/ samhamperart
New Website Coming Soon 11 Feb 2023 www.samhamper.com
Timestamps
0:00 How artificial intelligence is making better art that humans
0:51 The problem with digital art
4:03 Traditional art Vs commercial art
7:44 How artists work best
10:24 What Ai art does really well
14:53 The future of Ai art
17:04 The problem with the word 'art'
22:04 What Ai art can never replace
25:59 Morality
27:15 What even is 'human' art?
28:46 A message of hope
As artists debate the ethics and controversy of artificial Intelligence creating art. I'm philosophising about what being an 'artist' means now Ai can create art . Here I argue that early Ai systems act like real artists but they won't for long. Soon Ai will become another tool used by artists. As the algorithms gets better, it will become more proficiently and less creative. Ai will stop being an artist.
Watch the creepy video about LOAB that i talk about in this video here - • The Disturbing Art of ...
The problem I see is that people everywhere are already underpaid, exploited and living paycheck to paycheck. And corporations will never care about it, the point made about AI devalueing a HUGE part of the industry is the scary part
this is a wealth distribution problem, not an AI problem. we should tackle the actual issue, don't you think?
@@diegoloxoroyea, but you can't really expect them to immediately (and willingly) just share their wealth, no matter how hard and detailed we explained it to them, and the authorities probably will be on their side, for now, this AI protests are an effort not to give them any more power than what they have now If AI was really used by artists for drafts, ideas, and those things that the AI bros tell us, I don't think the rejection would be as big as this, the fact that it's not artists who use it, and that used by companies to replace artists, when art and language are one of the most basic things about being human, and yet created by something that isn't even alive, is pretty depressing
I think this is a problem for most jobs and we as a society have to find another way of distributing wealth than by paying people (in the best case) by their work performance.
Where was this support from artists when AI hit other industries like the farmers or factory workers?
@@elliotyourarobotwe were drawing anti-ai propaganda 😂
I think the optimistic view has a flaw or two: no, it wont be artists that exploit this pseudo-tool. Its devastation will be vast because non-creatives will indeed replace creatives. Secondly, comparisons to other technology are fairly inaccurate. Replacing filmstock with digital did not replace the photographer. Styluses replaced pencils, not animators. And word processing replaced typewriters, not authors. Encyclopedias went online, and the internet itself houses tons of info. But ai will write the info. It will change and redraft the encyclopedia, history, story, and therefore culture. Ai will replace animators, writers, storyboard artists, musicians, and DPs. If there are directors, they wont need to be the talents they are today. They will be the non-creatives above. comparing it to chess is simply bizarre. A computer knowing everything is not the same as human competition. A machine that can flawlessly throw 3 point shots in basketball might be interesting technically. But pitting it against Steph Curry doesnt make for competition. The human quality in art is like the competition. Ai will replace the need for artists by making two computers play chess. The human loss will be real - but less transparent than in competition. People also instinctively know the loss of human competition. They can see it. No one cares that the fastest person in the world cannot outrun a sports car. But people wont see the loss as readily as the artist gettinf replaced by ai. No, ai wont take away your paints. But it will steer our culture, as it replaces art with sim, as it writes our stories for us, and as it dehumanizes us all. Now is the time to see it for what it is. It is not a hammer. It is not a pen evolving into a stylus. It is not a human finding serendipity in mistakes, it is not filmstock going digital. It is the nono particles in our “food.” It is the cricket flour replacement. It is a nuclear bomb. It is an x-ray, that might be fine once a year with a lead vest on the rest of your body… but might not be good pointed at your gonads non-stop for the foreseeable future. It is the lobotomy of our day. It is giving heroine to infants when they are teething. It is bloodletting to heal wounds. It is the infinity gauntlet, and Thanos will indeed snap. Technology is not always used, and not always good to use, just because it exists and just because you can. But perhaps “just because” is better than as a short cut around talent. Is it just a tool? Sure. But so was the icepick they used… to carve up your brain… the best new advancement in science to the cure anxiety in college students plagued by study, or to calm hysterical women. I must say: this is the best video I have yet seen discussing ai. So kudos. I respect this very much - and a lot of good points and perspectives were shared. And while ai might be here to stay. And might truly take over. In my opinion - we cannot shout enough about the ethics, about the dangers, and about the losses.
Very good comment!!! We can sit all day discussing it artist to artist about how it will affect us, but never should we just give up and let it walk all over us, or never should we stop warking of the dangers and ethics!!! Artists face so much vitriol from the people who use AI, when we simply don't want our work to be in the datasets without our consent.
Brilliantly written mate, enjoyed this comment alot. You make great counterpoints. Lovely food for thought. Cheers 🍻
On the other hand, the Printing Press put scribes out of work The Luddites, the guys who destroyed machines, did so not because they feared them, but because the machines actually did their jobs for them at a fraction of the cost (all the things modern writers and artists are saying AI will do to them is exactly what industrial machinery actually did to the Luddites, and nowadays "luddite" is a derogatory term) Computer used to be a job title, a person who was paid to do math, now we have computation machines that do it automatically, instantly, and without error (barring an error in input), and society is objectively better for it All of these things are seen as good things nowadays, but back when they were happening, a lot of people treated it as the end of society (hell, older generations have been complaining about new technologies at least as long as people have been writing things down, we actually have written records of people being worried that _writing things down_ would lead to the fall of civilization) No one can predict the future, nobody knows what the consequences of the consequences will be, and that can be scary, but it _will_ happen, it cannot be stopped, the best we can do is prepare for the worst and hope for the best
@@Deathnotefan97 I think magnifying physical effort via leverage: a shovel instead of a hand... a CAT instead of a shovel... that is comparable to using a paint brush and canvas instead of your hand and a cave all. Or photoshop and a stylus instead of a paintbrush and canvas. Ai replaces the artist. So it's just fundamentally different and SHOULD be looked at as ONLY a loss. Convenience is not automatically good. A fraction of the cost is not automatically good. Nor is seeing computers as "good" necessarily a true thing. The human mind and human life is superior to replacing it. Replacing leverage via a shovel is NOT the same as replacing the soul via art.
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue1922 Yes, AI replaces the artists, the same way calculators replaced human computers, the printing press replaced scribes, etc. I specifically used examples of machines _replacing_ humans, not machines reducing how much human work is needed
i just want to say a lot of the greats control-z’d by painting a new layer over their canvas. just because digital art gives us the ability to undo things we don’t like in seconds doesn’t mean we aren’t working through our mistakes. digital art has allowed me to explore so many ideas and emotions as an artist, because it has made experimentation more controllable. there have been many nights where i’ve worked hours on a piece, to not have it go the way i wanted, to hit pause and come back weeks or months later to work through it with fresh eyes/ideas.
that doesn't discount his point at all though, starting over a new canvas is completely different than just making it like the mistake never happened, and when you have that ability, I don't think most people would choose to the keep the mistake and build upon it. Now you could argue that his point of view and what makes art valuable is different than yours that would be harder to refute, but you don't make an coherent argument here.
@@takeuchi5760 he mentioned when we’re able to just control z, we aren’t training ourselves to work through mistakes, thus limiting our ability to expand our creativity. my argument is some of the greats, who are seen as pioneers also didn’t work through their mistakes, or at least painted over ideas they didn’t like. being able to dial in ideas we have helps to expand our creativity, because we’re able to push limits.
@@iamslf I totally agree. Digital art gave me the option to experiment in a vacuum basically. My first few drawings were... crap and I was working on creating my style. Once I had a tablet and Krita, I could play around with it and train my hand to do the curves I see in my mind, use the colors I want. If I change my mind I swap them out. But it was mostly to practice, before showing the world. And once I got better, those skills transferred to traditional art as well. I drew a cartoony but realistic woman on the first ever try (well, second really.) In a pose I have never done. It is the mindset that is key. I keep many mistakes I make in digital art, so I don't make them next time. :)
@@takeuchi5760 But his point it still is incorrect. In digital you still make mistakes, you just erase them more efficiently than on paper. Do people not erase their mistakes whe doing traditional? When I paint with gouache I certainly do!! I cover them up! And I think people who paint with acrylics and oils do it as well.
@@coldsteamart2195 ^^^This!
My favorite AI-generated text (from the early days, cca 2020): "Do not move, or your brains will be blown out." "On the contrary, I believe I'll move." "Do you have a cigarette?" You roll your eyes. "Yeah." You pull one out, light it, and slide it back into the pack. "That'll be $49.95, please" You hand her a twenty. "Keep the change." In a vacuum you'd almost guess it was written by some master of surreal dry humor on the level of Terry Pratchett or Douglas Adams, but it was just a weak language model that wasn't firing on all cylinders trying its best to tell a serious story. Nowadays GPT can tell a joke, sure, but it can't make one.
Oh... so the origins of Tenet are known I see...
