**EDIT - I know you can get Ai generative tools locally, where the morality of big business does not hinder what you make. I should have made this more clear in the video, my point is more regarding the gatekeepers of these tools.
My art www.samhamper.com
/ samuelhamperart
Most Ai Artists can't make 'art' with ai generators as many are else still unable to wrap their head around Ai. I talk about how we historically approach new ideas and why there's a hidden problem with ai generators and digital art in general.
Timestamps
00:00 Ai Art & Futurism
01:00 The Ai Toolmakers are in charge
02:30 The concept of M.A.Y.A
04:15 Art vs commercial Art
06:04 How we access new ideas
07:37 Where are the artists?
10:33 Art must be allowed to shock
12:11 Why Ai art tools are limited
13:59 Conclusion
www.samhamper.com/
/ hampersam_
The problem I see with AI art has more to do with capitalism - take automation, in it self a good thing, ppl need to work less, could have more free time etc, but in our capitalist world it means a loss of jobs, ppl without money etc. With AI art unfortunately it will be the same, of course there will be ppl who will use it to make fantastic new art, but on the other hand, for corporations it will be another tool to get rid of „the cost factor of labour“…
To get rid of cost factor of labour, unfortunatly in this case means getting rid of the people creating something of value. It will mean an infinite amount of images, recycled past copies of something that was once unique. At the same time it will diminnish the development of new expressions. We need artist, not only something ordered from a machine using words. It involves totally different parts of the brain. I do not want a machine trained on the past, to dictate the future of the visual human expression. I think we can find a way around it though. At least I hope so.
a new form of surrealism, the use of dreams and automatic image conjuration. uncommercial, unpopular, uncouth
It’s true. On one hand it’ll cost jobs, on the other it opens paywall doors to others (like self employed or small business) who can now use affordable AI to boost their own income, so, morally gray I guess 🤷♀️
The problem is than "capitalism corporation" will don't bother hiring a guy if they can get what they want in two clics. Yeah. Midjourney, ChatGPT, Leonardo, all those things cost less than an Artist and give the expected product at the end. :/ In one day of try, i believe an AI can give you what you are looking for without passing by an Artist.
NO.... real art will skyrocket in price because the demand for it will be higher than ever because of all of the ai stuff...
I don't think ai art is a medium, people who type into prompts are not artists, they're more like clients, that person who paid you to make a painting is not the artist
It really is this simple. Thank you
Art is about selection, it always has been, all a photographer does is hit a button, it is what he selects is what makes it art. Tons of art is made with props not created by the artist. It is their selection of item and placement that is important. People select what AI art they like and don't like and that is what makes it art.
Eh i think it's a scale, I wouldn't consider the people that just type in a prompt and get a shitty result an artist. Just like that one insta girl who is just feeling cute isn't a photographer. But if you watch a video on how good ai art itself is made it actually takes up a decent chunk of time. You go through multiple iterations of the same image constantly choosing the result that results in the image you want, shift the different prompts and sliders around, etc. The artpiece that one that one random competition took like 86 hours to make or smthn, and if that ain't art idk what is.
@@masontoy1976 forgive me, but i cannot rationalize your logic. You seem to be conflating (for lack of a better term) pain-stakingly producing every line,shade,color and effect on a piece which (in my case is at least; im fairly slow) can take upwards of 6-10 hours of actual work with sifting through hundreds of prefab images. I do not understand.
@@GanenRo i guess you don't have to be skild to be an artist that's the point. If you are skild, good, most people aren't. But for me the term doesnt matter, if is unethical is other discussion
Never mind your take on the AI stuff, you're also on point that the online markets are stifling creativity, be that books made to be within amazons guidelines or even something as niche as table top role playing game where in the 80s and 90s new ground was being explored but now almost everything is just a skin of dungeons and dragons. Movies and video games are also obvious suffering from that safety net the companies are afraid to risk going out side of like they use to do. loving this channel, keeps me inspired to make something new.
I don't mean this as sarcasm but there is nothing stopping traditional artists from doing things "the old way". If there is truly value there, then they will survive. As an example, you can buy kitchen cabinets that are machine made but there are still artisans that make cabinets. Which you choose depends on your budget and goals. Full discloser, I am an AI fan and I have worked with ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion a LOT. I have noticed that AI has big issues trying to draw something it has not "seen". I asked an AI to draw a ladybug from the point of view of a bacteria. It kept just showing me pictures of ladybugs, or ladybug type insects. It could not do this but an artist could conjure an image to mind in 1 second.
@@timhays2086 these will be the last steps, your question has the limit of changing frame reference, which is possible with GPT 5 (sapposedly). We are at the edge of the curve, that I think for certain.
@@timhays2086 Me and my friend were discussing the other day, that when we were kids there were so many carpenters and artisans. Now, it's almost impossible to find one. My friend wanted to restore some old chairs that she got from her mother and finally found someone. It was extremely expensive and did a very poor job. The chairs have sentimental value to her, but she should just have bought new generic ones from Ikea, lol Art takes a lot of time and effort but people need to eat and have a paying job. There will be traditional artists in the future but not as many as today.
@@julimibz is ironic that machines are here to take the funny and expressive jobs, forcing artists to make boring and repetitive works to make a live... it's like a parody
@@Mente_Fugaz This. I think it's often ignored in the debate that we're not talking about mundane, soul crushing jobs which also ruin your health but generally jobs that are done by people which they genuely like and see as their calling. If those get "outsourced" to some algorithm, then it's going to definetly be a huge problem for those people that lose them. Now, one might say well tough luck! Progress yeah baby! But they overlook the fact that this will happen to many professions eventually. Even medical ones. We're talking about teaching, a lot of administrative work, basically anything that's intellectual but also in many ways subject to repetitive tasks which can be learned by machine learning algorithms. And I wonder, what are all those people going to do in the end? We might see a serious spike in severe depressions and other psychological issues in the future. Maybe a good time to invest in companies producting anti-depressants ...
As an artist who creates mural-size oil paintings, I see the potential of AI-produced art, but it's only pulling from whatever information that's been made available to it. Many artists pull imagery from inside their unique, self-aware consciousness which can result in new styles of art. Until A.I. can *"pull something new out of its own self"* it will remain as random assemblages of images that mimic art.
wrong. because the images it creates are totally new, original, and unique. its not collaging, its using pattern recognition and language recognition. it recognizes patterns based on the way those patterns are described by the people who did the training (or software). the images themselves havent existed until they do. the interesting thing about it, from my perspective, is that it gives the average person the ability to bring their ideas into the visual space without having to have a complex talent. this doesnt, in my opinion, devalue those with talent and skill. but its not really any different than paying a concept artist to create an illustration for you based on your ideas and descriptions, other than we simply dont have to pay a person or business. the concepts and ideas that the users of these tools have are coming from the same self-aware consciousness that the artist uses. Some artists, though talented, cant bring their mental images into reality through their given skill set. Some can do it perfectly. to say that an image cant be art simply because it wasnt hand made by a human is preposterous. the other side of that coin is to say that every image made by a human is art. no one person or group has the right to say what is or isnt art to anyone else. any attempt to do so defies what art is and destroys the concept. i know several ai artists whos images and concepts are way more 'art'sy (to me, and thats what matters here. or to you, if you're looking at them) than a bunch of the hand made 'art' i see across the various social media and digital art spaces. but it doesnt matter what i think! The only thing that anyone should care about when it comes to art, is what they personally feel about a given work in their own world. No ones opinion of/on art should matter to anyone else.
@@pookienumnums ok chat gpt
@@Vizible21hes not wrong tho.
You know that's coming don't you? We're literally ABOUT to enter that era.
No, you're wrong because even humans are conditioned, we overrate our own creativity, can't compete with AI, also arti is so subjective, someone can draw bullshit painting or extremely simple painting that'll be considered a masterpiece, it's all weird, story telling is the best from of art
The German language distinguishes between artists and artisans, although their works are not always easy to distinguish from each other for the average spectator. Within these semantics, AI is merely an artisan and no artist. It still can, in cooperation with a human instructor, create works of art. This has happened in history before, where artists instructed other people to physically manifest their vision. There are also parallels to photography, which is now recognized as a tool for everyday use as well as creation of fine art.
I'd say most people online, including myself, are artisans. Very few craftsmen are artists. Most create products to be consumed. In Norwegian, we usually only consider artists those who mainly use their art to express themselves. It usually only relates to high art, and it's kind of has to be exhibited in a gallery to be acknowledged.
Bravo.. you help define something I’ve been wanting to convey for a while. Yes you can use AI as an artisan and has its uses obviously it’d be blind to deny or reactionary to just trash it.. but AI work is like artisan work with its merits but not the unique value of pure artistry the beings that bring forth an unknown out of nothingness.. should not be underestimated, undervalued or ignored… It’s an absolutely different story to create something that is pleasing using AI than wrestling alone in front of the Blank page
Ha! My words and thoughts exactly, when it comes to "AI art". So many artisans consider themselves artists.
@@JoiskiMe That's been the status for decades and has been debated up until now. Artists are usually well aware of the gatekeeping some "prestigious" galleries partake in. A romanian (so, as you can imagine, quite shocking for someone in Eastern Europe, shortly after the fall of communism there, as compared to what you say is "the nordic status quo"), on his quest to become an artist, after he uprooted and went to New York, became at the time famous for establishing his own museum. The institution was himself and he was walking around, close to those prestigious galleries, carrying works of his fellow artist friends - he hung them onto himself and went on exhibiting them on his own 2 legs. If "being in a gallery" is most of your (your local area, the apparent mass culture there, I presume) argument for what passes as "high art", you might not be talking to the right people. If art is of no interest to me, of course I wouldn't know how to differentiate types of art and whatnot. What about your fellow citizens who 'consume' art? What about those who create it? Do most of them agree with that? I doubt it, in 2023. We might have to move onto defining what "a gallery" is. Agreed?
@Ioana read "usually" and "kind of". Those words were placed there for a reason. My point still stands.
Your video is of capital importance. As a digital artist, I've struggled all my life against the push for conformism enforced by online platforms. The result is a generation of artists drawing pretty girls or superheroes to get a couple more likes. What's more, sharing ideas is very difficult: a person-to-person approach is what has allowed people to confront each other, critique and grow, while today's digital landscape is hyper-individualistic and opposed to the creation of an involved community of artists. The lack of "inherited spaces" is something I'd never thought about. I would be tremendously interested in you expanding on the theme of the most popular trends in digital art not representing the human condition. I've never seen someone express this concept with such lucidity of thought. I hope your next video treats the "Hyper-human fantasy art" and its pure aestheticism.
A few people have commented that you can get Ai generative tools locally, where the morality of big business does not hinder what you make. I should have made this more clear in the video, my point is more regarding the gatekeepers of how the average person accesses these tools, eg midjourney and where they can share their work without censorship. I'm learning loads from comments as I'm a traditional artists trying to keep up with whats happening, so i really appreciate everyones input!
There are also tools that go beyond a text prompt and allow various kinds of image recognition input, allowing it to function more like a complex image filter, with more functions making it more of a standard digital art tool rather than a simple "make cool picture" button. Some digital artists use these tools as mere steps in our process, with manual human stages as well. The capabilities have expanded fast in just the past few months.
While you are absolutely right about how the average version uses the tools, there is still some hope in the local model space. While nothing that requires a user to use Git can ever be truly called accessible, more user friendly 'download this .exe and go' programs have been in development and several plugins for photoshop are currently available. A future where local usage is the 'standard' is still very much possible although at least a year out still. Furthermore developments like LoRA's have allowed users to explore the training aspect of model making without the need of prohibitively expensive servers and gpu clusters. [it's hard to explain but in short, there are ways to staple additional subnetworks on top of an existing model to allow for that model to learn and express new ideas without having to remake the entire thing] It's not all as dire as it might seem, although you are absolutely correct that ultimately it is in the shared spaces where our ability to express new art is most limited. As it is now, many traditional art sites are actively hostile to AI work and the most productive communities often end up being discord servers that are difficult to find and distressingly insular. I'm not sure what the solution could be on that front beyond waiting for time to cool hostilities towards AI. eventually Adobe will cram AI into everything and people will have to cope, maybe then the rest of us can come back out into the light.
@@peterbelanger4094 Well said. I've been failing to explain this to people, thank you.
@Spirited Stay that’s a great point, thanks!
I was going to add that but the comment section is quick. You had some good thoughts. There's a lot of hyperbole surrounding AI and how it works but I personally could not turn down the opportunity to be a part of the next paradigm shift in creativity. I'm currently working to push it in ways that I don't believe anyone has thought of, just yet.
Every Human being artist is "unique", "original", and with a "heart". That is beauty and "art itself".
