That’s what I was saying. At the rate it corrects / learns these issues will become non existing. I’m not sure what the shoe-sides goal of the creators are but it’s most likely money driven. I’m worried about society on all levels.

Yep, coders who think coding is safe because it’s not full proof now are clueless. We are using the AOL Online of AI on a problem that wasn’t even built specially to code, and it’s ALREADY impressive. I think it’s only a matter of time.

The other interesting question is "Once it learns one type of code, can we invent others?" When it comes to AI, the data set need to be labeled in order for the processing to even begin sorting and correctly attributing what it is working with and how it should be organized. While it gets rid of one type of job the need for others to present, change, or invent new ways to solve a problem from the ground up isn't going to leave. Add to it that error checking, especially in the early development of AI or different things like interpreting treatment recommendations or lab results, would still require a human interface with all the same pre-requisite knowledge you would need beforehand to make the determination. Humans are still a failsafe for whatever we happen to do, and some of them, especially considering the security concerns of an AI deployed recording system ect, means the human understanding of the subject at hand is still essential. The creative parts of AI, as Anne mentioned, aren't self-directed yet. Decision trees in AI basically give a "Yes or No" answer that then goes through a ranking hierarchy based on perimeters that AI sets up for itself with a human controller. The question of creating Alan Turing's "Thinking Machine" is a ways off (if the last technological doubling is anything to go by, in the next 30-40 years). This is to say that AI and Algorithmic models can't work without input. Therefore, creating a limit to data information in A.I or a more secured world where we still rely on paper inputs and other "non-tech" solutions to create something, is still remains part of our future. I would posit, than a world strictly ruled by Terminator esque robots.

I'm not super worried about that particular scenario. Even if it's correct 99% of the time (which is still way off, it can barely understand basic instructions if it doesn't have literal examples to go by,) software engineers still have to build complex solutions, talk to clients, each other, management etc. and try to balance all the needs for the product they're working on. I mean sure, if all you do is center divs all day or write algorithms thousands of other people have already written, then yeah, you'll be replaced, but I don't think anyone actually does that. E: This all goes for artists as well. Art isn't just "given input A, generate output B" and that's all these models can do

because it's conceived to be malicious. The old AIs where more search type and where trained on smaller, specific, scale. Those AI were moving within regulations. These "new" AI are built to bypass regulations in order to gather as much data possible in the shortest amount of time possible, and free of any charge, licence and so on. That's how LAION-5b (Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, to name the most known, rely 100% on LAION datasets, just to give you the proprtion of how big is) managed to accumulate 5 BILION images in less than 2 years. Through the internet scraping bots and through thousands of thaousands of "users" that took someone else's work and added it manually to the datasets. Not to mention the medical records obtained bypassing data protection acts and privacy laws simply bypassing consent. AI on medical field has been deployed bypassing all mandatory trials for human sperimentation. These rules have not being broken by accident, but on purpose. Is no coincidence, if you check the resumes of those "AI bros" that they were ALL involved in the cryptoscams, NFT, Web3 etc. They go from a fraudolant scheme to another, faster than the law s can catch up.

AI and many other technologies are beautiful and have so much potential. But commercialise it and use it for greed and profit, and it speeds up the process of the toxic outcomes that come from that. It reminds me of the industrial era; we made machines to ease the work of production and make it accessible to more people. We can now create greater, sturdier, quicker things with more human time spent on the artful aspects of them...and ended up with sweatshops and modern day slavery, churning out billions of products that weren't actually requested, and spending billions trying to tell us why we do want as many of those products we can get. The only thing we can do to stop AI industrialisation now being able to cheaply automate our thinking and crafting for us, is a massive social movement, as many people as we can get refusing to make the use of AI not profitable as it is currently being used, to force it into a humanitarian role as it's only choice besides obsolescence.

3d printing guns is true freedom

To be clear, the eating disorder one wasnt an ai powered chatbot. It was just a regular old fashioned chatbot. That doesn’t make it any better, but you can’t blame that one on ai. I think it makes the point though that demonising the technology is a distraction. Anything ai can do is already being done by other means. Ai is just the latest buzz, so it’s getting all the attention, last year it was the meta verse and the year before it was microled. Next year, we will care as much about ai as we do about whether Mark Zuckerberg is going to destroy personal relationships and it will all feel very silly that anyone cared about that specific piece of technology when our workplaces seem to think that there is still a lockdown and forcing us into zoom. Forget the tech and focus on the actual problem.