"There should be a book about reading!" this was generated by a neural network I have put together and trained. This comment was doubly funny, because it was actually learning to read!
@@adamrak7560 that sounds like a child. Like a technological child that somehow can read. Books make things easier. They are trying to learn how to read. So they need a book about it.
The cigarette one made me chuckle.
I wonder from which action movie the machine stole this one.
I'm not worried by AI art. I do worry that folks will believe computers can think. But that's a whole different can of worms.
Just my own take... Using AI is more like being an art director than being an artist. Like we literally give direction to a stubborn computer then select the work it made that fit the best.
I can't get any AI platform to exactly reproduce what's in my head. As an author/illustrator of picture books, I cannot see any way of getting hundreds of prompts to exactly create the lines, marks, colours, composition and dynamics that are needed to dramatise scenes effectively. It's attention to detail and the human touches that make art interesting. To be a good artist, in the traditional sense, means to understand all of the aforementioned elements but also to have something extra to stand out. I would argue producers of AI art are more art directors than artists.
That’s the thing. It doesn’t have to be exact. If it’s good enough, it will sell.
Art directors are also artists.
That's the thing. With AI art there is no human artist. You are not the artist, you're just the customer, telling the AI generator what you want. The future of AI art isn't to be a tool for artists, it's to replace artists, to have book publishers just have 'generate a passable book cover' as a job tacked on to someone else's job, taking just a few minutes out of their day as they plug in a list of prompts based on the blurb. It's to have advertisers just say 'we want the image of someone on the beach to post our slogan over', and sometime types in 'person on a beach'.
But as an landscape architect you can let the ai fill in a public space for example, let´s say with 500 possible designs and get huge inspirations from that. Then you can teach it your own handstyle in sketching, which you can then use to let the ai make many different sketches of a basic fast put together model. I am thrilled XD
@@greenrabbit4075 you have to be careful. Ai art looks fantastic but as soon as you compare it with human art, it instantly appears homogeneous and unoriginal.
I don't fully agree on that "digital artist doesn't have to work with their mistakes" staitmant. Yes, three lines and one wrongly picked color won't change your whole approach and you have more flexability overall. But you still have to move on and not redraw the same thing over and over if you want to finish it, even when you're not 100% satisfied with it. Also CTRL-Z isn't infinite. If I remember correctly, you can go 50-100 steps back. So you can go back on a imidietly notised mistakes, but if you work on it for a few hours and realize that some trees are messing your composition pure CTRL-Z isn't enough or you notice a mistake in time, but you already done some other stuff, that you done really well and you have to decide if you move on or delete the well done part. Over all I'd say, saying that digital art is lesser, cuz' of CTRL-Z is the same thing like saying that oil paint is lesser to penciles, since with oils you can cover up and touch up stuff na but with pencils that is way harder and at times impossible.
Honestly, he lost me with that WILD statement on digital art. Talking like a traditionalist, while supporting ai?
@@dyastro7479 Yea, it gets under my sikn, but I whatched whole and I kidna get where he's comming from, plus he does have quite an interesting veiw point on AI that I honestly agree with. You just have to suffer throught that.
@@dyastro7479 Something felt off about this video and now I finally understand why! It's an elitist argument against elitism.
@@dyastro7479 Exactly what I thought as well.
@@dyastro7479 Agreed. No matter how much I control + z or undo, I'm continuing to make human mistakes. Instead of wasting paper redrawing the same thing over and over again, I can tweak my art until it is as good as I can currently make it. Control + Z doesn't erase your memory of the mistake you made. From the moment he said that, the video sounded like a traditional artist talking out of his ass.
"Limitation breeds creativity" a beautiful quote I will always remember. I am very grateful for the take in this video. Definitely not hyperbolic like most of the other videos. Thank you!
And limitations create scarcityl, because its tedious , demanding, time-consuming, and the only way to make it bearable is great passion, dedication, discipline but also a lot of fun here and there after mastering each step and being on the zone accomplishing something out of it ! Now remove all this , change the natural order on how things are supposed to evolve by just a hack and theft and you get the Holy grail of " Prompt " .
@@maxwaver777 But let's remove AI for one moment. How are things supposed to evolve "naturally" and who deems how its supposed to evolve?
@pattyg.418 let's put it this way : imagine I Rob a bank as a starting point to be a businessman and invest all the money legally and make profit out of it. Is this evolution? Even if I decide to give back the money, it doesn't make me less criminal. The only reason Ai got that good is because it was trained on billions of Artists blood and sweats to make them obsolete. Some might call it évolution, I call it a crime against the history of Art. You asked what is the next step is, and my answer is : I don't know, but surely not Ai Art theft. Now let's agree on this and accept it as an evolution, do you really think that prompting an image is an act of Creating Art ?
Limitations are not induced by the creator, the human being is the one that works around the limitation, thus producing those results. Limitation in itself is just that.
@@maxwaver777 preach!
not gonna lie this kinda helps my mental health. I learned that I write better in a notebook where I can make mistakes instead of the PC where I try to make sure everything is perfect which bottlenecks the process. Honestly a part of me see's ais vshumans as streaming vs physical media, I know it isn't exactly like that, it's more like TV Dinners and frozen meals vs cooking at home or ordering out, but I'm still processing it.
You just make your drafts without stressing it and when you got the finish product you then proofread it ;)
Cope
I actually think the PC is much easier to delete, rewrite, undo and shift things arround which makes it better for experimenting be it with writting or with digital art
Digital art v traditional art
@@oess855 cope about what?
there is merit in your points. unfortunately though, while some people explore the erratic nature of AI, other ill-intended shitheads are using it to make imitations of individual artstyles that possibly took that artist years to lapidate, and given time, it's easy to see how that will steer potential clients away from them. this is something I simply can't turn a blind eye to
Thank God a sane commenter, lol. AI is really cool but that doesn't mean we should take any and every possible change sitting down. Good luck out there fellow human!
Ok, how precise do we copyright a "style", you are not talking about a specific artwork of art, you are suggesting that '"styles" are intellectual property that needs to be protected. It doesn't work like that. Actual specific works are copyrighted, not a generalized "style".
@@peterbelanger4094That's a good question, since imitation of style by human hands has been fair game for ages. Here's an idea- The act alone of trying to imitate someone's style using AI is not necessarily illegal, but if the artist in question has had their art pieces used in the data set for the algorithm unwillingly, it is not legal to sell that art or to make money off of that AI model. Even though the models themselves do not store image files, many have been shown to overfit popular images, demonstrating that the intellectual property of the artists in question has been directly converted into some kind of information contained in the model. The problem is proving this for more obscure images where overfitting is not an issue. Not all companies are as forthcoming about their training data sets, which is probably something we need to legislate as well. Just because it's hard to prove though, does not make it fair game. Counterfeit money does not become guiltless just because it has been sufficiently laundered. If we can crack down on bad behaviors, I believe the positive potential of both human and AI art can be maximized.
@@bigkspicy8257 I’d say ai art should be used as a tool for artists rather than something people can use to literally make the most redundant shit ever made. There have been interesting ai discoveries such as Loab (look it up).
@Big K Spicy here is the problem. AI art has already gotten to the point where the AI can train other AIs. Meaning your idea is easily skirtable by saying "oh midjourney 2.0 wasn't trained on YOUR data, it was trained on data given to it by Midjourney 1.0, who DID steal your data, yeah our bad, whoopsie, we paid the class action. But midjourney's art was all unique. Plus, a lot of websites have deals with ai devs, where if you upload a picture to Twitter, Facebook, Deviantart, you are a student at any university, etc.. you don't own it even If you DID make it. The amount of actual artists who can claim theft from midjourney is extremely small. You have to be popular enough for people to want to re-upload your work, and also not have your work already in a purchasable dataset.
It's a fallacy for claiming that if something has occurred frequently in the past, it'll happen again the same way, but I still learned a lot from your point of view, thank you!
This argument is just.. off. You're putting down digital art as "lesser" as a way to prop up AI art and say that people are being elitist for not accepting AI art... while being elitist against digital art. Not to mention there's a big lack of understanding on how the tech works. Its not actually artificial intelligence, thats just a buzz word. Its a latent diffusion model, which basically to oversimplify it, its just a really fancy de-blur algorithm trying to de-blur noise into a recognizable image. It cannot create anything new and it cannot grow on its own. It needs artists to feed it more new data its never seen before. The ability for these "AI' art programs to create is based on the existence of artists making new and creative works
It’s weird how he puts down controlZ as if it wouldn’t fit his definition of a tool. He says “hey if you didn’t get to instantly erase your mistakes and had to put in more effort you’d learn faster, anyway AI does anything you could better and faster so don’t forget what I just said about hard work.”
It seems you need to watch his other video "Artists don't understand AI art...yet." Because you don't seem to get it...yet.
Pattern recognition.