Yeah, & everyone is as good a musician as mozart & as good a physicist as einstein....& men are women & ur anything u want to be....i declare myself to be a billionaire & so can you...everyone is rich, no more poverty or hunger
@@vincentvancraig BRO IS ONTO NOTHING 🗣️🗣️‼️‼️🔥🔥🔥
@@vincentvancraigDon’t confuse equal opportunity with equal outcome. Anyone can learn the skills to be an artists, even more so than ever with the internet giving free advice you once had to pay for or go to college to receive. And even with AI, you’re still not the one making the art. The Ai is which is saddening and defeats the purpose of self expression.
I'm severely affected by this mentally. This is more of a personal thing, but I put a lot of baggage to 'oh, i can draw cartoons' as part of my self-esteem, so when anyone can simply 'create' art, means my value diminishes. I need to learn to detach myself emotionally from art to pick myself up. Objectively though, it's still sad that it comes to this. Pro-AI art will obviously be happy with this no matter what. It's like magic. I can imagine being excited with this if I can 'create' my own art, without learning how to create it conventionally. Imagine what you can do with it. Exploit it in so many ways. I've seen tutorials on KZhead on how to make money making AI generated sticker designs for example. I refuse to see AI artist as 'artists'. A new term/tag/category should be made for them. Like creative prompters, or AI maker, AI Art Creator, or something, anything. Just not artists. Update Edit: Hey everyone, I appreciate all the comments and I've read most of them. Some of them are information that I already know, some are an eye-opener, some are leaning more towards tough love, which I appreciate for being real. There's some comments that I disagree with but you know, agree to disagree. I do see the potential of AI art, it's an amazing and Powerful tool. I appreciate creatives or artists who use AI art to elevate themselves, as in, using AI art with a human touch. Like 20% AI, and 80% human skill, an AI-Human fusion. There are those who uses AI very productively as part of their creative workflow instead of just simply using AI art exclusively without any human touch (100% AI generated art, direct text to image only). And of course, obviously I don't have any right to define who should be considered as artists or not, this is just my OPINION. AI art is here to stay. It will be the norm in the future. And there's nothing that we can do about it but to adapt and find ways on how we can leave a space for AI in our everyday creativity. Hope you guys have a nice day. God bless our AI overlords.
How gatekeeper of you to displace those who make you unconftable. I'm a traditionally trained artist who became digital artist for it ease of use. I have given everything to be an artist. I have learned every too and medium, digital and traditional. So let me tell you, AI can be art, It's a new medium, even more disruptive than photography was, but it's just a medium to express and create. I've been using it for a couple years now, well before it was this good and popular. The process is the same, the mind space you enter wile doing it is the same. You have to engage on an artist state to use this tools to their maximum potential. I encourage you to try midjourney, go for the unlimited plan and go insane, you will find the limit's of your own creativity, you will find out a lot about yourselve and the things you seek to create. Pay great attention to the process and you will find yourselve experiencing that great joy of creation, of exploration you get while painting or sculpting or writing. Also It makes a big difference to know how to paint, to know about art when making an AI image, your taste, your knowledge, everything ads up. Not every photo is a piece of art, same with AI. I is in you the artist to make the art.
I very much agree with you.
I feel your pain. I too dedicated my entire life to becoming a great artist and now, it is something that literally anyone can create. That said, I do believe niches will emerge that require these skills in the same way that playing an accoustic guitar is more valuable that playing a MIDI. Keep doing what you love.
Firstly, you shouldnt worry about what others think of you in terms of how you value yourself. Youre not any less valued because there were already a billion other artists out there who can cartoon as good or better than you. Secondly, are your cartoons even unique? Fresh? Are you doing something new with them? Or are they just ... another cartoon. Is your style unique to you? If not, then how can you attribute any value to something that isnt in short supply? It seems like maybe youre confused on what makes you valuable as a person, and as an artist. Just keep your ideas and concepts and imagination raw, spontaneous, and thoughtful, and you'll be fine. If all youre doing is cliche garbage then you were already doomed to oblivion before AI art was even a concern.
Try making art with ai….it’s a very tedious process to get what you want and it’s 100% breaking new artistic ground. Sure, there’s the ones that type up something random on mid journey and sell it oaks a sticker…fine by me. But running stable diffusion on your own rig, experimenting with prompts, models, vae, and the numerous different extensions….then taking it to photoshop to correct and edit things, and then bring it back and keep tweaking it. It’s an art form. That’s what art is. You’re still making it, just using patterns. Give it a genuine try before you write it off. Being an artist is being creative and open minded, but I think your feelings about it are what many artists feel. They’ve deeply attached their sense of selves to their ability to create art…and why shouldn’t they? Im an artist myself that attended art school, and I know how painstakingly laborious making artwork can be and training your hand and eye. But just know that this is a new movement, and many classical artists im sure would’ve had the same negative sentiments about the art we do today. A few of us enjoy pioneering in this space, and nothing is going to stop that lol. I know many ai artists have already trained models on their own specific tweaks, far removed from the models source.
I really enjoyed the two videos of yours on this topic that I've watched so far. I found the channel just when I became really fed up with all the angry or plain ignorant rejections I encountered on the one side, and the mindless hype on the other. And while I don't agree with all of your takes, the new perspectives are very much appreciated. Thanks, I'm looking forward to more :)
The issue is that it’s akin to ordering food at a restaurant, you can give the order but it doesn’t mean you made it
Exactly.The same way a washing machine cleans up clothes for you or a dish washer washes up your dishes... Did you actually do the job? Well nope, you just gave the input, the machine gave you back the output. Simple as that
Great video Sam - perhaps the most thoughtful and nuanced take on the space I've come across yet (though it shouldn't surprise me it came from you!)
My main problem with AI art is the fact it draws from other artists' works to create something without any short of talent It's basically just stomping on people's hard work to create whatever you want with the same effort a Google search would take Like if I were to copy a piece of art by drawing it myself I at least put down the effort to do so and it will have my touch since it can't be the same since well I have my own art style "you get what I'm trying to say"
in the stuff ive made (computer backgrounds) I use 2 AI Midjourney, and Stable Diffusion, I input a crude sketch of the scene i want into midjourney, and refine the prompts and variations until i like it, i will do the same on diffusion, as it has more customization then i bring it back to midjourney and blend them together, it is very much unique, however if you do the bare minimum prompt like Mona lisa in the style of the mona lisa of course its going to be similar, it still takes a tiny bit of creativity. I used a ying yang tatoo, blended with a picture of a black rose, and a suflower, got a ying yang sunflower and rose, looked pretty cool but not unique, i then blended that result with a picture of the moon and sun, endend with a wierd hybrid, combined that back with my sunflower, and rose, and it came out spectacular a sunflower with the sun in the heart and vines curling out forming yin, a black rose with a heart of the moon and vines w/thorns making up the yang, surrounded by a halo of fire with stars in the background..... does that sound like someone elses work?
I see AI "art" as just decorative art, like those prints you purchase at a supermarket or wallpapers you use on your pc screen. They can be stunning, but they are not the real thing. What I mean is that a work of art is something unique, that exists in the real world as an object produced - crafted - by a human being after careful planning, reflection, introspection, exploration of own limits and hopes. A human being who has knowledge and the will to break boundaries and find ideas then put them on canvas or any other medium the artist uses as his tool and mode of expression. Art is NOT typing a bunch of words in Midjourney and call it art, unless you are happy to call art an "human-inspired imagery fully created by Artificial Intelligence" So art is what appears on my blank canvas after many hours of work, brushes and oil paints as my tools. Maybe my art is crap, maybe I'm a unskilled artist but what I paint is on my walls, unique and tangible, the product of my soul. I'm already sick of the deluge of AI "art" that is now everywhere, smothering the work of people who spend countless hours in their studios until it's like they cease to exist. Too much background noise will kill human creativity, or just make it inconsequential
If you define art as something humans do, then AI imagery is not art of course. If you don't define it that way, it is.
What everyone seems to be missing in this AI vs. art discourse is that art, decent wall hanging art, is no longer rare or precious, it is not a scarcity, it is a surplus. Quality art and craft is bursting the seams at Etsy and other creative online outlets. This fact alone is what is going to make the segue from human made art to computer made art pretty effortless. The glut of art in the market is driving artists who want to "make it" into stylistic quirkiness. In order to do something fresh, the tendency is to unleash one's eccentricity in a realm of imagination that is already a dimension away from reality. The other problem artists are faced with in the world of surplus is that the insights art creates in the mind of the spectator are less than spectacular. As one steps into an art gallery from the street, the immediate impression is one of a "mismatch" between the tactile milieu of the street and a room filled with oddities that puzzle and confuse with bizarre juxtapositions, little isolate universes often surreal to the point of meaninglessness. The age or artistic "isms" is long gone. Trends or fads in art become impossible when the intensely personal aesthetic of the artist explores their subjective psyche for money. An AI made "photograph" has already won first prize in a prestigious photo exhibition. Art as a spectator sport is dead.
I love your videos. You are able to explain the concepts that I feel in my mind, with such clarity and detail. And you have a very soothing voice.
The human quote (1:00) is so powerful because it expresses something very human. There is no art without struggle, ejaculation, love, hate, doubt, blood, and tears. AI... is an empty shell. It is not yet even haunted by a ghost.
I know this is just one example but it might help to explain why you don't see the fringe artists for AI atm. Me and a group of friends have been playing with it making art sharing ideas and experimenting for months now but we're all anxious introverted nerdy types and we would be terrified and unprepared to publicly share anything we make as there would be backlash. I'm not trying to point fingers, it's understandable at the minute, this is new to everyone. As I said it's just one example but maybe it points to the type of people who are generally experimenting with AI art atm
Ever since the introduction' of streaming service, it's always struck me not only what is online, but what is not... a simple example of this is how the 'category or Art' simply does not exist... something which has influenced so much and taken so many forms, simply seems to been assigned to history...
I appreciate everything your saying. Also appreciate the correction on the personal models people have. There's a ton of adult content out there. But I hope you didn't spend a long time writing this because 3-6 months from now we might have a totally different landscape and probably more concern. The speed of all of this has me worried about AGI wiping us off the planet more than what's going to happen in the world of art. As an artist and musician myself.
This will sound strange and maybe totally irrelevant. Apologies in advance due to the possibility that I might've missed something, my English is still not at the level I'd consider to be good enough for deeper conversations about art in genereal. If I understand correctly you're saying that AI will fundamentally change what we know and think about art now. My biggest fear about AI is the infinite possibilities to take away even more value from art than how much it was taken by consumerism in general, until every form of human expression is going to be replaced with a piece of content that fills the same space, but is being created and curated by corporations. Fair enough 9 out of 10 people already don't care about art and about the artists who make them beyond knowing the name of the company who produced that piece of art or knowing the general name of the medium or artstyle, but I'm afraid that the 10th is about to be converted into that too. According to how I see art now, it is something that is either partially or entirely a product that is used commertially or it is the more classic version which is an act of communication.. that sounded strange... the "piece of food for the soul" as you said it before in the other video. Now if I understand and interpret what you said correctly, are you saying that what you predict is that AI is going to fundamentally change this view of art and transform it into something that is so alien for all of us that we can't even comprehand it with our current understanding of the word? That art as we know it is going to be abolished to open up the way for something we've never seen before. If that is the case can you honestly say that the reason why I think about it the way I do is because I'm unable to comprehand what comes next? Because the only possibility I see is that corporate AI created content is going to destroy art as a whole until everything in the world that could be created by a human is replaced with an entirely machine made product. If I understand correctly, you are claiming that this way of viewing it must be false due to the fact that I simply don't even know what the future of art is going to look like? I just can't convince myself that there is any sort of place for a human creator of art of any kind in the society of tomarrow. I feel like I wrote down this whole comment to cope with this fact and to seek comfort in someone's approval who thinks otherwise.
I understand your thoughts, your English is good! I'm addressing your points in my next video. I think you are focused on the utility of art in a commercial frame, or as a communication tool. These are just two ways art is used. Ai may take over these but it will never replace the human desire to make art, therefore it will never replace art. People make art for many reasons, but ai will never be able to take away WHY we are drawn make it. Ai will be able to replicate the output of artists sure, it will never kill the desire. Its not about the output, - its about understanding ourselves in the process. Thats the power of art. I think people worried bout Ai will find a lot more hope in making art themselves, especially people who previous looked for answers in science and never thought art could help them. I truly believe this will lead to a better understanding and appreciation of the arts. People just need to be reminded of its potential.