​​@@PippetWhippet Pretending there isn't a problem because other problems will come later is naive. The problems with governments and giant companies is that they're made up of people. People are self-interested & most in their position think nothing of manipulating others, controlling what they know, to also control the decisions that they make. In the United States we've had this problem with social media online and corporate news outlets that refused to allow certain information to be published, in order that public opinion wouldn't be changed by what people knew. Dubious or false information has likewise been pushed out to the fore when it was easily proven to be untrue, but these companies ignored that; they wanted to change public opinion, public behavior. This has affected our political scene in an unprecedented way and one reason the average American is so gleeful about Twitter being taken on by Elon Musk - who will not allow censorship. I've had to leave RU-vid often & go to other websites because RU-vid will censor what is said in content! The company has a political bias that will not permit people to offend it's own agenda. They won't admit this bias, so right there I know they're cool with lying to billions of people. Likewise Facebook. When governments and companies start using AI against the people? We are going to be in the dark, just where they want us. All any of them want from us is to take our money so they can live the lives they want to live. That includes all governments & all of these major corporations. If people would just believe the evidence of their eyes and what is right before them, instead of what they were TOLD. My mother said when I was little, 50 years ago: "Don't listen to what people tell you, WATCH WHAT THEY DO." Try that.

Thanks for watching for all those years Tabita 😀💕

That's all AI can ever do, it's making a mathematical equation out of a bunch of images that already exist. Without people, the AI wouldn't have anything to copy

Isn't ai art already "inbreeding" with itself?

My comment was similar to this! I’m glad I’m not alone - it’s rough 🥺 And yeah I clicked on this one because I knew she would probably have a good balanced take, which she did. BUT now I’m stuck scrolling the comments endlessly which is NOT helping my anxiety lol! Helpppp

Awesome, well done on getting in to uni to study dietetics. 💕

But because of how destructive the process of the AI generation is the result can NEVER be theft because it literally merges together pixel to pixel which means no one can claim theft unless you want to make a case where fan artwork and parody also becomes theft.

Aw, I wish my kids had a mum as great as yours 😂

Yeah I was shocked that apparently the very dumb RU-vid algorithm is AI 😅😅

Maybe it’s trying to give you opposite views to avoid an echo chamber

I watch anti-MLM videos and the algorithm puts MLM ads on those videos, because it can't tell the difference in the audience it's trying to target. So, MLM companies are wasting their money by having their ads shown on videos for an audience that's not likely to get into them and we love it 😂

@@rinlila6974 that requires the kind of intelligence a robot doesn't have. Also why would advertisers want to waste their money on people who aren't in their target group? I'm a happily married atheist, but still get ads for a christian dating app. Though it can be argued that the AI doesn't know my marital status, but still, it's just a waste of money. Companies say they're trying to offer very targeted ads (because they bill the advertisers for views), but for the moment they're often failing. Btw they're also advertising dog and cat food for me, though I haven't had pets for over 20 years. That's besides the point, but just goes to show the AI isn't as powerful and allknowing as many people claim.

copying to the point of even replicating of signatures

You were never going to compete with content farms anyway. If your dream job was churning out low quality rubbish, I’ve got to ask why you come to this channel. Just like there is an increasing amount of churned out rubbish, there is also an ever increasing amount of high quality content being produced by talented creators. And an ever increasing market who want high quality content. Forget the farms, they will always be there and there will always be people who just want the cheapest. They were never going to be your customer anyway, you’re not cheap enough. Create what you create, in the way they creates the best content you can and if it’s good enough, you will be able to build a regular customer base. Or, if you’re that passionate about not being copied, don’t publish to a broad audience, go exclusive. You are genetically programmed to believe that the world is getting worse and every new thing is a danger to be scared of. That’s why conservatism is such an alluring concept for people. However, it’s always better than you think. Take care of yourself, you’re important!

That case had the attorney in question not understanding the nature and usage of chatgpt. But worse, they failed to understand how to practice some basic fundamental law practices regarding citations.. Not to mention failing to bother with reading citations they used. They were justifiably raked over the coals by the presiding judge. The AI fabricated 6 citations entirely. But any decent lawyers would have actually looked up and read the citations. If the lawyers had done their jobs, the AI's problematic contributions would have been easily caught and discarded. I could imagine a scenario where an AI might be trained to search for relevant case files to cite, though I don't know that there is such a tool yet. But it would still require lawyers to know their job, and do their job. I think a lot of problems we will hear about with AI's, will involve operators not understanding the nature and capability of the AI.

In fairness, a digital artist who takes a day to produce a drawing on an iPad probably uses a lot more, screens being the biggest power draw of these types of device.