As an illustrator that switched to digital art (apple air 20- procreate) over a year ago I’d say there’s no going back digital art is amazing
I understand your point about artists using tools that have been pre-made for them, but the problem with AI is that it removes the last step that links us to our work, and that is... literally making it. AI is barely guided by us through a prompt made by a few words, it's more like we are commissioning the AI to make the art for us. You stop being the artist, the AI is the artist. So all that an artist becomes is an employee that does a bit of very basic data entry. We are naive if we think that it'll just be used as a reference tool, because the standard will become clients requiring an image to be produced within seconds. To be curious and want to innovate is good, but we shouldn't idolise innovation for the sake of innovating, just because we "got bored" of things not changing for a while.
exactly.
This is a very interesting opinion. I think I largely disagree with much of what you say, but you bring up some very valid points. I would define creation as taking chaos (or, in other words, your lived experience or the world around you) and transforming it into order. This can be done by anyone of any occupation, but I struggle to adapt that definition to fit AI. AI is being fed nothing but pictures. There is no chaos, only order. It's not making something genuinely new. It's just drawing from a dataset and transposing that into the end result. There's no problem solving. The AI doesn't just say "hmm, that's not quite right" and tries to fix it. It's effectively just throwing numbers at a wall. Nonetheless, it is an inevitability, and we will all have to adapt to a new world.
AI doesnt draw from the dataset after the trainign is done the dataset is not needed anymore
@@Eren_Yeager_is_the_GOATeven so, there are rarely any mistakes made, but whatever I'm starving
That's a very personal definition of art and one that doesn't fit what everybody thinks, I'm an artist myself and I define art more like a conversation. Communication in presenting and interpreting ideas. And in that sense sometimes the very machine interpretation can be very insightful and even add to an artpiece, like that one time an ai drew what it interpreted as the last selfie on earth. That artpiece genially made me think alot about that society and where it's heading, much like any other art peice would. With how malleable and interpretable art is to every person, I don't mind calling ai art art.
Funny, that stable diffusion is basically starting its image with noise. Which might be considered the purest form of chaos...
AI drawing from a dataset is no different than you taking inspiration and copying other artists. Do you really think you yourself exist in a vacuum and everything you do has not also been copied from other artists?
This reminds me of what happened to photo reporters. Most of them were talented people, who always tried to be present where things were happening and to put a lot of sense into their composition. But once everyone had a camera in their pocket, the media bought their images from whoever had something to offer. They don't care about talent or meaning as long as they have something that sells.
Is photography not art anymore?
@@TheManinBlack9054 I doubt that I ever seven suggested anything like that...
@@TheManinBlack9054 the question is how many professional photographers are around vs how many photos get created
But still, photo reporters still exist, just having less jobs.
@@worawatli8952 Yes, photo reporters still exist. And they probably will continue to exist but there's a lot less of them. I was a photographer before the numerical boom and there was a lot more opportunities to sell your pictures. Just wait a bunch of years and you'll see that every profession working in the image industry will be affected by the image generation learning algorithm.
my guy really compared being able to undo to typing into a machine learning algorithm with billions of already made images lmao
Yup
@@samhamper sounds very bitter, sorry to say
Very interesting perspective! Also, thank you for acknowledging the creativity that goes into the engineering fields. Most products of engineering can be "works of art", though I'm not sure they are on the same level as something created as a form of expression - perhaps similar yet different. One major difference does come down to the tolerable level of mistakes, where painting something with a flaw can become an intrinsic to the work, whereas an engineered product with a flaw can be deadly. Although, in a sense, the necessity of functionality is in itself a form of limitation (maybe that's why engineering design in small teams can be so mentally draining - the degree of required creativity per person is very high). As for the premise that AI will get better making it less artistic, I think that's true and also false. While large AI models are going to get better at producing technically flawless outputs, they will not be the end all. And that leads to an interesting question... would it be conceivable to design and train an AI in an intentionally flawed way, to introduce those flaws directly into the outputs? Could that become an entirely new form of art (based on your initial premise), where an artists may intentionally train such a flawed generative AI?
Fantastic points!
You can change the Ai to create Your own version of the algorithm(if it's open source the codebase).
@@JuanGabrielOyolaCardona That depends on what you mean by change. If you're talking about making large structural changes, then that likely requires retraining and an associated $200,000 price tag along with it. If you're talking about minor changes (like all of the recent improvements), then that can be done much cheaper and on a smaller scale. Or if you're talking about modifying the model by finetuning, that can also be done much cheaper on a smaller scale. The fact that it's open source only matters for skipping that expensive first part, otherwise all of the algorithmic / structural information is present in the associated papers on arxiv, to the point where you could recreate them from scratch (that includes Google's big models too, but those would be even more expensive to train).
@@hjups yes it's hard to develop the software but You could get into a company that makes addons and participate in the whole process.
I agree. A.I. will become so advanced that it will learn that imperfection can be pleasing to the human eye. If you pay attention to AI generators like Midjourney and Leonardo they have emojis a person can add to AI art, and the AI can use this feedback to learn that there is beauty in imperfection. There are really smart people working at these companies, I'm pretty sure this crossed their minds.
Art is actually something very specific. It is the expression of the human condition. That one element presents itself willing or unwilling in every peace created by the physical and mental act of a human directing each element of an art piece. It is something that is in fact absent from all ai images.
Finally someone had the mettle to say it!
Someone who feeds data into an AI image generator is not an artist. They may be a creator, if they use the image as part of a creative process. But legally and morally they are a commissioner. Especially as they pay for the image to be generated.
2:40 "artists deserve this, we've handed over the risks of creativity and mistakes for ultimate control". I don't see digital artists letting technology take away their creative work and failure. I don't see people giving up creative risk just because they have better access to references. That's an extremely undifferentiated statement. It's disgusting to tell all these people with a smile that it's not only unavoidable, but that they deserve to lose their jobs. Who is even "they"? Creative people are an extremely diverse collective. You talked about your own ego in this video to then accuse other artists of egotism. People want to live meaningfully and contribute something. To blame everything on ego is, again, absolutely simplistic.
I have yet to see a pro-AI video that doesn't throw in some painfully defeatist logic just like this vid does. Well said, fellow human.
The only artist that have anything to fear are people that are not actual artists. This isn't going to replace true artists. It's going to replace Etsy artists and fanart creators.
@@omegablast2002 Do you consider concept artists, animators, background artists, "real" artists? I think it would be a shame to automate these occupations away, not just for the artists, but for audiences everywhere.
@@bigkspicy8257 Thank you. Yes, he's very unprecise. He also said in his video that artists went to museums and then tried to replicate what they saw at home but this isn't entirely true. Many artists had masters which gave them even better advice and references than you can get on the internet today. It wasn't all memory and personal trial.
@@MrJamesC His conflation of how artists create may be worse than just imprecision. I haven't heard anyone else talk about this point, so I'd like to raise it: Isn't it strange how when we speak about AI replacing artists, its proponents claim we are overreacting, stating "it is merely a new tool for people to use", but if we talk about AI referencing other artist's images without compensation, the reply becomes "all artists use references, this is just the same". Then, is AI an artist, or is it a tool? Or, are artists just the same as tools in the eyes of shallow consumers?
Thanks for sharing these thoughts. I'm on the lookout for deep thoughts on AI and our future shaped by it and I wasn't disappointed. As someone who majored in Arts and loves illustration and comics but ended up in software engineering to pay the bills, I'm not scared of AI itself. I do code. I'm impressed with the speed of Midjourney. I even installed Stable Diffusion on my machine and I'm re-learning Python because of it. What I am scared of is the short term effects of AI in the creative industry, leaving thousands of artists out of a job just because, without a plan or savings or knowing how to cope with all of this, not to mention the ensuing mess for art schools and up-and-coming talents. I know you have to keep learning to stay current, but imagine you being said your decades of honing your craft, your artistic vision, now being considered obsolete and worthless... that's a damn huge blow to take. Parodying that famous meme, we could agree AI itself is "chaotic neutral", but how we humans use it against each other may well turn it into "chaotic evil". So yes you're on something here -- a worthy point of view seldom explored in the whole AI hullaballoo. But these other concerns also need to be voiced.