My worry is more or less limited to the commercial art world (a world I used to be part of as a successful illustrator) I think many commercial artists may become obsolete, and worse still the ‘image’ may become almost obsolete: since literally anything can be produced by anyone in a photorealistic way we will constantly question images and their value or truth. I think this is a huge shame. The death of the image kind of already happened with Instagram, but I think this will go further. When everyone can make anything with no skill involved what will happen to value? What will happen to that feeling you get when you see a great image? Maybe we’ll become ever more jaded. However, I predict a return to the real. People still paint and make sculpture. In fact when the AI discussion constantly refers to ‘artists’ and ‘art’ I think it would be slightly more correct to refer to illustrators and illustrations. Because AI cannot paint with oil on canvas, or sculpt with clay or bronze - I think the artifact will retain its value. But that’s not to say I’m ok with thousands of illustrators/designers losing their careers. I think the push for efficiency is a huge problem for the world, the only people that win in the efficiency/productivity/profit race are the shareholders. Budgets for illustration are way lower than they were in the 90’s and pretty soon there will be no budget, because ad agencies will have art directors who can just prompt an AI to come up with an ad campaign. 🤷♂️ Elon Musk is right, we need to hit the pause button immediately before we get into deep water without thinking about it properly.
@@jaspergoodall3206 One of the... nope, the single one moment I agree with Musk on this one. :D Yes, I'm sure the whole illustration industry is about to be disturbed beyond words because of it. I personally was in the first wawe of people getting slapped by AI becuase I'm a still low-tier intermediate artist and I mostly took bottom feeder jobs since 2021.. doing digital pet portraits on Fiverr for the most part, which is I'd argue are the objectively best representaional works pretty much all image generators can do in the moment, but it's a great motivator for me to get better and not get stuck at that level. The only thing I'm really worried for is that the whole society's value assigned to art already seems to be dropping on an unpresidented scale in favor of endless content consumption. You say that "When everyone can make anything with no skill involved what will happen to value? " I'd argue that there is still value in a thing that you produced by any means (including AI) exactly the way you wanted to express what you want to express, but social media has been suffering for long for groups mass producing content, just how long is there gonna be a single place on the internet where you can display your work and share them with others you could never meet in real life due to.. you know, geographical issues? And if the digital space is filled AI mass produced art, how long until certain people will start to fill even the phisical space with the same thing? Create tomarrow's hologram museums where "fictional AI powered artists" will display their works, who won't just not ask for payment, but their owners will be the ones paying for their displays in a strange McDonaldification of art, where you can go into a "Future Museum" in any city of the world to see AI Bob Ross (licensed AI artist lol) and his artworks instead of even looking at a human's art instead. You can already see that the most watched art streamer on Twitch is Bob Ross, who's been dead for 28 years, but the owners of his painting episodes are still broadcasting him, and people watch that instead of living artists. I'm just worried about this endless spiral of mass production that might be coming that won't even leave any space even to AI art maker individuals, then a few generations later there will only be consumers and no creators. I know... I'm far into my nihilist artdoomer ark... :_D I just hope some people in some hidden corner will still be making art a 100 years from now if my predictions come ture.
It is a turn in the events, but if AI produces something we cant comprehend, we will not care about it. As I see it, as of now, AI art generator are trained on the past, and if the real artists are getting fewer the future expressions of art will sadly be a Frankestein made entierly of bits of the past. Art is in itself an human urge to express how it feels to be alive, wanting to share their experience with others. Can a machine be ordered to give me the exact way I see a dear face, or the light spilling through my fingers? Can it make the exact thing I want it to, something utterly unique to me? An artists style is like their DNA. A machine can not make that exact error or focus on the exact line that a individual do. I think we will tire of it, and crave something, real and raw, made with the part of the brain, wordprompters seldom use. I think people will find ways of expression the machine would never come up with on its own. Because we are biological, whimsy, wierd creatures, and we try to make a machine be us. But it will never be.
If its any help I do come across people who are finding using AI as a first adult experience of creating images to be something thats inspiring them to look deeper and wider than just AI. People who have been encouraged by it to learn to draw and paint, or are exploring art history for references to create from in new ways. There is a sort of common idea of what happens with AI pushed by hype around it and peoples expectations from that which is missing a lot of what is actually happening in pockets within AI art communities.
On one hand I agree with you. However current AI models are trained on almost "all" existing images on the internet - while training, the AI remembers the proportions and parameters most commonly used. The next stage is users (people) training/telling the AI which of the AI images work and which don't, training it further on what is important in an image - since most people who use it have no interest in art , it basically train it to be as commercial looking as possible . The reason I find this problematic is because visual art is a universal language, not dependent on the era you live in or the location - you dont need that to connect with another human though out centuries or cultures. Its one of the earliest ways humans communicated and it deals mainly with existence and the human experience. Automating one of the earliest and most human activities really makes no sense to me, it seems very of cynical. What I've seen is mass producing stuff in the style of someone - commercializing further the voices of existing artist's, but not making something new. AI might be the newest and most complex medium ever, but at the same time its the only one in the entire human history which doesn't feel like it produced something which wasn't done before by other mediums, unlike any other medium it has no unique quality which distinguishes it - like marble from wood or digital from oils. Even the art movements you mentioned - they started with an idea which made them different and interesting from their very begging , AI image generators were funded by people who wanted to mass produce NFT's or overtake the most commercial sectors in the entertainment industry. In a sense AI art gives you ONLY the choices that were made so far by others, while robbing you from your own - which in itself is very anti-art on a level which punk or dadaism can't be compared to.
That's completely the wrong way round from beginning to end, and badly fuzzy in all the important places... Visual art is not universal. It is a realtive language, completely dependent on the era you live in and the location. You need that commonality to connect. If you don't have that, you see art so foreign that you are untouched, or touched in ways that are way, way removed from the artist's intention. You don't get cave paintings. Sure. You and I admire them for various reasons. But you can't ever possibly get their intended meaning and emotional significance, as those things were completely dependent on an original context long lost. The non universality, and complete relativity of art is what enables its multiplicity. If it were universal, there would be one visual language. But there is not. There are many. AI art also is not "a medium". The medium AI generates art in is "digital art". So far very few people have used image generators to actually work in marble, wood, or oil (an idea which immediately tickles my fancy). A good comparison to AI art as it is now, is the printing press. It was used by religious fanatics to bring their favorite texts to the masses. Then it spread to uses in administration, business, and enabled the rise of stuff like "the newspaper" and "the novel". Each of them were, right from the beginning, operating in the grey area between craftmanship, art form, and business that we nowadays call "mass media". I think AI art is similar to that. It's not a syle. It's not an art form. It's not a movement. It's a tool. And that will enable the creation of something new, just like the printing press enabled new things. That those new things the printing press created could have an artistic dimension worth exploring on their own? Took a few hundered years, till Andy Warhol, for someone to really explore that artistically. So it might take a while until we have the distance to grasp what "generative tools" are doing.
@@user-ku6fk8rq6d Thanks for the comment :) ,I politely disagree. Your definition of universal doesn't mean anything tho, like absolutely nothing works whiteout any context, even simple things as colors. Art is not completely dependent on the era you live in and the location. If you look at it anthropologically you see how ideas develop, commonality between cultures, religions etc. Most art expresses the most basic human needs , fears etc. to the point that many cultures have the same symbols for something begin good or bad whiteout being directly connected. In that sense art isn't alien to different cultures than themselves and civilizations didn't just emerged out of nowhere with their unique language and symbols. Like cave paintings for example, you don't need much context to realize that usually the artist puts tons of care drawing 1 big animal and the crowd of humans is drawn like stick figures, just to realize that may be they(the artist and their tribe) lacked the concept of individuality and saw their selves as a collective etc. and the focus of what is important in this life style is what is begin hunted, the magnificence of the animal which provides food and cloth to the collective - like that is the point of life for them, you don't need crazy amounts of context to get that. "You can't ever possibly get their intended meaning" is also not true, sure I wouldn't experience Babylonian art in the exact same way as a bronze age peasant from 1000BC would, but that is because my perception of the world is different, not because the meaning of their world is lost - this creates a fundamental difference. To be fair, no 2 people ever experienced art the same way - not now, not then. "The non universality, and complete relativity of art is what enables its multiplicity. If it were universal, there would be one visual language. But there is not. There are many." Well there is one visual language, that is why anthropology and psychology work, we express the same things but with different words that's why its universal. It might look a bit different visually , but that is because individuality and choice - what is our stance in the limits of the human experience. This is why AI art by principle doesn't work from me - on one hand it robs you from choice, which is the most important thing you have as an artist, on the other it puts a machine to make believe what a human might produce or want to see. Sure as tech is very impressive, but as art I think its vulgar to invade an activity which deals with human expression and replace parts of it by something which imagines - what being human might be like. " AI art also is not a medium", "It's a tool" - in my opinion often a medium and a tool are the same thing. In that sense I don't feel AI art is part of digital art, I feel AI art is in the digital realm. The reason i call it a medium is because of the context of the video , but also the difference AI art is treated by galleries vs how digital art is, but also the way digital art works is fundamentally different, on every level from AI - one relies on old techniques and the artist's choice, AI art relies on guidance and not understanding how things work outside the limited guidance you give. Sure, AI might be like the printing press, and can be experimental and amazing, but that AI is waaayyy far the models we have now. They are not designed to be creative, but to be as commercial as possible - because that is how they are trained and were designed by default. Most people can create insanely good art (regardless of skill) if they are just by being authentic, why replace that with something which produces a fake human experience? Idk for me AI art creates mainly visual pollution, that is why its biggest fans are people who make p0rn with it.
@@user-ku6fk8rq6d if I'm understanding you correctly you're saying AI art has the potential to be used to generate impactful and interesting art just like how the printing press was used to generate interesting art as well as it being used for commercial pieces? In that sense I mostly agree AI art does have the potential to generate interesting things, however, the very nature of AI, or more accurately algorithms, is to generate something that is palatable you can even ask an AI to make something interesting but it will still suggest to you the most visually appealing one of the interesting prompts you typed down. Now, does that mean someone can't make their own AI model to purposefully be trained to make unappealing/interesting art? No, but even so then AI art in order for it to function is entirely reliant on the preexisting images and data you fed it, meaning the most unnapealing/non commercial/interesting art will only be a fusion of the most unnapealing/ non commercial/ interesting art the AI tool maker has fed into it. Now, maybe a whole art movement will come by making art fusions of interesting/non commercial art or by generating images of popular figures in surreal situations, but, I feel to get the most out of AI you need to use generative tools like midjourney in tandem with your paint brush, digital or not, to make truly interesting art and art that will have a profound message. A full embrace of AI art tools on its own isn't going to make anything too interesting and in fact it could further the speed to which contemporary artists will lose their jobs and give further power to those not interested in art to create more generic shlok to oversaturate the commercial art space. Yeah, maybe contemporary commercial artists already create generic shlok but in order for them to even make that generic shlok they needed to put time and effort into developing a skill and the type of people to do that are the ones interested in the arts, and so even the generic shlok we see today is the most artist generic shlok. AI art tools open the floodgates to everyone moreso to those not interested in the arts thus, at least maybe in the short term, a lot of what you will see from AI art will be underwhelming generic shlok even more generic shlok that is being made by contemporary commercial artists, and or only used to screw over contemporary and up and coming artists, if its fully embraced recklessly.
In real that technology was created by curious scientists who just wanted to know what is possible to create with a computer. 🤷🏻♂️
@@user-ct8cj9xo6s "The way digital art works is fundamentally different, on every level from AI - one relies on old techniques and the artist's choice, AI art relies on guidance and not understanding how things work outside the limited guidance you give. Sure, AI might be like the printing press, and can be experimental and amazing, but that AI is waaayyy far the models we have now. They are not designed to be creative, but to be as commercial as possible - because that is how they are trained and were designed by default. Most people can create insanely good art (regardless of skill) if they are just by being authentic, why replace that with something which produces a fake human experience?". I strongly disagree with what you said here, but if you have only seen the prepackaged sanitized version of AI image generation, I can understand why you may believe it. It's still early days, but I can think of many ways of truly expressing yourself and not the ideas trained into the AI. It is true that most of what has come out of AI art at this moment is porn, but if you want to create something out of the ordinary, there are tools that can help you achieve your goal. One of these tools is called ControlNet and combined with StableDiffusion it gives you ample possibilities of expressing yourself. The most boring use can already be considered fantastic for traditional artists: you can feed it a photo or a sketch and let it copy the pose, depth, style or a number of other things from it. Essentially, you become completely in control of the generation process. If you are more adventurous, you can even mismatch the preprocessor and the model and get extremely weird and experimental results. There is another aspect of AI art that can be explored: you can use it to expose the biases of our society by using it "as intended" but changing the context of where and how the generated images are experienced. Or maybe you can try to break it by feeding it tokens it doesn't understand and let it hallucinate something. Or you might experiment with negative prompts: what is the opposite of an apple to AI? Of course, if you want to use these last methods, you might need to substantially alter the results to retain authorship if that's what you are interested in. Just because it is made of some of the most appealing images humans have created, you don't have to lean into it if you don't want to. Sometimes constraints breed creativity.