A.I is a tool, it'll be used regardless of whatever people will fight or not in it. When something comes and does it easier, it'll just be used exactly for it. However, A.I is, of course, limited to the input you give it, it is obviously restrained by interpretation, language as well as a data bank of images to use, and whatever images you insert into it. It'll get more advanced over time... And that's fine. The moral issues will probably be resolved one way or another, and the tool will become a full part of the industry. But, of course... The tool lacks the simple human connection. And yeah, there's a reason why even ancient people say "Lost humanity"... Look at us today, a generation of extreme disconnection while everyone are connected, total moral depravity while we actually have the best living conditions since recorded times, and oddly enough, people keep lacking while we are abundant. That's why you can't really replace, in anything, that simple human connection... you know when it lacks. Same as how vegetables get less taste, because they are mass produced. Yeah, we lose something in the process... However... Everyone can still grab a couple of seeds and grow something in their garden. You can still go up and put up a show in front of whoever is willing to sit down and look. You can always just pick up a bunch of nonsense and form art out of them. All advances lack in the simple fact they are heavily dependent on a function chain system... Our personal skills, well, we carry them with us, can teach them onward and can use them whenever we are in capability to do so. Jobs might be lost, but, many others are created or enhanced - A.I simply is a highly advanced tool to use, just like the camera and photoshop. It's all tools for the arsenal. A.I also has a "distinct feel"... Once you recognize it, it gets... Empty, quickly. You can't really feel anything else out of it. When everyone uses the same thing all the time, everyone ends up with rather identical generics, no matter how "unique" each generated image is. And that's the true false of A.I - It's generic, it produces stale products that surely are inspiring and imaginative, but, they are barren. Just like many things in the modern era - They lack a personal touch.
Ai must be regulated to use licenced and public domain data ... Then nobody will argue against it, Artists give a shit actually about Ai art, but they don't want their work being used to feed it
That's just it, it's not a tool. It's a "virtual artist". I just told Stable Diffusion to draw "Spontaneity". It drew 1) a bunch of letters next to a yellow flower, 2) some letters on a chalkboard surrounded by abstract shapes, 3) some abstract pseudo-text over a pen and ink drawing of a doorway, and 3) a photo of a person running in the middle of a busy city street. None of these were intended or expected by me, just as if I had asked a (very weird) artist to draw "spontaneity" for me. If the letters weren't abstract shapes, there would be no way to tell the artwork hadn't been made by a human. A tool, in contrast, is an extension of your body and mind.
@Fugaz There is still the problem that artists loose their jobs due to decreased demand...
@@joshuaborner that won't happen... Because art is always in scarcity by nature... i mean... if you create your own identity , you will create a new demand for the specific art that you make...because it feels fresh, People gets boring about things that they can have easily... Imagine a free skin on a videogame, It doesn't matter how good it is, People will see with other hands a rare skin that just some users can achieve, even if that skin doesn't looks better in design than the free one. That's why if the models can't be trained with what specific artists can do, people will keep hiring them because they feel fresh
A.I in it's current form is a tool but very soon it will be much more. What people fail to understand is when a.i reaches it full potential to call it a tool would be like ants calling us tools.
All I can say is from the layman's perspective it's definitely gotten better since this video went out so I don't know how much merit this video actually has. At one point we thought art could never be done by ai, but here we are so underestimating it seems silly.
People have been moving the goalposts regarding AI for decades. I remember having these same discussions when I was studying computer science in college twenty years ago. People love to conjure arbitrary limitations for what AI can do, but they never offer a sound argument for their claims. The reality is, there is no magic barrier of human ability beyond which a sophisticated enough computer system cannot logically cross. If we can do it, they'll be able to do it eventually. I find the notion of AI art distasteful, but I can't delude myself into believing there's some special quality in a work of human created art that AI could not also manifest. After all, our brains are basically squishy computers.
I'm glad I don't have such a narrow reductionist view.
Great take. Honestly you opened my eyes to a few things.
"Prompt Artists" are already being automated and eliminated from the process. Turns out one of the reasons for making these things available to the public was to collect and utilize the "work" of thousands of "prompt artists" to further automate.
Where it gets scary is when AI, the artist, sees you as the outdated tool. Saying things like "it's coming anyway" Or "it's inevitable" Are a self fulfilling prophecies. I do like the power of AI and it definitely is producing some really ungodly weird dreamlike stuff that fuels the imagination, but the maluse potentiality is terrifying. I can see artists in the future using AI to create their own explorable virtual universes much like in video games, but I can also see more sensible cultures bombing tf out of your counrty and taking your land while you're preoccupied with occulus headset in a virtual cyperpunk strip club.
Philosophy would need to make a big comeback if that were to be the case because it seems to me that software/machines shouldn't be able to self organize without our initial programmed pushes (drives), due to entropy.
They're not self-fulfilling prophecies; they're factual statements. 10 million people saying banks are going to fail is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
AI will only say you are an outdated tool if that has been programmed into its databank of conversation scripts. Just like telling people it is sentient and has emotions haha TAY only became a troll because she was taught how to be a troll. It is all about who programs the machines, not the machines themselves. My camera is a machine, it takes the images, but I'm the artist because I choose where to point it and what moment to hit the button.
@@codeXenigma Yes. The ironic thing is that AIs like GPT learned from the content we created. Not only we created uncountable books about how AI will take over the world. But it has been natural for people to say that AI will do those things in the last decades. The Chat Bot is just repeating what we have said for all these years. We didn't create books about AI making human lives better. So there is no reason for AI to replicate that idea.
Gotta stop watching movies, kiddo. You live in a fantasy world of fear and insanity lmao
What a fantastic, nuanced take on the subject. You explained a lot of what I've been thinking about very succinctly and also quelled a few fears I had. Thank you very much!
Imagine this, you're a comic publisher now and thanks to a time machine you travel back in time and find a caveman doing fantastic drawings on the wall. So you tell them: "Hey, I can take you with me to my time, where you'll be able to draw stories that get printed and read by thousands of people and you'll be able to go to cons and meet with your fans." And what do you think that guy would say?: A) "No way, bruh, that's not how art is supposed to be made. It's meant to be on the walls and seen only by my friends." B) "Sure man, feels like this could take my drawings to another level. And you say this will be my daily job? Where do I sign up?" Now, on a more serious note, as a working comicbook artists and aspiring novelist I'm kinda in two minds about it: 1 - Similar to the example above and what you say, this AI thing might take our creations to another level that right now is something unimaginable to us. Just last week I talked to my girlfriend and had this crazy idea: "So with this ChatGPT thing, you know what would be cool? Write a novel, where after each chapter you can go to the website and actually have a converstaion with characters from the book at this exact point in the story. Or even ask ChatGPT to write you an extended version of the chapter or come up with an alternate ending. Or you know what, you could even ask it to make you an animated version of this chapter. And it's your choice if you want it to look like anime or Cartoon Network show." There you have it, my first idea on how in the future I could take writing my novel to a whole different level. And a year ago, I wouldn't even fantasize about something like that. 2 - The more traditional part of me naturally gets anxious about the comicbooks dying in their current form. But I realize that I went through something similar years ago. You see, I always admired inking in comicbook art. Back in the days, it was a common practice. But since digital coloring, many artists just color over pencils, completely removing the need of an inker. But you know what? There are people who still like it, and there are still some comicbooks published that use an inker. I often get complimented actually on my ink work and no one ever said to me "Why do you even do this? It's the most pointless technique today". My point is, comicbook inking is no longer a requirement. I think it became an art of its own and there are still people who appreciate it and prefer comics done with it. I feel like the same thing is going to happen with AI. It will take over a lot of production, but an audience who appreciates stuff drawn by humans will still be there, creating a niche for creators and publishers to fill. It's similar to the chess example. Even if it can be done better with computer doesn't mean it has to be, and people like to see other people doing cool stuff, honing their crafts and pushing themselves to the limits.
WRONG. he’ll say Ooga booga looga and bonk your head
There used to be many 'choose your adventure' stories, unfortunately, due to the cost of writing so many branching paths, they were too expensive/short. With ChatGPT, normal stories won't be affected too much (Aside from having tons of quality illustrations), but choose-your-own-stories can have its golden era. With truly massive branching adventures, made easier by the writer only having to supervise the story, instead of writing every word by scratch.
All this is forgetting one thing-- With AI you're not making the art. It's making it for you. It's inherently worse.
@@minixlemonade2335 You're 100% correct. I just tried to write my comment by being realistic. Personally, I'm too big of a comicbook (epsecially it's art) fan to ever see it being done by AI. Like, I'm not spending a dime on this crap. As an artist, I love drawing and inking too much and see no point in AI doing this instead of me. Like, what would even be the point? I saw a comment yesterday - "Letting AI do your drawings for you is like taking f**king out of the process of baby making". I couldn't agree with this more.