"where are these unrestrcited models" *raises my stable diffusion web ui hand up
Great Video, We sure do live in a very interesting time and it's great to have a dialogue about these things to better understand our world, new technology, one another, and art. Hope to see more "Thinking" Videos like these.
Sam Hamper, thank you for your thoughtful & thought provoking video. I agree with many of your observations & abstract analysis of the way (art) things were, & are. As an older artist who worked as an illustrator & fine artist in the 1970s to early 2000s, I returned to film, or rather video in 2004. Today I use AI technology to restore & enhance scanned analogue film, along with improving blurred or low res’ still images. Sometimes the results are astounding. Sometimes the results are rubbish, or at best negligible. It is an exciting age to be living in technically, yet a disturbing age to be living in socially & politically.
What a brilliant comment. It really isn't so much about new technology threatening us, it's how modern tools slip into benefitting the few instead of the many. We really should be heading towards a universal basic income, where artists could create art without the fear of starving.
nah, man, I'm pretty certain that Max Headroom is timeless and will always be cutting edge. is ai art even art or is it a vending machine that is no more art than vending machine is customer service.
the art is in the concept, not constrained to the execution. so, yes. it can be. but it can also be mindless garbage. there is also a lot of mindless garbage that is considered art. so... again, yes.
It is art but when you use it you are not an artist but an art director. A director that need to explain to a really dumb and stubborn computer what to do.
if everything is art nothing is. therefore i can claim my 15 year old shitty toilet is art because i have the money or persuasion to say that it is
@@leucome I think that's a actually a quite complicated and pretty deep debate what ever if the content created by algorithms is "art" or not. Think about it. Do we see it is art because it's amazing? Or because it involves a sort of creative element? There are some (legal) definitions regarding art which require a human element to it. For example, a painting done by a dog, wouldn't be considered art because there was no human involved as creator. At the same time, we also don't consider a beautiful scenery art. Under such strict circumstances, AI generated content is not really considered art. There are at the same time also other definitions which do consider it art however. So there really isn't an answer to it that's as clear as one might think.
If you would consider a great orator or a skilled writer to be an artist, then you should consider AI art as real art.
Thank you for your thoughts Adam! I've been getting a lot of solace in the videos you've been putting out when I'm at a crossroads in my career. I have always loved being a creative and have been questioning what the future holds with the amazing capabilities of tools like ChatGPT and MidJourney. I'll be riding the new wave and adapting to move away from creating art for aesthetic-sake (AI does that well) to focusing more on the stories I want to tell and the messages I want to send through my future art.
Ai is not just another tool , or another just movement , it is pointless to make these comparisons , and fundamentally downplays what is about to happen.
It's another medium. Is your argument against it that you will be negatively affected by it a reasonable argument?
@@_loss_ my argument is: Everyone is used to seeing change. Normally that change happens at a rate where everything can adapt. Its reasonable to a normal rate of change 'just another tool' , or 'just another movement '. However there is a limit to the rate ecosystems adapt. Rapid change is like a bomb going off , or years of drought . Here ecosystems die and never come back. A normal rate of change needs a 'don't worry it will work out attitude' ... its just another tool This does not work for extreme rates of change . Its like standing in front of a forest fire and hoping your house will be ok. 'the just another tool' attitude is not going to work because all creative industries are about to be burnt from the bottom up.
@@kenzorman ai output images with no soul and creativity according to most artists, creative industries should have nothing to worry about
@@lappwv This is absolutely not true. Industry is business. Clients buy things based on desire and cost. It you flood any market with stuff that is a thousand times cheaper than human effort you devalue the entire market to the point that human effort no longer pays the bills. Illustrators are already losing there jobs to Ai because publishers are ultimately motivated by profit not soul.
the only problem I have with AI image generation is the use of copyrighted work in training data, I think we should have a degree of control over use of our art, we have a copyright as a contract between artist and society, Artist shares art for free with people, in ecchange he can control the use of this art. AI breaks it all, we shouldn't push boundties just to push boundries.
If you posted your art online (which benefits you in a lot of ways) then you automatically consented to any artists using any tools to use it as inspiration and practice material .. you literally can't ever stop that, if you don't want people to do that just stop posting your art online or post it only in online private pay-to-view galleries.
@@AscendantStoic This is just really dumb to say.
@@AscendantStoic everything online isn't free real estate. don't pretend you care for artists when you clearly don't.
@@rynziart typical ai bros and their bs.
@@AscendantStoic That's very unstoic of you. Just because something is exhibited publicly, it doesn't give you any ownership over it or any inherent right to profit off it. There is a deep lack of morality on how AI companies keeps using copyrighted work, with no compensation to the original creators, while they profit highly from appropriated work. Quoting the legal team handling the class action lawsuit against Stability "value of this misappropriation would be roughly $5 billion.". That's a lot of food taken from someone's table... I am yet to hear of a serious artist who has issues with AI tools, other than their abusive, unauthorised use of copyrighted work.
I watched this totally prepared to formulate my counterarguments as you went along, but I came away feeling this was a refreshingly balanced and thoughtful take on some of the deeper issues at play. I will quickly point out though that, safety rails or not, it is remarkably easy to summon deeply disturbing and edgy works with DallE and Midjourney as is -- and not just gratuitous horror show imagery. In fact, with the right kind of prompting (and/or blending, in the case of Midjourney), it is frankly difficult to avoid seeing subtle and not-so-subtle scenes that are nothing short of haunting testaments to the human condition. It would be hard not to be a Jungian archetype-churning machine once fed with hundreds of millions of human-created training images. My family and friends are about 50% traditional artists of one stripe or another -- not of the sticker-making variety, but committed, principled, and possessing of critical eyes for quality and integrity in the artworks of others. As a lowly non-drawing urban planner, I've always felt a bit like an outsider in terms of expressive ability. While I've dabbled in photography and a little woodworking as my own means of visual expression, it's not until the very recent advent of the aforementioned tools, that I've had a personal explosion in my ability to bring forth (I hesitate to offend people by saying create) personally very visually intriguing and complex images that I would consider genuine reflections of my worldview and unsorted inner conflicts. If that is not "art", then I may be confused as to what that word means. The images I've prompted, blended, and carefully curated, are utterly unique to the world and would simply never have existed without my intentional interventions. So far, I am batting 1.000 (an Americanism) in my slow-moving but dogged evangelical quest to convert one artist friend at a time over to the side of fully embracing AI as a potential form of art. We still universally deride the proliferation of "hot anime mech commander girls", "fantasy dwarven swords", and similar creations that completely dominate the digital media sharing spaces you rightly criticize, but we are not fooled into thinking that that is where we should be looking if we're expecting to see emergent art anyway. I agree that the spaces for sharing the edgy stuff have not yet really emerged, but we may need just a little patience. After all, three years ago (maybe two?) I had literally never heard of text-to-image AI models, and now I'm obsessed and enriched because of it. My family has never had so many intellectual discussions about art or read more about art history as we have in the past year. Anyway, screed halted. Surprisingly great video, and I look forward to seeing more and hearing how your thoughts on the subject evolve in the coming months. Thanks!
Neil Craig. Wrote this in the comments and i want to re comment it. Art is about selection, it always has been, all a photographer does is hit a button, it is what he selects is what makes it art. Tons of art is made with props not created by the artist. It is their selection of item and placement that is important. Ai art takes time and effort and experience Specially if you want to generate something good, not every one have a good hands to draw or have a drawing telent ! Yet we all want express our selfs with art and Ai makes it accessible for our ideas to be generated as we like and wish.
Thanks for the fresh angle on the whole generative AI development. Really broadened my own views. I'm looking forward to hearing more.
Before watching all of your video and knowing where you go with this issue, I would like to give my two cents, because the topic is very dear to me. First of all: I got a fully unlocked AI-Art-System running on my own GPU and there are just no limits and it is growing better by the minute, rather than by the day. But what I wanted to tell is: I am an Artist from Germany, am 44 years old and have Multiple Sclerosis and went from a fully able ArtDirector in Advetising to being not able to work anymore, with two partly paralyzed hands, severly disabled. I still can draw, but I am slow as fuck and most likely will lose this ability sooner than later. For month I play with AI-Tools, from Disco Diffusion with its more abstract styles to the now photorealistic Models or totally artful models. I can express myself creativly thanks to those tools, like I was able before my MS. I take AI-Art as a better Version of stockfootage, that I can incorporate into a final picture, or I can tweak a little a abit too wonkey work by my shaking hands and make them more as I envisioned. And when I can‘t move my hands anymore, I still will be able to produce visions out of my head onto the screen and this is amazing. Sadly there are some artists, that love their precious gatekeeping or simply don‘t understand what AI-Art does, or use their fanbase to create outrage, to generate more clicks and earn more money from the masses that now cry Theft and Ethics and bs. Ok, now back to your video. Stumbled across it and up until now it seems, that I found a new interesting channel with you. :) Cheers! Chris
As an artist it’s extremely hard to not emotionally react to this since art is emotional it comes from passion , my problem isn’t with AI art itself because a lot of studios already a started to ban AI art , my concern is people’s view on art and what they see as “passable “ I’m currently in art school , I have seen A LOT of students who love and adore art and talk about it but the piece , skill and dedication isn’t there , they don’t care how their work turns out on a foundational level cuz they adapted the mindset “everything is art “ that also means that nothing is , it reminds me of that quote from incredibles when the villian says “when everyone is super no one will be “ and people accepting AI as art seems like they are in the similar category in my eyes , I know that some people call it “gatekeeping “ but we have to gate keep to a certain point , otherwise all the hard work , genuine talent , creativity , and so much more that makes an artist are all cheap and expendable at least in this mindset and going to art school and visiting several art schools made me realize how common this mindset is , I fear that with time it will even cheapen art and scrape the quality off , it really saddens and honestly scares me a little
I just came across this video - it was posted in an AI art group where people are arguing whether or not AI art IS art, and AI artists ARE artists (in my opinion, the answer is yes to both). I don't really have anything to add to what you said - you have your finger much more on the pulse of the art world than I do. What I do want to say about AI art however, is that in my opinion, it is opening up access to the creative world to those who may not have had access before. I have tried my hand at drawing, and while I am sure I could have gotten much better at it if I stuck with it, I have poor fine motor skills, and a familial tremor. On the other hand, I have an analytical mind that allows me to do a lot of fine tuning of prompts, and experimenting with different models and the various setting that influence the final response. The AI software I use lets me bring life to things I can imagine in my mind, but could never bring into a tangible visual representation before.
It's already it's own medium being used in it's own way for many of us, but most users aren't exposed to these workflows and so discount them out of hand whenever discussing this topic. I can't say I blame them, all things considered, but it's difficult to know that my mentor who, based on some traditional pieces I'd done encouraged me to finally go for it and start creating art, is squinting at my work through this lens. Painful, really. But it is what it is. I'm still thankful for her giving me the push I needed.
I'm at 1:41 and, with all due respect, I think you didn't do your research enough. This AI "art" explosion happened when open source models started to compete with closed ones. Everyone can use any stable diffusion model on google colab for free with no restrictions whatsoever, absurdly easy.
As long as people typing prompts to create art don't call themselves "artists", I don't mind.
You will have a lot to mind then
@@USBEN. you are a client, like someone who asks for a comission... it doesn't matter how specific you are on what you want the artists to make for you, you didn't make it... but if you build a story about it, you are an artist, a writter maybe
I’ve seen people arguing that they didn’t have time to learn “how to art” when they were young- presumably because they were doing other stuff. So now AI art entitles them to become artists without any effort.
Can you please start using "Old artist" We just getting with the times! Joking but your ask sound as silly, just because you came first doesn't mean much.
@@selbalamirthat's the same as saying: I always wanted to have a lot of money, but I never had the time to work for it, now with this tool I can steal other people's money and feel productive, Well, those models only generate derivations of stolen content, that's why you can't ask for anything that hasn't been drawn before, or a style that is not in the model yet... (because it wasn't housed within a tag for the AI to react to said word)
Really beautiful my man. This is really clear and well defined, top class! Thankyou, like the Futurist quote, I am becoming able to envision my dreams, my voice, my mind fully. 💖🌟✨🙏
This is something I've been struggling to articulate for some time now and you just put it into words beautifully. Cheers from Flindand!
commissioners are not artists, if I request a painting with such and such requirements, that does not make me an artist, the same way an art critic or curator is not an artist, a person commissioning A.I. To generate images for them is not an artist. Also A.I.generates imagery is not art. By definition art is a human activity is not just about the end result, but the cultivation of the skills necessary and the process that goes into the production of one piece, also the artist's thought process required to create the artwork and the message and story. So yeah what makes art 'art' is human labor. But not just the hours that it took to create one piece, but all the hours that took to learn the skills to make that piece as well. Because of this, Ai generated Imagery cannot be copyrighted... So it has no comercial value. Art is not just a pretty picture.
Thank you. I believe the commission analogy is perfect for this. People are genuinely just comissioning the AI to create their art, that does not make them an Artist. Like what?
THIS. Thank you.
But if someone is commisioning you to create a artwork with a specific message and story, are you still an artist? Are people who are fast learners when it comes to art less of an artist because they didn't cultivate their skill as someone who spent longer to reach the same level of skill? And when it comes to copyright, you're wrong. Copyright is about human input and not about time spent creating the artwork or the time cultivating the skills. If I with only a few hours of experience with waterpainting in school years ago painted something distinct it would still have copyright protection. As the field develops, AI-generated art will get better protection as the early decisions where made based on old rules and lack of presedence in how to handle the subject matter. Besides, even if AI-generated images are not protected by copyright, it still doesn't prevent the product as a whole that contains the images to be copyrightable. Just like Disney movies are protected by copyright, but not the elements borrowed from the public domain.
@@sevret313 If someone comissions you, yes. you are an artist. I think you misunderstood that part. We're saying that a comissioner (the person that is comissioning the artist) is not an artist.
@@sevret313 yes I'm still the artist.
This is really eye opening. Ai art bends towards the norm, especially with beauty standards of faces.
not entirely. to put it more accurately, low level uncreative thoughtless morons are using and abusing the hell out of the ai tools to generate pretty girls because thats all their limited minds can conceive of. though to be fair, most traditional artists doing any sort of person or portrait are doing that as well.
You can make some really ugly faces with it. But yeah a lot of what people show off is generically ‘beautiful’.
no shit, bc people only want to generate stuff they think is visually pleasing, so the images mostly fed into ai are conventionally beautiful
It's like with 3d renders. If you want to showcase the tech, you sculpt an old face with lots of wrinkles and photorealistic, spotty skin, but when you actually need to sell a product, you will sculp a pretty model with flawless airbrushed skin and shiny eyes
Very well done video. It's the first one I've seen from you, and i look forward to more.
I really love your videos! I love the background and the way you speak and calming music :) and very nice topics
While I enjoyed watching this video, I found it overlooked some key points. Open-source projects already enable diverse and "shocking" AI art, countering claims of gatekeeping. Despite tech giants' resource concentration, AI democratisation is growing through affordable cloud computing, open-source initiatives, and accessible hardware. The idea that boundary-pushing is fundamental to art is a rather modern notion: throughout history, art has served various purposes ranging from self-expression and portraiture to decoration, religious devotion and historical documentation, to displaying personal skill, imagination, or revealing supposed universal truths about existence. Human-AI collaboration offers new forms of expression and innovation in art, akin to the impact and democratisation of new technologies like photography or mechanical reproduction. The scholarship of Benjamin, Manovich, Paul, Shanken, Ruskin, Duchamp, and others remains highly relevant, as new technologies raise familiar questions. Other, arguably more pressing concerns in AI art include disinformation and propaganda, intellectual property rights, innate biases, challenges adapting creative expression, and impacts on job markets. These present significant challenges for everyone, not just for artists.
We're slowly becoming an advertiser friendly society. That should give us pause.
Incredibly well said. I look forward to hearing more of your insight
Really interesting talk. Thank for that. Hope to hear more.
It's kinda funny how people still don't realize Stable Diffusion is open source meaning there are no constraints. People think of AI art as Dall-E and Midjourney which ban you for asking for a sexy woman. Living under rocks.
And it's completely locally run as well.
running stable diffusion is slightly more involved than typing in a URL though (only slightly cuz Github can be kind of confusing for noobs XD)
Any form of AI requires us to give up control of a process. I am trepidatious of a future where everyone is dependent on AI instead of their own creativity. But hey... it's just a tool right? Yeah... for now.
Exactly, thank you. AI supporting persons aren't thinking far ahead enough. Right now it might be a tool, in the future it'll be able to replace artists completely. The way developments are going in like the next 5/10 years
@@creativecipher I honestly believe that illustrators, graphic designers and people that do post production should start thinking about what comes next for them. But artists? Can AI develop something approaching creativity? It's ironic, but I think we're about to enter an age where artists have job security.
@@creativecipher are you saying they'll make non-Ai art illegal to make? Because that's what it sounds like.
@@_loss_ What?? That's not at all what I'm saying, why would the make non-ai art illegal? That makes no sense
It really doesn't require giving up control. It just enables and empowers people in a new way. You can still craft art to your specific vision with AI, not to mention supplement it with more traditional digital art techniques.
People simply prompting an AI are Art Directors, not artists. Artists who use AI as a tool to expand their vision are no different from artists who manipulate stock photos, use photoshop filters and such. Art is whatever conveys a message. P.S. it's totally open already, I make my own models using my own material, everybody can.
I have never been so instantly compelled by someone’s voice before. The message was also wonderfully profound and insightful. Thank you 🙏
Imagine if... instead of working out, proper nutrition and effort, you could just describe what body you want and it would happen overnight? What do you think would happen to sports or beauty standarts of society? They would stop existing and wouldn't be appreciated anymore. This will happen to art. Nobody will care about what you painted or generated anymore. It's dead.
Maybe you could have a new body every day. Maybe one day you could be a woman, next day man, next day something else. Maybe you could dive deep into what a having a body is and means. I have always dreamed about it, being able to change form. I'm not a trans person by any means, but this idea of changing bodies is aboslutly fasinating to me, bodies is a topic i have explored plenty in my own art. I'm not sure bodies are a thing of apresiation, bodies are so much, having this power over your own form would maybe make us all much more unique, a true expresion of ourselves and our values in our flesh. I feel like everyone should have power over their own bodies, and I hope we find the way in the future. What would happen to sports and beauty stanrdts? Beuty standrs could get much more variated and diverse. Sports could be acessible to much more people, only people with certain body types can participate on certain sports, imagine using diferent bodies for diferent occasion. I feel like you are mising the point in life, it is not to be more than eveyone else, I dont paint as much as I do to be better than other people, to feel pride on my hard work. I paint because I love it, I paint because I can express. AI art is one more way you can express. And I wish one day I can pick my body because I don't care about beein more than someone else I care about deeper things. I have been doing callistenics for about four years and even if i could chose my body I would keep doing it, because I dont do it to look a certain way, I doit because it makes me feel good, I helps me with my mind and I can share it with other people.
@@zershuan I think you don't understand what my point is at all. You are looking at this from a purely individual perspective, yet I am concerned about social and comunal implications. In a way, it is sad that we only think about ourselves anymore.
The internet is and will be even more flooded with AI generic portraits of girls wearing glasses, houses and such. Deviant art is already plagued with it
Health care costs would plummet as people would be healthier. Everyone would live fuller lives without the limitations of their current frail bodies. Beauty standards would change, but they do that now. Society as a whole would be undoubtedly and unbelievable be in a better place.
You know the only similar thing I could think of was the invention of photography. Back then if you want a picture of yourself, you got to find someone to paint a portrait of yourself. Imagine a machine that could create a realistic protrait of you and be developed in a couple of hours instead of waiting for days for ones. All at a click of a button. Artists back then probably feel threatened as today artists are because creating protrait was a primary ways to earn money back then. However it didn't really take over the artist's job. Rather it went on to become a new art medium and have existed along with other traditional art medium. Another similar event was when Photoshop first come into the being. I have a art teacher with a background in graphic design and have say that back then you need to manually ensure that all the front size and everything was according to size ing length and width. Like need to uses a ruler to measure and that is was a skill to be able to see it without using any measuring tool. Another is probably 3D animation, how it properly used to be seen upsering 2d animation. Well it's kinda of did but there still to this day countless of 2d animation, especially anime. 3D more or less become an assistant or a new art medium Coming from an art background. I find it pretty disappointing that that online art community have been very against A.I. Yes I know how it negative impact on artists like people start stealing their art, put through A.I and uses it as their own as well undermine the amount of efforts and hardwork put in each artwork. As well no human touch to it. But I rather see it as a new and more accessible way to develop art as well as more of an assistant to help out with a more trining process in creating art. It should be uses responsibly and with common sense to it. And not starting to steal people's work and call it their own or pass in an art competitions and say yes I put tons of work into it when a.i was the one doing the work. Art done by human will continue to the end of humanity because all a.i can do it gather all the pieces from different work but mesh them up. But a human can create new pieces and works
photography kind of did take over the job of portrait artists though, like how many people have their portrait painted these days? everyone just takes their own pictures and for very special occasions they hire a photographer.
@@zwenkwiel816I would strongly disagree with this statement. Everyone's different, everyone has their own priorities and preferences. Some people like being depicted in different art styles,and there re still people willing to pay for a stylized portrait. It's much more interesting and fun to be represented that way instead of just hiring a photographer and snap a pic, but again everyones different.
@@anordinaryfellow2832 sure but I'm just talking numbers here. Like before cameras were invented everyone who wanted a portrait had to go to painter, so there used to be a lot more of them. then when cameras came along they slowly took over this role. First by proffesional photographers but now even they aren't needed for most situations since everyone has a camera in their pocket...
Great video. So many interesting things covered. Subscribed!
Great video. I'm just at the end of a thesis on useability in image generation and you kinda hit it spot on. It's alot like Bourdieu's equation of [(habitus)(capital)] + field = practice. Artists have a habitus that's partly informed by past and current knowledge on how they have created art. Capital is then the means through which they create or by other means reach their artistic goals, and field is what is offered to them in search of this goal. Artist do then of course bring their own habitus and capital to this new field in a means to understand it and that seems to be creating barriers that you'd otherwise not see in people that do not have this habitus and capital. There is although a big argument to be made about what HCAI is trying to bring awareness to with AI systems development sometimes being to technology-centered and not thinking about the "non-technical" users interaction with the system. As you stated the medium is unusal in that the developers of the medium has such a big impact on the art made with it. Although I can only assume that it is probably a more common problem for digital artists than it would seem. Props for not taking a hard stance for or against the technology. There needs to be more open-ended discussions like this!
Ai art is an invisible flood. It'll saturate everything, but if you are able to distinguish it, or actuively push aganist it (something that might not last long) then the algorhythm will prevent you from seeing its effect. But the saturation stays, occupying a huge portion of the attention econonomy, pushed by the (also ai) algorythm on these social networks. And hands-on artists will see that effect in the diminuishing of likes, engagement, until it drops to near nothing, whilst also being expected of taking this second job of inevitable "promotion" on social media. Creaitivity is between a rock and a hard place.
True creativity will NEVER be between a rock and a hard place. Nowadays people and specially business throw the term 'creativity' left and right to the point it has become synonym of 'employee', 'task', 'process' and 'assignment'. No, working doing illustrations does not make you creative. No, hauling likes on your last speed paint Instagram post does not make you creative. No, feeling threatened by patter-recognition algorithms does not make you creative. You will become creative when you figure out why all that you typed is actually irrelevant for true creativity.
@@anameyoucantremember i think you need to realize that the state of the world also affects the individual
I love your videos. Your views on the use of AI in the artistic world are refreshing. I can tell you've been working on the subject quite a lot. I find art in your words.
You're my favorite new youtube find. I agree with your viewpoints. I had IG censoring my artworks a number of times, and even Society6 which is an art shopping place, asks you to self-censor. It's crazy, really.
Your videos always make me think in directions I haven't before.
I think ai art as a public commercial tool is never going to be okay, a way to make something cheap and fast that was expensive and slow. Gutting artists for a facimile of what they can make As a tool for an artist, using your own material to feed an individual instance of algorithm, a tool to experiment with ideas before putting in hours of work to see if this idea was worth exploring, or to expand something, ai art used to animate something uncanny and fluidly changing was an incredible effect, the artist able to release the instance for clients to be able to use at a price, its their art and only their art feeding a program and access to it is through that artist, cheaper and faster and able to be used as a mock up, to see the style, to find a shape before getting the professional to spend their time communicating working and reworking, with material in their own style sifted through and marked. Stolen art to fuel a machine to circumnavigate paying an artist and waiting for hand made work is bad and should be fought. The programs should be treated as tools like photoshop, and theft should be treated as theft. The artist pays for the license to use the program and then feeds their instance, and a client pays the artist to use that instance. And then creative commons can be fed to public instances, put in memes or clip art and be able to make random shit on your own without going around artists companies could purchase an instance if the artist was selling as a program with whatever art had been fed to it a license to use it for concept art, and then pay to update it or to have the artist make something personally off of the chaotic generated images, they may go to a different artist for a new instance after a while, rules may be needed for things like merging those instances because that is a unique feature merging styles and motifs, but give them an inch they take a mile and all The *threat* of ai art should be handled, and the tool should be put in the hands of artists. That power to hurt artists should be kept from corporate and the public, not by restricting access but by consequence, the same as tracing or copyright I think artists that use ai to not do their job will struggle, and artists who give a cheaper faster option will make money off people running the process to see if the style is for them and what they want to make. They will rhen act accordingly and you spend time with srious customers, its not rhe breaktheough of ai art but in terms of our current perspective, this seems like a good way to handle the potential harm and benefitis fairly
" a way to make something cheap and fast that was expensive and slow." dont mean this as an insult, but the term "luddite" has a very familiar origin to this sentiment.