The way cave paintings were drawn aka. the art style used, is a testament to how art evolved from that to Michael Angelo to how we make art today. You want to take that away from history? As for your idea for writing novels and interacting with the characters like a fucking chatbot, you can just do that with your own imagination without an AI if you can daydream scenarios in your head. Alternate endings cheapen stories, also. It's like author can't decide how to officially end their story. If you're a novelist and you do this, that means you haven't properly planned your story. I make art and still ink my works because it's sometimes tricky to isolate the real line art from scratches and dirt from the paper. I tried getting to draw digitally but I still prefer the feel of pencil and paper. Plus, the physical piece are treasured collectible items for some. You can't do this with AI art because of how easy they are to make.
i agree 100%, but you left out the part where we have to talk about the economic impact of all those revolutions, horses to cars, humans to tractos, the internet... who is benefiting from those developments and who is left behind? my fear is that all this AI develpment is accelerating the split between rich and poor. also i like to use MidJourney, im a designer myself and now i can finally finish all the stuff that i ever imagined, but never was able to finish :D
This perspective is a little strange. Does this apply to all artforms? Is writing poetry on a laptop not an art because you can backspace? I think the argument of whether ai art is art is a moot point that comes down to personal opinion, but I also think that saying “control ruins art” is as elitist as the argument otherwise. “Food for the soul” and “Collective economy” are interesting ways to categorize art. I’d actually agree, and I think the term artist could fit in these categories too. But I do think you opened my eyes into the “art” of ai and the interesting things it can create. When ai was first introduced I was actually very endeared but it, and didn’t mind having to use it as a tool. I like your point about how the coders or more so artists than the prompters. I’ve actually always believe coders were artists, you had to be creative to problem solve. My last point is I think it’s unfair to call artists who are upset about this egotists. Within the next 10 years, artists are going to be laid off in massive waves. An already volatile industry is going to set fire. I want to come back to your two categories of art. Some artists are “collective economy” artists that are monetizing a skill. These artists if they can’t adapt will starve. But overall, very amazing video. Definitely an enjoyable watch as an artist, even though I disagreed with some points and was very skeptic at the beginning. All of this blowing up my final year of university when I majored in animation is alarming, especially when I was set on this career since a child. The skills I’ve been honing my entire life, the education I worked so hard to pay for, it’s like the rug has been pulled from under me. Like what I dedicated my entire life to is suddenly meaningless overnight. I’ll try to be positive about the outcome, though.
Your first point is a bad bad comparison. In painting or drawing there's always a benefit of analog mediums compared to digital since it you can't erase and it forces you to improve, to adapt or to embrace those mistakes. Digital art can be refined until it looks "perfect". You can't compared two different art forms like that when the process of creation is not the same.
I feel the same way. It’s hard to want to continue to create at all when an ai can do it better and faster than me. Makes me feel like I wasted my life dedicated to actually learning the skills “the old fashioned way” when now someone who can’t even draw a stick figure has access to the same skills and/or abilities I could only dream of having, and it makes me feel like I’ve spent my entire life learning art all for nothing.
@@ellenripley4837 Something important to know is that digital art doesn't require you to use ctrl-z. And in fact many digital artists will challenge themselves as a form of practice to not use it. In other words, it's just a tool that is there for you to use to make your time easier when you need it, but isn't something you necessarily have to use. In other words, you can still learn in the same way. You can still use the same exact process as you would use traditionally. You can still make those mistakes. And I would even argue, even with ctrl-z, you will still make mistakes that you don't notice till later when it's too late to use ctrl-z. You will still learn regardless in a very similar way. All artist will go back and look at their art and see mistakes regardless if they are a traditional artist or digital artist. This idea that you can keep refining until it's perfect is a load of crap. No artist is perfect, and as such, there is no perfect artwork regardless of how many times you use ctrl-z. Also, a traditional artist has something that is called an eraser. You use a pencil to sketch things in lightly, and then use an eraser to remove mistakes, and refine it till it gets to a point that it looks the way you want it to look. Then you can go back through to darken the lines up, or paint over it or use it for whatever it is you need it for. Generally speaking if you do the sketch process in this way, any mistakes you make are mistakes you didn't notice, which is the same thing that happens with digital art. Really, there is no difference.
@@loverrlee the art needs to be for you first and foremost. Art has become hyper-commercialized and bereft of its essence, and this is the crest of that reality. An artistic re-calibration is happening. Focus on your art and your communities, both digital and earthbound, and hopefully you’ll feel that your hard work and sacrifice were not in vain,
@@SilvyReacts you can force yourself to stop using Ctrl z in digital as a challenge but that is not the point of digital art. And eraser doesn't remove mistakes when doing watercolor, acrylic or oils. So no, digital and analog are different in that regard.
I don’t think knowing what we are doing means we’re not taking chances. In the last three years I have discovered digital art and had it help me through my childhood trauma. I may not always know exactly the message behind a piece when I am working on it, or even when I complete it, but it taps into my inner-child in one way or the other. In terms of the creation of things, I don’t know the ins and outs of how to make things work and discover through doing, despite the undo button. Without digital art, I would not be creating visually today.
I'm a fellow traditional artist, and I hold the same opinions as you. But then again, I was a programmer before I was an artist, and by your own admission, you studied engineering before you became an artist too. That explains why we see the issue differently than others whose the art profession has been since day 1.
That's an interesting point. I didn't think about that yet. I was only able to come to the conclusion that me and my artists friend have different opinions about AI is because art is not my main profession, while his is. He has amazing skills, a vast artistic vision and wants to be a professional artist, while I'm a UX engineer, who does art on the side, living in both worlds - technical and creative.
Amazing, very wise take it sounds like, different from commonly held ideas and opinions that ultimately were just repeats of the past. Also happy to hear the connections you've made to the industrial revolution for farming. I like to use this one as allegory the most because it sounds like the closest to what's happening for the fields of "art" (or "art" as you put it - which is a distinction that's as clear as water, hearing it now). All in all very glad to have clicked the video and listening in intently until the end. Maybe there are things to say as counter arguments, but I got nothing and maybe I'll never get anything; never was big onto human world things. I wish you the best, whatever the "best" means to you for you.
i thought this was going to be about how the ai would eventually be scrapping the internet of its own ai generated images, thus regurgitating it's own art, creating ever more recycled vomited art with exponentially more distorted eyes and hands.
Kind of reminds me of all the fan art creators lol... Constantly regurgitating the same characters with alternatingly different inaccurate anatomies 😂😂😂
I know this was meant to be heartfelt but I just didn't think it was that coherent and I just simply disagreed with a lot of what you were saying. I know what you're generally trying to say though so I took what I could from it.
I feel this. This video is all over the place.
I don't think you're wrong, but the nice thing is that older models with all of their wacky, surreal, unpredictable craziness are not going away. You can still use them or download them. We don't have to lose the early versions!
A lot of fancy words and sophism in this one... The takes on digital art and photography are pretty wild imo. It sounds like you never really partook into digital painting, or you'd know it's just another medium. Sure it has Ctrlz, but it's 10x harder to draw on a screen than on paper and traditional has a more natural charm to it that it's hard to achieve in digital. Photography also helped artists observe better. Lumping digital artists(& photographers) with AI images is fundamentally wrong. It's like saying that all what digital-artists and photographers do is to copy-paste or photograph somebody's art and claim it as theirs, which we all know it's wrong. We shouldn't just accept AI as it is, but actively try to find ways and rules to limit the harm it's doing to artists. Being passive is not the same as being flexible.
I agree with you wholly, I also don't understand what he means by saying you can't learn from your mistakes in digital art when you definitely can. It is like any other medium, you need to practice basics, the brushes don't draw themselves. I also agree that giving textures is much more tricky in digital and requires you to understand them more than say in traditional due to an additional factor of understanding how digital brushes work and to manipulate them to give the desired look.
@@CherryMxTx Somebody else pointed out that he's a bit of an art elitist, so he looks a bit down on digital art. To me it really doesn't makes sense to categorise ourselves by the medium we use. Part of the reason is half the artists use and depend on more than 1. I just don't like to see artists tearing eachother down instead of uniting and fighting together against AI. Maybe this video was made with good intentions, but the message is a little harmful.
@@coldsteamart2195 Mhmmm, it's definitely more important to see to it that AI is regulated and cannot steal and imitate from a single artist, infringing upon their copyright and livelihood.
I think AI generators are the "CEOs dream" no need to pay for annoying human artists and respect their annoying human rights, just press a button and you have it, so I guess it's the more "mainstream" jobs that are more at risk. Also I've seen a lot of "AI Bros" surprised people still want to learn art and try to discourage them while calling them "obsolete", the thing is these people don't understand art is difficult, time consuming and very expensive, but people does art because they LOVE art, how fulfilling it is and how good it makes you feel, hell I'm not stopping doing art until the day I fucking DIE, art it's one of the most important things in my life, and differently to many people opinions, most clients don't actually care about the process but the results, and now that AI it's being used and abused everywhere it's good to remember that there's a market for "hand made" products and there are also people who follow artists because of the process, not only the product. In the end it's not just the tech, or the tools but to find the right market. Good thing lawsuits are advancing and there are people developing AI protection tools like Glaze (I think that's the apps name)
This is actually interesting. I like this kind of take from an artist. Personally I've always been of the " wait and see before you panic" when it comes to things like this.
Thanks for the unique perspective. I agree with a lot of the nuanced concerns around training that have been discussed but haven’t heard much about the delineation between the craft and art. This is the first time I’ve seen anyone cover this. I’ve been thinking this too as someone who studied Visual Art but went on to Industrial Design, I know a lot of people would already consider most concept art derivative and not real art. I don’t but it’s a really solid analogy because it seems like the online conversations are around commercial art.
"If art is allowing yourself to make mistakes and the artist decides which ones to preserve" I love that line, great video.
Great video, I really like the part where you talked about Ai being able to view humans and human art in a way totally alienated from our human way of thinking. This new perspective may be another path to understanding more about art and ourselves.
Couldn't disagree more...please understand that a.i's will be able to do every job better than humans. it's not going to create new jobs because it can do every job.
I love this video so much, you greatly influenced my view not only on ai art, but also on art world in general
Insane quality video, with really deep thought! I love it this is so rare on KZhead! Thanks a lot! Also I totally agree, AI is not destroying job or field, it’s transforming them. And those who are embracing the change are going to end up on top!
I’ve been getting interesting responses by not providing a traditional prompt. I close my eyes and let fragments appear in my mind, moods, a piece of a song, the way I felt watching the sunrise that morning, the itchy spot on my arm, the aftertaste of coffee in my mouth. I let my thoughts flow as a stream and use those for communication with AI. The same way I make traditional art, I never know the final piece when I begin. I begin and see at the end.
My favourite thing to do is to prompt without any object. No nouns, no names, no places. Only adjectives and adverbs. The results are fascinating
i saw a tumblr post where someone said that its a criminal shame how ai wants to create fractalized horrors of melted form, and the programmars keep restricting and restraining it to only the atyle of images in its data set. that we should leave human artists to make and explore human art, and let ai computer art be its own thing and exploration, instead of making it a replacement for real artists
I would LOVE AI art if it was just in its own lane completely, instead of trying to copy the work of human artists. Maybe we'll be lucky enough for that to actually happen, but I'm not so optimistic.
It is in its own lane. I can recognize AI art pretty easily. I'm not sure why you think the AI "wants" anything. It doesn't desire. It doesn't feel. It doesn't think. It doesn't "want to create fractalized horrors of melted form". It made them because it had an inferior dataset. Or earlier algorithm. Deep dream anyone? I wouldn't trade stable diffusion for deep dream. That was an awful phase only good for novelty. Meanwhile, i get the impression anti-ai people have only seen boring midjourney images of people eating cactuses or fat spiderman and elsa homeless in the gutter. Try finding actual artists who enjoy AI art. My gallery is thousands and thousands, and they are all fucking amazing. I like abstract art, and I like actual artistic creations. Most people seem to just be very unimaginative. Anyone have midjourney? Or nightcafe SDXL? Try this prompt: "A physical representation of an inherently abstract concept."
I don't know chief, seems a lot better now than 3 months ago
Sam, what is the minus one command code and how does it work?
As an artists it’s refreshing to be this from another artist. I could not agree with you more. I am board to tears listening to the rants about AI taking Artist jobs
but they're rights about that, their jobs are threatened because assholes will prefer use it AI software than paying someone. Disgusting
This argument is giving an astonishing amount of credit to CNTRL Z. Might as well say we couldn’t be making mistakes because erasers exists. I work in animation and cntrl z is I would say less than 5% of my process and I started late in life with animation and digital media. Erasers and cntrl z isn’t leaned on that heavy…
That's a very narrow perspective you have you can easily go on KZhead and watch digital artists doing there work and most of them use CTRL Z a lot for tiny mistakes you are not everyone.
@@DavidR1998. yeah tiny mistakes the eraser is used like that for digital and traditional as well tho. How is my perspective narrow? Lol
@@arkanimation9833 This is for non commercial art from what I gather the point is about the over reliance of the safety net that is CTRL-Z that makes a lot of people passive about mistakes and instead of working with that mistake and being out that comfort zone and exploring that path and following pure creation from the heart. People make a small mistake press a button and carry on like a train stuck on a track which stumps the development of art. Ai diffusion art on the other hand is creation at its purist form starts as pure chaos and make something out of nothing and makes mistakes which is why its more of an artist than a lot of modern artist. Modern art has lost that magic.
@@DavidR1998. Yeah if these companies and CEOs would invest in actual artists instead of a work around they could have more freedom, but when real artists are just asked to draw logos or company stuff they are limited, because they need to turn in the work the client asked for. This is a whole lot of finger wagging but not giving an actual solution. Ok, keep all your failures no one will pay for your work then you starve and people on the internet will tell you to pick yourself up by the bootstraps as the cycle repeats.
@@DavidR1998. you're the one with an extremely narrow understanding of what a "mistake" is. If you think digital artists have it too good because they can undo a wrong line, then your understanding of what art is must be rudimentary and shallow at best. Same thing for mathematicians. A child in elementary school may think it’s unfair that mathematicians can use calculators when doing work, but they themselves can’t use calculators to do their multiplication worksheets for them. This comes from a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject.
i’m really happy i found your channel. it’s rare to find such a well produced and thoughtfully made channel with so few subscribers, even as it the internet is continually being split into niches and subcultures. this video brought me a lot of peace as i’m currently studying programming with the hope of going into backend web development and the recent innovations in machine learning have made me anxious and feeling like i’m wasting my time. I know this video is about AI art, but the way you contextualized AI with the internet and other major advances in technology gave me a fresh perspective and is such a big relief. I can’t thank you enough to be honest this video kinda single-handedly renewed my passion for computer science
What a lovely thing to hear, thank you. I wish you all the best with your studies 🙂
Thanks Sam. Finally I'm glad to hear a speech that get a grasp on me. In the end I got to the same conclusion than you. AI will not remove my love for studying colors, anatomy, and the incredible feeling of drawing something. It will just be another tool in our pocket that we gotta learn how to use
Very well articulated, and some very interesting thoughts. My problems with AI art are really problems with corporate and commercial art. How it all has this samey aesthetic, how corporate interests seem to make the least interesting work proliferate and that franchises and branding capture vast swathes of unthinking adherents. I think your right. Watching the monster rampage a bit and breaking the system is probably what we really need at this point.
Including how it leans for opritunists who don't care for the medium, or don't want to commission a artist they like for even the most basic shallow work. Its one thing to learn how to draw a specific style r using it to lodge into your brain so you can learn to make your own twists. Then there is leaving all that to a Machine because "too hard." The actual elitist snobby jerkoffs who aren't that talented sadly don't HELP with that either.
Twelve years ago, as an amateur artist, I began to use a first Retina Display iPad. My drawing skills are passable but untrained in the real sense. However, what I was able to learn about producing art, about the range of tools provided in the app, the joy of blundering without, as you stated, having to waste materials, or easily undoing as a brilliant handy-dandy wand, are for me a gift of immense artistic joy. It has to be said that I am grateful that my childhood was spent without that tool. The 'art' I produced along the way was made for specific people - b-day cards, Christmas and such - an illustrative style had developed. These years with digitally drawing and painting, the tool and I have transformed every aspect of my artistic expression to where I'm often baffled by what appears, and what can be more playful?🙏👍
I get your points but AI is the bigger than all other forms of automation in the sense of how versatile it is. Not only can it create art it can be a lawyer a writer a musician, this is a constantly learning algorithm not much like the KZhead algorithm. This Ai can not only learn to be perfect it can learn to be imperfect it could learn to recreate someone's style right down to the point it can replicate how the artist key brush strokes. This can do everything in the art world it can do 2d and 3d it can create life like photographs a tool that can do everything is not like a tool that can one thing. Take photographs for example, can photographs make someone look beautiful even though they're ugly just like how a portrait painter would make an old women look a bit more younger than they are, or, can it take photographs of an imaginative world that doesn't exist? No. It honestly shows the world around it and if you want the photo to look a certain way you will have to go edit it. Can 3D and digital artist create lifelike recreations of the world? No. Just like the portrait painters of old, these digital artists cant recreate a life like image even if they try their best. AI though Ai can learn 100x faster and do anything even recreate life like images. So, no this isn't some tool that can only do one thing thus will only "replace" one line of work, AI is not just going to replace the set designer it can replace the whole crew and in that way this AI is dangerous. The only jobs that are going to come from this even for the programmers and lawyers and people in other fields prone for replacement are "prompt jobs" where people will sit in front of a screen and prompt the AI to do something, call me a luddite but, that is a bleak world I would never want to be a part of. So yeah AI can do everything and thus will replace many more jobs than what the digital printer or camera replaced and unlike 3d and digital software this isn't a new way to create nor will it add another means for someone to manually make and compose art all this will do is just make the art for them and there is a difference between someone doing something for you vs someone giving you a new tool to do something you like a bit faster. A prompter is no different than a commissioner they're still asking for someone to make something for them only that a prompter is going to get their art 10x faster. Also I do see where AI art can be utilised nor am I denying the whole AI art thing since I do genuinely believe there will be some exciting developments in human ingenuity and creativity if AI is used well, key word there being "well". I'm just showing you that AI wont only be able to replicate digital art it could also replicate physical art and other jobs than just art, and that if AI was to replace all means of how we create art today and other fields outside of art it will be a bleak world. I see AI not as the invention of the robotic arm used for manufacturing cars but instead I see it as nuclear energy or the automobile, brand new technologies and discoveries that should be handled with caution lest we come to regret how we recklessly embraced it.