Not sure what side your on with that comment But the cheap and fast issue is more when its a public engine anyone can use working off of other peoples work. The artisan issue is a whole other thing jobs being lost to automation is a difficult issue to fix when mass production is so valued. I like the tool I think it being used by artists to help artists has huge potential, I think companies and clients being able to cut the artist out of the process using a bot fed on their art is a terrible development. I dont think the art a bot makes is any less real or valuable, but instead of being an expression via the details, its interpretation via the results. If I had a backlog of art and fed it to a tool like this to toy with big projects and give myself a sense of scale or to find common motifs and issues with my style via that big data bank, if people that wanted to use it went through me to make things out my style that would be a great way to help with commissions, a cheaper faster way to figure out whether you like the style or just what you want, and you can bring that to me and I already understand what I am doing with it. That feels like the best way to keep artists, and allow the new tool to breath and be used to it's fullest, I would love to be able to pay five bucks and got a dozen mock ups from a bot in a specific artists style to figure out if I want to get a full commision or to have a concept piece to give them. Fuck as an artist being able to use a bot to draw images from your own style would introduce a new challenge of drawing new things to feed it, and give huge utility to mess with shit to see whether it would look decent enough for me to go all in
@@ParaFox404 well, my position on ai art currently is little more than a consequence of positions i already held. im pro copyright abolishinment, specifically because of my disdain for its restrictive tendrils. that comes from an idealistic valuing of the freedoms to create and express, freedoms that would include ai art as yet another tool. if anything the issue of ai arts proliferation and the consequences it has on artists is about as good an opportunity as i can imagine for my empathy towards them to dissuade me from these. but as it stands, i dont believe economics should rule the decisions we make about expression. the same way i would search ways to provide liveable wages for artisans out of a field, i would look at economic measures to tackle the artists economic plight, not cultural measures. as for the "off others work" comment, the machines that replace artisans weren't designed in a vaccum, they were built on top of centuries and millenia of craftsmanship to guide its rapid imitation, this isn't new.
I agree it should not be used by big corporation, but I think it's a public right to have acess to this technology. Elitism is what makes this terrible world.
@@mr.keleton9710 so what your suggesting is ai art to be considered infringement on the datasets copyright, but granted fair use protection as long as it follows the non commercial and transformative pillars? all while not being copyrightable that could work, i disagree with it, allowing people to profit off the service they provide the community by publishing that wich is considered valuable by it is being undermined in that proposal.
Fantastic video! I've had a ton of fun with generative image production, my personal approach was to find styles that weren't typically available for digital art that I really really wanted to see. This still isn't really 'art' per se (the way I do it) but it allows me to visualize concepts in a brand new way. I am excited to see what the artists make and do with AI.
so very eloquent. thank you for the thoughtful presentation.
I hung on your every word. So well said and very inspiring in so many different ways.
I feel that the sentiment around AI art right now is very similar to past and recent debates such as "are video games considered art?". Which used to be a much more controversial topic than it is now. Also people who get angry at streamers for having "easy jobs". In terms of ease of use to the public, I do think art in some way gets diminished, but I do think that AI art has not even begun to grow to a point where we can really see it's potential. People will be able to create things you wouldn't have thought possible, and it won't just be from typing a couple random prompts, nor will it be plagiarized. I think people have been way too dismissive in thinking that there is no value in AI art.
artists dislike AI just because it steals content and throws it in a blender. If the AI worked with public domain or licensed data, nobody would care because we could develop our own vision without fear of AI taking it and selling derivative version of our work as its own without even giving credit. if AI is used just to make brand new stuff that is not trying to mimic specific artists, it will be perfect, because AI will have it's own style
Most videos on this platform are content. This one is Art. From it's presentation to substance. This is such a fresh view to this topic I thank you for sharing this with us.
I love your art dude! Didn't think I'd find you here 😂
As an aspiring animator currently getting a degree, I have to say I agree with many of your points in this video. AI does not really scare me all the much to be honest. If anyone is truly passionate about the creative field why not treat this new tool as its own separate medium. How is any different from when digital vs traditional media is/was a thing. Its either adapt or get left behind. Alot of arguments I see online is very woe is me what am I going to do, the prompts are going to replace me.. Why are people allowing themselves to get worked up over something instead of learning how to use the tool. I learned how to use digital media even though for the most part, I am a traditional artist. Digital tools did not stop me from continuing to oil/watercolor paint. Its not taking away from my enjoyment so why should AI art do the same. Either learn to use the tool and how it can enhance or speed up your work, or get left behind. In the commercial world you are not making art for you anyway so why get worked up if its for personal enjoyment. AI will never replace my craftsmanship and there are people who value that so cater to that kind of person or in the end cater to yourself.
Except if AI can simply create the content and the art you aren't exactly needed if your plans are to make a living in the arts or creative space. All you need is one monkey who can feed the AI the right prompts, and it will become so sufficiently mainstream that people who would typically hire you for a job can do it themselves.
Thank you for the amazing perspective on this an artist of the heart and not just as a commercial artist concerned about competing with the computer for income. I have been thinking about AI art from the commercial perspective and just now am starting to play with AI art in my own internal world. I am struggling a bit with the lack of computer resources to run local models free of the chains of society where I can experiment as i please - no shackles. The world is so focused on commercial viability that we have lost art in our society to a huge degree at its very core. The idea of what art truly is - a way to explore the most beautiful and the most horrific parts of humanity. We need to explore the dark parts of what we are and it cant be squashed and hidden in a corner. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, when we bring things out and look at them well in the light we can evaluate and discuss and progress as a culture.
It's called glaze, which defends learning It's not a perfect defense, but I hope the artists are protected.
Anyone standing up against the unlawful use of other artist's work need to continue to push. Don't let it become normal for companies to use the hard work of traditional and digital artists in their AI generations. The fuel that these AI generators are burning comes from a source that is not theirs. This is digital theft, art laundering, masked as "technological advance." Again, to all those that refuse to let this happen, never let them burn fuel that isn't theirs. Angry people on reddit can continue to enjoy their use of AI generation and enjoy making artists mad with it, but let them do it with their own shit stock images, royalty free, and see how much fun they have then. They are using fuel that isn't theirs.
I fully agree. Theres so many AI bootlickers everywhere. The images that are given are impressive but the real beauty is in the hard work and years the artist go through to come up with art that come from their own pov
Only its not unlawful. unpalatable to some perhaps, but not unlawful. Our rights as artists protect our work from reproduction not learning, inspiration or transformation into new works. This is because the primary aim of copyright is to enable and encourage creativity and innovation, not prevent it to suit the narrow self interest of individual artists. Copyright only gives us a few rights in order to limit us and stop us monopolising what are actually wider shared cultural assets we all draw from.
@@PeterHollinghurst machine learning is not the same than human learning... and keep in mind that time ago it wasn't illegal to stone women if they were unfaithful, so the argument "it's not illegal" does not make sense, since if it is clearly unethical it should be regulated and made illegal.
ip theft is ethical
Yeah nobody is stealing anything. AI understands what a pixel is and what color is, then it just builds a digital image by building pixels like legos. These are not someone else's pictures, these are pixels, with colors, arranged in a pattern, by using mathematical formulas. Nobody is stealing anybody's art. Artists don't have monopoly over color and pixels. I see a lot of artists complaining about this, but none of them understands how things actually work. Just because the programmer "shows" the AI your image and tells it to learn patterns from it, doesn't mean AI stole your image. Think of AI as a child that was shown a massive collection of images and figured out how to coherently create his own, from everything that it has "seen". You people live in delusions of your own hatred, just because you're jealous of something that is better than you. If you don't want your images to be seen by the AI learning process, then just don't upload them online, what's the big deal ? Stop uploading art online and your problem is solved, but don't start dumping your problems on others. Nobody is responsible for the way you feel about AI and nobody is required to change to adapt to you. But hey, you can continue to feel like you're entitled, like the world owes you something, but that won't change the fact that it is what it is and you can either deal with it, or keep suffering your own anger and resentment.
Hello. I was one of the first to create a GPT whose image was accepted at an international digital art exhibition
The second quote is so profound that I can't fully wrap my mind around it without getting lost in the fact it was spoken 100 years ago.
The term "artist" has to be more clearly defined in these discussions. Basically the "artist" is only worried when it affects their livelihood. A true artist doesn't do it for money, but for the love of doing it, regardless of skill, how others perceive it etc, it's a hobby and way of life. Artist who work for money aren't true artists, they are hired guns. They are stifling their talent and personal growth to go down a road that other's have mapped out. In this case, they are competing with each other to win the customer, and need the best tools in an arms race to produce the best, the quickest, the easiest, until one day, they are no longer required.
This just sounds like you’re against people making money off of art altogether. Which I am all for…or I would be if the world we live in wasn’t guided by the hands of a capitalist society where everything, and I mean everything, costs money. Please do clarify if I misunderstood your comment.
@@AnArtistInAVoid I never said I was against people making money from their art at all. And your statement about capitalism makes no sense.
@@ArcanePath360 then allow me to explain what I mean. It costs money to basically do anything which requires something other than your own body. It costs money to eat food, it costs money to get clean water, it costs money to have a roof over your head. It even costs to buy paint and a brush. Heck, it costs money to safely give birth, in America for example. If artists would not make money from their art, a large amount of them(if not all of them) would be forced to make money in some other way, be it office jobs, or the service industry, but there’s a problem in that. If they’re working an office job, they won’t have as much time or energy for art. As for the metaphor/kinda not metaphor of the hands of the capitalist society. The ones who have some of the largest control over the world right now are the people with the money that they don’t use for anything except getting more of all of the money.
@@AnArtistInAVoid You're just stating the obvious now.
@@ArcanePath360 yeah, and it was argument made against an assumed point about artists supposed to not make money with art. Considering you have stated that the assumed point was not the point you were trying to make(despite the comment sounding a lot like it was), then there’s no reason to state the obvious.
Person using AI art: "Imma get famous" pro art test: "You cannot use AI, here are some traditional tools and we want to see you put work without any cheating" Person using AI art: "Uhhhhhhh...... uummmmmmm but.... errr..... (begins mumbling).... I cannot draw well"
Or when asked to do certain edits like change colours by layer
Person using photoshop: "I'm going to get famous" pro art test(?): "You cannot use computers, here are some bottles of paint, select number of brushes, canvas, palette and an easel. Person using photoshop: "Uhh... err... I cannot mix colours well and there is only one layer..."
Person using Ableton with synth "I'mma get famous" (Because that is the only goal of art to you posers) Pro mmusic test "You cannot use ableton, only analog instruments since I arbitrarily have decided it's ch eating if it's not difficult enough" "Person using ableton" Oh no, I won't get FAMOUS! Oh my gosh! Franz Kafka didn't seem so fucking concerned with fame but you couldn't get that you human AI.
@@sevret313 lmfao
Your script is absolutely amazing, great vid! Subbed!
Well said Sam! You raise some really good topics and argue some good points.
I really enjoy your videos as well as the way you suggest people should look at AI generative art from two sides of the coin , really great and interesting views. I myself as a artist has been dabbling with AI and found so much new inspiration , by feeding it my own art and experimenting to see what the Ai spits back , I have folder now on my PC that I have more ideas now then ever before.. I absolutely love what doors and possibilities this has brought.
I have been feeding it my own art as well. Its an interesting experience seeing it reflected back at you in different ways, and one ive found quite humbling and instructive :) always great to come across other artists exploring this feature of AI. Its something no other new medium has ever really facilitated in this sort of way.
You feeding your art (data) to AI, most of the people will use AI to replace you or learn it from you, because AI it's cheaper then you💀
@@kamenriderbirth5369 First off these AIs don't learn from people using images in prompts, they learn from deliberately created training sets. True AIs that can learn on their own are not around yet, these are pretty dumb. Ive also already experienced new technologies that enabled people to create art cheaper - digital. It caused commercial art fees to plummet and massively increased competition. AI actually helps me address that because I can create my own projects more easily, cheaper and faster instead of trying to get commissions from people who pay next to nothing. Ive already made more this year through projects using AI than I made in previous yeas with digital. Yes, some people will struggle just as they did when digital arrived, or before that photography, but people need to learn to adapt and use new technology to their own advantage. If you sit around assuming you can carry on as you were that could be a problem.
I think what matters is.. are kids using it to make new stuff? All of us old people can debate legality, morality or philosophy but if there's a 12 year old out there expressing herself with it and her contemporaries like what she makes, it's part of the future.