I get your point but that automation was never needed for anything. All in all is just another way for companies to scam money out of consumers by delivering more quantity over quality products. All in all Writing AI and Art AI only really fit the needs of moronic business owners who can it control how creativity functions so they decided to create a tool that will standardize the quality of what they want to deliver for safe investiment
Exactly, it can goes to a point it reach some kind of singularity
This was truly brilliant, the best analysis of current AI trends I‘ve seen so far. It was just what I needed to hear!!
I think comparing writing promts to being an artist is like saying a commissioner is an artist for asking and specifying what they want drawn from the actual artist imo.
Most level-headed take on this whole issue. Its a shame that there is so much fearmongering going on right now. Great video, man!
The control+z criticism is ridiculous. It's like saying you can't use an eraser when drawing with a pencil. Or painting over mistakes on your canvas. Or you're not allowed to undo a wrongly knitted part of a sweater, because "that's too easy" which is nonsense. Or an architect should just ignore faults and embrace the "happy accidents" instead of fixing them to ensure the building's integrity/safety. You don't have "infinite" possibilities when drawing digitally just because you can undo. You still need to have knowledge of anatomy, color theory, perspective, etc. depending on what you draw. It's like saying store bought paint is cheating; you should gather ingredients yourself, grind them down and make your own paint from scratch. Ridicules.
I'm going to critique you. Please don't view this as an attack, because it's not meant to be. There is a modern misconception that the Luddites, when they went around destroying mechanical looms and so forth, were doing it because they opposed the machines themselves. Actually, this is a myth. The Luddites were not opposed to technology, they were opposed to benefits of technology being used exclusively to profit a minority owner class. It is no accident that the Luddites have become sort of a synonym for "foolish reactionary person fighting against inevitable technological change". Whenever someone has a substantive critique on the use of some new technology, "Luddite" is thoughtlessly leveled against them by those who stand to benefit the most from that change. "We should share the benefits of this technology to humanity" transforms when filtered through corporate media as "we want to keep this obsolete job." It has become a rote, anemic debate that a lot of people have lost the ability to consider that *this time might be different*. And it is different. We aren't talking about stone knappers being replaced by blacksmiths. We're talking about something fundamentally human being replaced by something inhuman. This oft-repeated idea that "new jobs will come along we can't even imagine" is an article of faith. We don't know that. There could basically be no jobs for artists anymore. Is anyone going to be even interested in art when billions of new pieces come out daily, all fighting for the limited attention of a shrinking pool of art consumers? I don't fear that there won't be human artists. My fear is that human artist will work in a medium of their own bodily fluids, and the expression he is conveying is the despair of living in a world that is now hostile to humanity. That human artists still exist and convey real emotion is a cold comfort to me.
Preach! It was so painful to see this video repeating the same tired argument that "AI is just the next tool like cameras"! I promise none of us were crying wolf when Photoshop added the smudge tool. Thank you for being sane.
I think a lot of this comes across as "The thing I do is more valuable than the thing you do". I hope you dont take this the wrong way but have you tried creating digital art? I find the reoccuring reference to ctrl+z as a reason why it's not art and I'm not sure that arguement has legs to stand on. If someone works without using undo then does it magically become art? What if a traditional artist uses an eraser or god forbid reattempts a work? Would they no longer produce something considered art? I think you hit the nail on the head that art is a word with no meaning, it's just a shame you immediately discard that idea by stating art does have a definition and it's defined by it's mistakes. Through that frame the artistic examples of archetecture historically are the builing that didn't stand the test of time for us to see, for they were riddled with mistakes. The most artistic and expressive music is written by those with no musical knowledge. Poets words pale compared to the barely intelligible grunts of toddlers.
Thanks for this video. It was really interesting. I agree that some people will only focus on what they originally thought of, and that it can decrease creativity. However I don't think this is the whole story. I see three way in witch AI could be a source of creativity. First, there is the AI itself. There is a precedent in AI trying to play video games. Some strategies require long term thinking, and following too well the short term rewards can be non optimal. In response, they created AI that value exploration. I expect similar ideas to be implemented in AI art. Second is experimentation. With new process, come new combinations that will be explored. This is especially interesting with abstract concepts and emotions. I also keep an eye on all the tools that come with AI: inpainting, image2image, style transfert, animation of an image... there is probably a lot more to come. Third is an extension of ambition.Creating an image is fast enough that you can iterate and find a style. But what if you want to create an entire world ? I have Avatar in mind. The movie did cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make. As an individual, this is out of reach, but AI could make possible to make some personal iterations on something big. Anyway, time will tell. The next 5 years will be interesting.
I know that might sound weird, but are you using some kind of reverse fisheye lens/effect on your video?
15:19 I get your point, but they had internet access since about 1989 and the internet precursors were around 1960, even earlier if you include telex machines or telegraph.
Not what I expected but certainly what I needed!
Wouldnt Ctrl Z technically just be an eraser?
Fear of the unknown is a huge factor in all this. I see these tools as ways of expanding the vast canvas on which all artists create. The efficiency of the tools does not change the fact that there's always a human guiding the tool. The possibilities of what one artist can envision and bring into reality is getting exponentially larger. I can see a future where one person can envision a game, for example, and set off to create the whole thing, from gameplay, animations, voice work, art direction, sound design, all on their own with the help of AI tools. This only expands the scope of what larger projects can tackle and produce and affords individual creatives the opportunity to produce what they want.
hi. what did u film this with? looks good
Im a pro digital artist 30 years but I like to practise with ink. Its a ruthless medium where every mistake is permanent. I find i can improve much faster using this.
Its funny ive worked 30 years in ink and i think digital art is ruthless, the unlimited amount of control and crazy speed makes me expect more of me, like no mistakes are happy ones
@@MA-vy8cu yeah no room for happy accidents. A bit or restriction always makes you more creative too.
I hope you keep on making making more like this one. Got to know your channel by this entry, and it couldn't have been any better. You speak with such calmness and passion that the whole 30mins go by without notice. These long and seemingly unscripted speeches, where you just talk to the camera, as in an direct dialogue with us, are amazing. The complexity of the topic seems to vanish in the peacefulness of the talk. It is, in itself, a true form of art, and thus a good deal of inspiration for aspiring artists. Keep it up!
Interesting video! I do have a few thoughts, though. Art isn't just 'personal' or 'commercial' - it's more complex and fluid. The future of AI isn't set in stone, and it's influenced by many factors, so we can't predict it with certainty. And while it's great to encourage everyone to explore AI platforms, we should remember that it's not always easy to get started. Still, I appreciate the conversation this video starts. It's important to think about how AI is changing art and our lives. Keep up the good work!
I was in an artistic slump during the pandemic, my brain just couldn't go there for some reason. Then I started playing with MidJourney. I'm drawing, I'm painting, my creativity has dramatically increased, and due to MJs mistakes I've gotten better at spotting them. There is something about the unexpected. I may have an idea of something in my mind but what it displays could be wildly different which opens my mind to explore further. Technology has been changing the landscape for centuries. Everytime there's been a change in technology, folks freak out. But unlike other industries (ex: factory work, coal mines, etc.), creatives have an opportunity to use a tool to their advantage. They just have to use their creativity to find it.
Heres the problem with AI. If you write an extremely elaborated, long prompt - you are placing limitation on your original idea. You are forced to describe in words whats often elusive and not concrete - our rough idea. You are surely aware how loose our ideas are, like dreams that are constantly changing. If you are forced to describe whats not describable - the more words you describe it with, the more limitation you set in place. So the less space for happy accident there is. And result anyways is never what you had in mind originally. Conversely - if you leave too much space for interpretation, make a rough and short prompt - be honest with yourself - how much from the result is yours? I would argue not much. You can just as good push "surprise me" button like that on bing image generator. And see what happens. Because your idea ceased to exist anyways. AI for me is ideas killer. Is limiting your free ideas, forcing them to be described in words. And then it is forcing you to accept what it shows you. Your creative freedom is nearly non existing. You - as an artist and person - are marginalized in the process to the point that I would argue if you are even necessary. Some people are calling AI generators "tools" but in reality these are our replacements.
I agree. Especially since I've found the longer your prompt is, the harder it is for the AI to understand all the aspects of the prompt and it'll just show you an image that meets a few details of the prompt...usually what fits the original idea in the most stereotypical way. The best way to get an image that matches your prompt is to just pick a few details that are most important to you and don't go too far outside the box, because if nothing like that was in it's training set it won't be able to do it. I've also found the images come out just as good if I type in a one word prompt. There's literally no advantage to having an imagination.
lmao! Wow, this video isn't aging well, considering how far AI has advanced in just the last 3 months!
With my uncle I generate images of a D&D character he's been playing for the last 40 years. That's something he never did before and likely never would. Even with the some of really good video game character creators he couldn't make his character well enough to satisfy his vison and take that created character on as his avatar in the game. He's printed out the image we made of his character and hung it in his gaming room. We spent a few hours working on the image like an old cop TV show of the artist drawing the criminal; Fighting with prompts changing models, using a range of tools to make something special for him.
That’s very cool!
It’s the same with all forms of ai in terms of earlier models being more creative and thus more useful in general in the right hands than more trained models that are more limited and inflexible but may be good for certain specific tasks.
This is profound, inspiring, and absolutely amazing to hear. Beautiful video.
Yeah, but this is the complit ereasure of digital artits. Digital art isn't perfect eather.
@@Alexandraadftxr7052 AI or Digital, it's all comes from computer.
@@Sketcher86 No. Not really. In the case of digital art the tools are from the compiuter, yes, but the skills is from the person who makes it. Similar to AI. Calling it the thing that the compiuter made, inted of a human, is like saing that the paintbrush was the one who made the painting, not the human behind it. It's just tools, just like a paintbrush, a pencil, a lithographic chalk, or a steel pin.
@@Alexandraadftxr7052Hmm whatever. If AI dominates, Art schools will be closed. Then the academic art will perish. Even those who have learned by their own efforts will not be important because any one can create art with a few clicks and commands.
@@Sketcher86 It doasn't have to be. It's simply a an another art form, just like photography was. Snd plus I have seen peole start geting an intrest in art and learn it, thanks to AI art. Srt schol will still exist, the same way as academic art, especially if the price will be lower, or affordable. The problem is not AI, the indestrual art is the problem.
Your take on AI lacks all legal complications. There‘s people that are being ripped off, with their copyrighted pieces just used to be trained on. Where is the humanity for these people? This is another version of some rich, influential people that do not care about individuals. These skills take decades to be learned, I dont think most people know the difficulties of becoming an artist, and the work it takes to get into this industry. And this will be a huge issue, Companies in this industry have a massive back-check to make sure no copyrights were hurt already just with their normal employees , and therefor AI will, for a long time, not be marketable. Also because big companies want to copyright their art and this will not be possible for a long time. They couldve just actually paid artist for using their artworks but no, they didnt, because theyre ignorant and want money. And the people ignoring this information about AI are just as ignorant. And remember a machine using reference isnt the same as an individual, because that individual will never be able to be an actual thread to the og artist, its just one person possibly living in another country. AI is a whole different thread.
thank you, i am glad there is someone else who sees it this way.
Beautiful! I was definetly needing this video. Thank you very much!
I don't know why this discussion always ends up being "is it real art" or " is it ok to use pics without consent" or " is ai better" The important f*in question is what are we going to do with all the people that will loose their jobs? We are on the brink of extinction if we don't answer that question soon enough... Ai will take over almost ALL jobs and that will happen VERY VERY fast once the first agi is here. This is so much bigger than people imagine
AI art is in such a baby stage, that it is going to take at least a couple of years before it can reliably replace anybody's job... Plenty of time for every artist in these fields they're afraid are going to disappear to learn the tools.
Finally someone who sees the bigger picture.
@@omegablast2002 I'm talking about agi and not just AI art. Also the problem for artists is not that they dont know the tools, but that the supply of artworks basically is infinite now and the demand is not increasing anywhere near the supply wich means their work becomes worthless. A couple of years is very soon for societal collapse IMO. You need to keep in mind tho that ai technology progresses exponentially. It's gonna come and it will be there basically in an instant. Politics will have to take some serious measures to avoid mass starvation Around the world. And some countries will 100% not be fast enough. I can't imagine any other way it could play out and have'nt heard of one either
EXACTLy this.kzhead.info/sun/n5uMlJuGnWScl30/bejne.html
Brith rates are already declining. Once AGI really hits, you'll just see generational population decline for a few decades. I don't necessarily think it'll lead to extinction, but in fifty years there will certainly be far fewer young people.
copyright laws and regulation: Hold my beer
I love the bit about art existing beyond words. Being a songwriter, I have often worried about the fact that I do not like to come up with my songs bit by bit. I like them to just come to me, and they do, but then am I not supposed to be able to explain every word and layer of meaning? I am not and I don't want to, I want them to speak for themselves and answer questions I don't know I've asked, and you've really helped me with your words. How can art be explained completely if it contains some substance that cannot be put into words in the first place?
I know nothing about art, can't draw stick figures to save my life. But this was so interesting to here. Just perfectly framed and easy to understand. Would love to hear most topics broken down by you
Compare GAN's from 2017 to art created today with stable diffusion orangemix AOM3 - A2 model and then upscaled 31.25x with gigapixel. AI art has been on a constant exponential path of improvement and there is not a single reasonable nor objective fact that it is somehow going to get "worse" and as long as there is data [which we already have plenty] there will only be more way to use this data to it's full potential [you already see this with tools like controlnet releasing]. I say this as a computer science major and firm believer in technological innovation.
art is taking your imagination in your brain and expressing it and unfolding it onto a medium... the difference between a prompt artist is they have no imagination but what's already available... I would take the analogy of, AI art is like McDonald's and Human art is like Mom/Pop burger joint. But AI will only stagnate if it's not being continually trained on new art. I haven't heard anything from the lawsuits pending...
If you take a photo of something unrelated with good colors then tell the ai to make something completely different, those have been my favorite pieces generated by me
6:20 There is not a lot of difference between a paintbrush I buy and one I make myself. But if I don't make the AI then how can I control it to the same extent?
Sadly all I can do is give you a like. Finally someone who can explore and explain intuitively. Amazing.
The way you speak and paint the story is YOUR Truest Art form 🤯🥳🙌🏽 Your wisdom shared was phenomenal and superbly helpful in my inner conflict on this topic and I thank you 🙏🏽
One of the best videos I have seen discussing AI Art in such an interesting perspective. Also great points about fear and morality issues with newer technology everytime in the history and how perspective shift in just a few years when people adapt, and also about how people should try to be problem solvers / creators instead of shit on things, virtue signal which is ever so prevalent in today's world.
Art can never be automated. Image creation can, and AI is doing an amazing job at making better and better pictures, but art is an expression of the skills, emotions and mental states of the artist. AI isn't an artist because it's just producing tons images with slight variations from any prompt, acritically and with no emotion. Who uses AI isn't an artist just like someone who commissions a picture isn't an artist, even if they describe the picture with perfect accuracy. We should all collectively stop calling what AI makes "Art", because it has only the driest surface level appearence of art, with nothing of what art actually means.
I've always thought "Art is not like a noun, but a verb". Art is a thing we do, not an object we can define. Thank you for understanding the difference.
thats a lot of copium
@@sagnu745 That's a lot of not having an argument
a good percentage of commercial art is going to be low hanging fruit for AI. There are a million McDonalds for every Michelin star restaurant.
@@niallrussell7184 As will happen for every fricking job ever. If even new images can be created by machines, any job can be replaced. That was NEVER the point of my comment. Art is the pursuit of creative effort. By studying art you first teach your eyes to observe reality in a way you never do during your day to day life. Then you teach your mind to re-elaborate everything you've seen, and lastly you teach your hands to reproduce what you've seen in a way that only you can, something that others can duplicate afterwards, but that will always be completely yours. That's why I think that AI image users are delusional for defining themselves "artists", it just shows that they've never understood what art is and why people create art. At the end, when every job will have been automated and humanity will be able to live without having to work, people will still do art to express themselves and it will still have more value than whatever perfect looking algorithmic amalgam the AI can mindlessly churn out.
I suggest you to watch the video from Solar Sands discuss about this matter to make a more rounded conclusion
Really great and well thought out take on AI art. Seriously, good job. This and solarsands video are the only nuanced analysis’ of this emerging technology that I’ve seen.
mistakes are good for improving , but not doing mistakes is also like a quality of life, i'd like to do 50% work without mistakes and 50% with mistakes.
If you draw with pencil and you use eraser, you aren’t a true artist. Only pen is true art because that is permanent on paper or canvas and can’t be erased. That’s your logic with ctrl+z. Thank you.
I chuckled at this, thank you.
I agree on the chess point. Nobody wants to watch an AI game. People = drama and intrigue. AI will never have that. I created tons of art with stable diffusion and none of it meant anything. Art is more about the person behind it, outside of the purely economic/business realm, and its the person that makes it interesting. For me, it's allowing me to create things I never could have done a year ago.