If death wasn't a concern, I wonder how that would affect culture?
Absolutely loved your objective and informed analysis, thank you.
I'm an artist who uses AI to generate inspiration for my work. I just learned how much you generate something in AI it will still never compare to the works of real human. For example you can't make a good logo in AI. All it does it combine different shapes and the end product is going to be non sense. You can't create actual patterns in AI. And it actually takes more time to create N image that actually goes to your liking. The advantage of being an artist is you can generate an image in AI and do the retouching and fixing yourself. This something non artists can do by themselves and they will eventually seek out the help of true artists to do their stuff cause it gives them more control of what they wanted. Although I do believe AI art is still at its infant state and someday it will generate even better qualities in the future it's a good thing I'm already at the start of it and I have the advantage to learn and take advantage of what I can do bout it. If it ever becomes a dominating alternative for real life artists in the future.
It feels like you're one of the very few artists who have a solid understanding of these new AI tools. Amateurs can make nice generic images, but good artists will be able to use those tools, to speed up their workflow, moving back and forth between AI and normal painting and create a cohesive piece of art without compromising the vision. They're able to identfiy for each piece of work, where and how much it makes sense to use AI tools. You'll also be able to receive feedback and accurately make changes to images to meet said feedback. AI Imaging is not a yes or no. It's a gradient.
this! so many artists feel threatened by ai when it’s such a good learning tool. I do think it will definitely change the job market a lot, but why not make use of it? art consumes so much time, which we have so little of. ai could make it just a bit faster, and we can still put our own touches on it. and whether we like it or not, the world is going to keep advancing and changing despite our complaints and reservations.
Its interesting that the video frames AI ART as a new movement instead of a pivotal turning point of technology which general AI is. So understanding AI art in this way can better help artists respond to this phenomenon that we are facing .
It's not ai art. It's qi generated images.
@@Vizible21 yes I understand, I was just using the term art for simplicity sakes and to highlight the use of using AI in the creative industry vs the general use of AI to describe it as an art movement like the video
We are nowhere near general ai. Mining images from a latent space is nothing like general ai.
@@mf-- There are AIs that can solve complex university level mathematical problems that haven't been uploaded on the internet. Others can write code. It is evolving rapidly.
As someone who browse thousands of art every week, looking for a reference and inspiration. AI art should be bound to remain as a reference and inspiration only. That was suppose to be it's purpose, not to market it and proclaim oneself an artist. Coz there's no such thing as an "AI ARTIST". Nothing can beat an art with human touch.
Was that it's purpose? I just figured the purpose was to cut costs to corporations. No need to hire cover artists for books if you can just ask the secretary to put in a few prompts into the AI generator between calls and pick the prettiest one with the correct number of limbs.
same for that round dial on washing machines. It doesn't need to exist anymore, but people still expect it to be there.
I totally understand what you are saying. But I think that the problem is one of distribution. If you have a strong enough computer you can run models that are like DALLE2 but are not moderated like Stable Diffusion. The only problem is that there is a big barrier of entry if you are not tech savy. Aside from that I totally agree that we are going to see AI be made into it's own medium.
Give it time, we could bro generate images with 4gb of vram months ago
The barrier to entry is smaller than you think, you may be intimidated by the look of a terminal, but if you follow a step-by-step tutorial you will be up and running in about 10 minutes. Pretty much the entire process has already been automated. What is left is having a powerful enough PC, but the performance requirement has been steadily dropping and PCs will get cheaper in time. In the meantime, you can rent a server time for pretty cheap nowadays. It's not like art classes and art supplies are that much cheaper (you may still want them, tho).
After watching dozens of videos on the challenges posed by ai art, I convinced myself that the main (unrecognized) problem is.... the self-esteem and social esteem of the artist or of those who simply consume art. Each of us always wants to appear "young" "in step with the times" and "projected towards the future", consequently we are all terrified of saying or doing things that may seem "nostalgic for the past" "worthy of your grandfather" "old fashioned" (in the language of the Italian futurists "passatisti", since you quoted a passage by the Italian futurist Filippo Tommaso Marinetti). This fear of appearing old and scared of the new things afflicts many youtubers. In fact, if they invite artists "not to be afraid of ai art" they look good, their self-esteem grows, the algorithm loves them and, who knows,maybe Holz of midjourney and the other gnomes of silicon valley who have massacred art will quote their videos etc. With all due respect to the calm and kind landlord, well this is the hundredth "don't be afraid" video in which a vlogger talks about 1) cars against old horse carriages, 2) photography against painting, 3 ) Luddites who destroyed machinery, 4) revolutionary artists who have broken with tradition throughout history. Stop it for once! Invent something else! Anyone who has completed high-level university studies in art history and criticism and aesthetic philosophy knows that each of these four topics is used inappropriately. I've always been a "futurist" at heart. I have always loved science fiction, I have been using photoshop at the highest level for fifteen years ( only for my pleasure, I'm not a professional artist ). But loving the future also means always being on guard against the dangers that can make the future worse than the past (the dystopian literature help us to recognize those dangers). Being a futurist also means criticizing Laion, Open Ai etc. without being blackmailed as "passatisti", "worse than my grandfather" etc. and without having to hear the little lesson on carriages, photography, Luddism etc. for the hundredth time. And now I get to the point: the idea itself (described by the quote in the video at 0:39) that through a prompt written on midjourney I can get my "creative idea" out of my head in its purest form, without "fighting" against the material means, plus the idea that thanks to prompts everyone can finally be an artist (because manual talent is now superfluous) are lies worthy of Huxley's dystopia. No guys, get over it: the only means to give shape to creative intuition are HANDS. If you have the innate talent refined by exercise to use your hands well, and if you have deep poetic inspiration, you can be an artist otherwise there is no prompt that can help you. In fact, Ai art seems "terrific" at the first sight but at the eyes of educated people of good taste it is empty and ugly. Get over it: it's not enough to want to be an artist. There are very few artists, even less than those who consider themselves artists and who will be swept away by history. But this is too deep a topic that cannot be covered in one comment. Maybe to shout to the world the truth that I think I understand (but I'm willing to change my mind if someone explains to me where I'm wrong, without mentioning carriages, Luddites and photography again) I'll be forced to open another channel and make a video on this topic, which of course will have less than 10 views because the algorithm does not love those who say things that are too far from the common mentality (and also because I express myself in Italian). But I don't have time anyway.
How about this angle- Ai art helps people who do not have the physical means to make an image into reality, but have an image in their head. Example, the very hands you mention. There's something called an "essential tremor" (along with many other physical and neurological conditions) that makes your hands shake, even with stability-assisting programs or plugins, this at best helps mitigate SOME of the condition to be workable, and for others still isn't enough... especially if you're doing detail work. Worse, let's say you do not have working hands, like, at all. There are head-mounted devices that can try to replace the limbs, but these tools often have a difficult learning curve on top of the already difficult task of learning the foundational aspects of Making Art. ... Now imagine that you understand how computers work, how to translate the beautiful human mind into commands a piece of machine learning knows just as fluently. Are you going to shame that artist because they take the image from their head and make it into reality in a way that doesn't make them jump through fifteen ableist-approved hoops of fire? Are you going to tell that artist they're not allowed to make a living because they refuse to do the cripple-dance and suffer nobly and quietly... the way that greater society wants them to do? You may say this is a hypothetical, but as someone who both lives with someone who has an essential tremor, and as someone who's physical issues kept them from learning the fundamentals well... this is is a reality for us.
@@basilmemories In a comment I could not say everything there is to say about the relationship between brain and hands (which is why I feel the need to make a video) and in any case I partially agree with you. I believe that progress means above all inventing ever more perfect tools to alleviate the suffering of the sick and the disabled. A tool is good or bad depending on how we use it: for example, a knife can be used to kill or to cut food. Similarly the extraordinary technology of Midjourney Stable Diffusion etc. it can be used to destroy art or to help disabled people express their ideas. I also think that this technology could be very useful in the field of psychiatry, to help psychotic individuals shape the monsters of the unconscious and face them. But in absolute terms, if you don't have any disabilities and you want to be an artist, if you learn to develop your manual talent you can make better works than you would by writing sentences on an ai art generator. What I'm trying to say, The Art mentor just said perfectly in his new video: "In 1-2 years AI Art will be dead and here's why." I highly recommend watching it. Greetings. P. S. A curiosity: Dante also speaks of a true great artist with a "trembling hand" in Paradise (XIII).
Many people have an image in their head but it’s not until you sit down to actually realize the idea in your head do you realize how unrefined and vague that idea is to begin with and you basically had the AI do 99% of the work.
@@EliteNz3 Really? because I have a very specific thing that I want when I ask something like: "an ancient eyeless wormlike draconic beast, clutching at it's own neck and vomiting up neon light, as it writhes on rain-slick concrete. In the background are the time-faded ruins of a once-great city, it's own neon signs now broken and dark" That's a very specific thing. Soon to be followed by the ai giving me the equivalent of "I don't know half of what those are and could you please tone down your edgelord bs for like, a single femtosecond. I'm begging you here."
@@basilmemories Yes I know you have a strong idea, but translating it from your mind onto paper is more than just a mechanical process of your hand. Your mind likes to fill in gaps. Your mind REALLY fills in gaps and it's only through great effort can truly realize your idea. Art isnt as much about being able to use your hands perfectly but it's about being able to simplify your understanding of visuals data. There's a reason newer artists struggle with "symbolic drawing" and that's because your brain takes shortcuts and fills in the gaps and it's only through observation and effort that you can start to understand the world through an artists lens. Over the past few months learning art I havent felt like I got "better" I just feel like everything has gotten easier. It's not about climbing a mountain it's about realizing there is no mountain. It's an incredibly rewarding process of learning. Sorry about the wall of text.
Your thought process is quite outstanding
You are making some good point! Got me thinking for sure.
This is exactly the channel I’ve been looking for! Thank you so much! I am well aware of both the benefits and risks of AI, as everyone else! I was of the mindset that artists need to have a say in how their art is used in the datasets, and while I still agree with that to an extent, at the same time, I can’t ignore that over-sanitization and over-concern is just as problematic! As much as I care about my fellow creatives and how we will adapt to this new tech, I also am worried that too much pushback may end up destroying a potential new art revolution! Of course, we should be careful about people in charge of the AI or making stuff with it who are very toxic and have bad intentions! But I agree that we’re on the cusp of a major shift not just in art, but everything! And yes, we’re going to have to adapt. But more importantly, we need to keep ourselves levelheaded and be brave enough to explore the unknown, and not let technology, or society, or anything stop us from pushing the boundaries!
did the masters of art have a say before you studied them? before they were put in the text books? were they paid, did they give permission? no. to concern yourself with ''permission'' is delusional and in fact anti-art fascism.
@@pookienumnums lol dont complain if someone manages to steal your billion dollar idea and manages to make cash out of it sometime
It's funny, many years ago I made concept art for my novel with bitmip paint. Now I'm feeding my own sketches and crude drawings from a lack of time to be invested in drawing, and using mid journey to improve an ideal result. I wonder how those results can be refined by a professional artist. The problem is how the world views art and how monetized it is. Imagine if we never had to worry about money, I wonder how much more open the avg view on ai art will change.
This is fn awesome. Very well said subbed
Really inspiring, nature hates a vacuum; I think you have made a good point about the fact Art, free expression, needs an outlet and will find an outlet or make one.
Thanks for this. I sometimes feel like a crazy person because none of the AI art discourse seems to align with any of my experience or usage of what feels to me like a genuinely interesting medium. I worked for decades as a digital artist, a pure commodity outputting directly based upon the desires of clients or art directors or whomever who served as supreme authority over the creative process. Not because I felt it was fulfilling or meaningful, but because I said "I like making art, and I need a job, therefore lets make art a job." This was a mistake. It killed my every desire to iterate, experiment, or even create just for the joy of expression. Everything I did was derivative, directed, and commodified. None of it was mine. I'm not proud of any of it. When I think of the massive corpus of work I produced in that time I'm just... sad. It feel like someone else's. Like I wasted everything to just be a cog in a machine I didn't even like. So I quit. Entirely, for three years. I destroyed any of it I had and even that didn't matter because it was never mine. Its all in someone else's ad campaign or product brochure or mobile game or installation, forever, without my name anywhere. Then these generative things started showing up. Working as a production digital artist for so long well equipped me for this paradigm as seeking efficiency in the process is part and parcel of the job. Nobody paying you cares about the process. They care about the result, and want it as efficiently as possible, and you build workflows that are intrinsically iterative and destructible because there will be notes, and you will have to change things. You use tools that automate processes, libraries that kitbash parts of stuff, smart editing tools to tweak source material, emulate laborious processes, etc. to achieve results because that's your job. Something interesting happened when I started experimenting with the generative algorithms. I realized early on that people were just plain using them to do that job. Input text, output image, and now I don't have to. I never saw it as a threat. It was a relief. I also realized that they allowed me to do something else that was novel. To contextualize, criticize, and harmonize with the output of a machine that while not an artist, was also not myself. It does things that surprise me, things no human being would, things that are objectively "incorrect" or "bad". Its rough edges that mark is as not entirely human appealed to me greatly, and I wanted to explore that. The weird hands or improbable neck or the way a line flows in to a place it should not. It is a marker that this was no human hand. That this is an agmalgamation of assumption tinged by the imperfection of efficiency. It is beautiful in its own flaws in that way. I watched art spaces seeth at the idea of not having the privilege of doing what was essentially the work of a machine, and the kind of people who used to employ me rejoice at the idea of just getting the derivative and sanitized result they wanted simply by requesting it from a machine. I watched seemingly everyone argue over how valuable it was to turn artists in to machines, or machines in to artists, without considering it had already happened a long time ago. They were talking about products. Commodities. Generated images. Nobody was asking questions about expression or interpretation or processes or paradigms. I chose to just... engage with the thing that it is. See what it could do. I learned very early on that simply typing text in a box doesn't create anything interesting. It generates possibilities, fragments, mutations of familiar things saying nothing. It does this because when you train a thing on CAT and RED and MOTORCYCLE these objects are simply that, objects. They're not really compositions or statements. There isn't any inherent intent associated with this image. Its not apparent whether the machine wanted the cat to be happy, or sad, or excited on the red motorcycle. it's just a cat, and its just a motorcycle, as if photographed in a world known only to the algorithm where this was a mundane occurrence. Its an effective muse or... partner but it really isn't capable of speaking any more than a camera is capable of creating art on its own. I realized it is a lot more like a translator. It needs me to give it guidance in form and style and composition and intent and to rip apart the things it outputs and stitch them together, paint over them, throw them away, tape them together, in to things that have meaning, or to interpret meaning from abstractions it invents from disparate and nonsensical text like the visual expression of some great Jungian mass of techno-artistic assumption. I don't WANT an AI that just spits out perfect images. I also don't WANT to be the sole originator of every idea or form in this work. I don't want to hide the things it does that mark it as the thing it is. I don't really care if it is entirely mine. Its objectively not. Art is not. I've been expressing work that is more purely what a digital artist does than ever before and I find it genuinely exciting. I'm a partner to this machine. It can't make what I am making with it any more than I can make these things without it. It has "ideas" and so do I and we have to compromise. The images it spits out are in a sense marked by it as commodities or expressions of... something interesting. Like raw clay made of computers and capitalism and creativity. Taking these things, molding them in to something feels like a new and exciting experience that is very valid, very expressive, very MINE. Learning its intricacies, how to mold the clay be feeding it nonsense words or sketches or tweaking sliders to make it do wrong things, doubling it back on itself, altering its inputs and outputs with a tablet and another program in to something cohesive with authorial intent feels like an expression about that very commodification. It feels like saying something I desperately knew I wanted to say but never really felt equipped to say until I had it. I don't really care if this makes me an "artist" or if its a good "product" at this point. I am sick of the arbitrary lines that define some shiny prompted "hyper realistic 8k perfect hands" prompt output as "art" or "not art" or "as good as a human artist" because that is such an uninteresting use of what this is that it doesn't even matter. That impulse, to "just take description and make image of it to make dollar" is fundamentally boring. That impulse to "follow the rules and be praised of all your hard work" is fundamentally boring. These are just... paint by numbers bullshit. I learned these rules at the cost of thousands of dollars of education for what? To sell fucking shoes and fleece people out of their money for loot boxes. Fuck the rules. I care that it is exactly the thing that it is, a heartless amalgam of creativity and theft and brutal efficiency that creates fundamentally flawed and uncritical photographs of ideas. I'm happy to work with it and explore the thing that it actually is. I think it needs a critical lens to elevate it and make it meaningful. I don't want to use it to just make a facsimile of something. I don't want to make its use undetectable. I just want to make something new that couldn't exist without it because it begs for meaning the same way I begged for meaning. I can make a model, or draw a sketch, or sculpt a macquette, sure, but people have done it. Lots of people do it far better than I ever will. Lots of people find doing so creatively fulfilling in a way I never will again. I don't find these things fulfilling or interesting any more. I simply don't care. They're just products. All I want to do now is to make it say things about itself that it wouldn't say, and things about the entire terrible and beautiful system that birthed it, and in a sense me. That's new. That is where I feel like I have a unique capacity to say things. I don't know what to even call this. It doesn't really fit any traditional definition of art. It's not a collage, its not a photograph, its not a digital painting, its a process of algorithms and brushes and text and numbers and so many things that don't cleanly map on to any definition. I don't even know if I can call it "AI art" or "My Art" as its sort of a decentralized authorship built as much by its environment as myself. It requires me to use all the tools I used before to make this new tool do things it wasn't really meant to do. I just know that I'm not frightened for my job because fuck my job I quit that job. That job sucked. I know that I'm not frightened of being commodified because what corporate overlord would use it to make these bizarre, intentionally flawed, ugly, things. Its nice to not be afraid of what people think when I sit down to make something for once. Fuck whatever art is supposed to be if these people screaming about paychecks and products and ownership and copyright is the discourse. I just want to see what I and the machine can do or say now. I don't care if its art any more. Fuck art. Art is fucking toxic now.
My friend, that was great, really quite something! You ever thought about getting your thoughts out there on your own channel or podcast? I think it would be brilliant
I agree with Sam. Well, either that, or it's a ChatGPT text wall. ;-)
@@samhamper Honestly the last time I did anything similar I figured out I am actually terrible at serialized output because I can't stop tweaking things and just release them. Then I feel like I failed an audience who was tacitly promised a stream of output rather than sporadic and unpredictable bursts of it by the very nature of platforms that host it, or worse, get in my own way. Plus it kind of feels like a performative ego thing. Like who am I to demand that kind of attention? If I occasionally scrawl a small novel in reply to someone else's output, I still said my piece, but I haven't gone through a whole production to make it about me, and roughly the same number of people would see it anyway. The self is kind of a drug that expresses its addiction in the form of celebrity, and this paradigm bothers me internally more than it appeals to me for the most part.
@@deathybrs Strangely enough as much as I am entranced by the machine driven weirdness these systems do in a visual medium, I find their weirdness in text kind of boring. Maybe because text is much less interpretive and much more direct communication to its viewer? IDK.
@@michaelmusker7818 I imagine it was obvious, but I was of course just kidding about it being ChatGPT, since it WAS too well written... but the SEO people sure do love them some poorly written free articles. heh.
AI art is different from every innovation that has ever happened before because I don't think there has ever been an automation on creativity itself, just the menial tasks that come up while making something creatively. I also wouldn't call AI art a new medium, it would be more appropriate to call it an accelerant for all other mediums (computer programming, writing, music, image creation, animation, and literally anything you can think of). It will quicken the process of creating something to the point of just needing you to describe what you want, and this will happen at the cost of control over the final product (not by much though). I think there will be in-between "settings" for people to use AI only to create portions of the work. Also the content they are preventing people from creating with AI is still going to be created manually. I think their limitation on what you can and can't do is more of an attempt at trying to control the proportion of what exists.
Open versions of stable diffusion are actually very easy to find and install. The biggest limiting factor is your local GPU. the share part is ofcourse harder.
With the rise of A.I, and further development into A.G.I, universal basic income MUST become the norm. When the monetary necessity is removed from the equation, then, and only then, can we begin to truly appreciate art for the “right reasons.” (E.g not having to be kitschy in order to put food on the table. Note: I don’t dislike kitsch, I just think it’s an unnecessary evil for artists that HAVE to create, because something compels them from deep within. ) Artists who can rely solely on their passion are incredible rare, those who can make exactly what they want, and earn a living from it, even more so. So, I believe that when we can create art simply for our love and necessity of creating art, we’ll be better off.
Note 2: I’m not against earning money for making art. I’m against the “have to” because it severely limits experimentation, and, most importantly, the joy of making art. Financial angst is the worst kind of anxiety, because it branches out into all the major needs we have as humans; food, shelter, and safety, especially. It’s very hard to enjoy making something, if you’re battling the abysmal dread of potential homelessness if whatever you’re working on doesn’t sell.
We don't need universal basic income. One side-effect of automatization is that things get cheaper by the same proportion industries get automatized., What we need is less taxation.
@@romulloqueiroz I pay almost 40% tax, and thus I enjoy free education and healthcare, to name a few perks.
@@benjaminaustnesnarum3900 It's not free if you pay for it.
@@romulloqueiroz I tax more than I have to, so I can get tax returns. Anyway, since it's percentage based, you get the treatment you need regardless of the treatment cost. That's in favour for those with lower incomes.
I don't think everyone agrees of what exactly 'Art' is in general, so to define 'AI Art' and it's effect on the art world seems a bit overwhelming. I believe AI will have it's place both as a tool for efficiency and for expression as well, there are so many ways to use it that this discussion doesn't really make much sense. From what I've seen so far, what AI is capable of is producing very unintuitive results (which is an antithesis to the essence of human creativity). And here is I think a bit of uncharted area in the art world with potential for a real change in how we perceive creativity or imagination. With the expansion of creativity lies novelty and disruption. Since art has been commodified for ages now, the efficiency of AI eliminates the human effort factor and devalues the artwork to the level of intention only. It means that now that artists will have to think more about their intent and the idea itself instead of the process of technical realization. Art won't be about technicalities and new generation of artists will emerge, the one's that always had ideas, but didn't have artistic technical abilities to produce work in material form. Also, no one is ever talking about this - maybe the existence of AI tools will make current artists to step up and think of new ways on how to appeal to the public, to have a chance to prove that no machine will be able to surprass the limits of human intuition therefore breeding also another generation of super creative artists working with astonishing real life projects. So yeah, maybe it's the end of 3000€ logo designs or funny cartoony animation designers, but maybe also an opportunity to elevate the current state of artistry.
I don't believe that it only takes away the "human effort", because the craft itself is not just mindless effort. It's not filler work, it is a craft, and that is what the AI replaces, the entirety of the craft and just leaves the ideas. But if you look at any type of creative media: art, movies, games, comics, book. It is not the idea or even the originality the thing that resonates with people, but how well it is represented, how well it is crafted, how carefully it is crafted. Art was never just a product, and the aesthetic side of it is a small part of it that always changes with art currents. What we consider to be most commonly art now, is what AI does, but that is not what art is. It is just able to create an image of what the idea of art is, but how can you make art and anything that gives emotions to people when the "crafting" aspect of it is taken away.
@@artorhen I'm not convinced that people care about your process when they see your artwork, mostly other fellow artists are interested in that. That's just how I feel, I don't care how the artwork was crafted if I don't admire the end result first.
@@vaidotasdarulis what I am talking about is the fact that the artist is actually trained on principles of art in order to actually make art, while the AI is reliant on those artworks. If it no longer had access to those artworks, then it wouldn't be able to make it's own version of it. Which also makes the quality of it flimsy. The design behind an image generator is likely not going to get very far because it is not self reliant in order to do so. It will likely be used as a tool, but I wouldn't even call it a medium to work with. If you compare it to digital art or 3d art, which are actual mediums, AI image generators would be more like a tool in them. AI art with the designs that exist so far will likely not replace real artists and will probably at most create one art current mostly. And it's longevity will likely exists off the very premise that it actually didn't replace artists, and artists continued on with their business.
@@artorhen Exactly, as a Tool! I thought that's what I said as well.
@@vaidotasdarulis yes, but it doesn't encapsulate every step that is required for making art. For example, so far the few practical uses for AI art is to use it for textures in concept art, or to add a visual reference to something. A big use that it has is that it can serve any type of person into getting a visual reference of something.
It sad how ai is making talentless people create beautiful art
Apparently, can’t even tell if that is sarcasm.
art is not about beauty since 2 centuries
Only one other time have I ever subscribe to a channel after just one video. dang! This was so well spoken and exactly what I believe. when you are on the opposite side of the majority it is hard to find other people Who agree with you that are not “freedom fighters”. Ain’t got no time for freedom fighters. I just want to know that there are others like me. I don’t wanna get into any fights with people who disagreed.
There is a local version of stable diffusion that allows you to make and train anything.
Ai art doesn't understand art at all. There I said it lol
Do you?
the same as a brush does not understand art
@@nicejungle Brush is controlled by a living sentient with real intelligent brain. Thus is the person who used it
@@toututu2993 and a generative model is controlled by a living sentient with a prompt. Thanks for proving my point : you can create art with an AI
@@nicejungle Prombt got nothing to do with control because the person who type words understand what he want but the image generated machine doesn't so the person doesn't control anything he/she just using image generation which doesn't understand what it generated because is more of images it found on the web that react with the prombt not controlled by any person.