ai art isn't funny anymore | ARTISTS BEWARE

[@chloesibilla8199]

It's terrifying how fast people discredited the entire world of ART the moment they could. I'm literally seeing people saying that art is overrated and your wasting your time now.

[@sunnysied713]

Natural human art talent will also be more valued than machine generated art. There's a huge difference in praise and laurels for someone who can produce their own art versus a machine that uses an algorithm. On the flip side, artists are being trolled because some are clutching their pearls and acting like the apocalypse is happening for their profession. Technology has always destabilized industries and has had an impact that displaced workers (to varying degrees). Artists thought their skills were untouchable by technology, but it's not true. AI tools will have a impact, but it's not the death of human art.

[@novepipps]

​@@sunnysied713 No. Natural human talent is already unappreciated. People value money and novelty over the livelihood and fairness of other people. Just look at the overwhelming majority that wilfully ignore how exploitative this is. That is how "valued" human artists are.

[@sunnysied713]

@@novepipps If I owned art that I created, then my family and friends will acknowledge and value the skill moreso than AI generated art because a human actually made it. Most people appreciate craftsmanship. On the other hand, art has lost its specialness on a commercial level because it's easy to reproduce and mass produce in a factory driven society. That being said, there have been many inventions that have disrupted industries, displaced workers and caused occupations to evolve. Was the steam engine 'exploitive' when machinery changed the construction industry? Every human artist has exploited the work of many, many other artists that have historically preceded them, as well as their contemporary peers. Artists do not create art in a vacuum. All their work is highly derivative. Every artist would be lucky if their art was 10% 'original'.

[@howdareyouexist]

it is overrated but I am sure your mommy still likes your drawings LOL

[@chloesibilla8199]

@@sunnysied713 that's not everyone's opinion, and also some people can't tell the difference.

[@dilya5097]

It’s very hard being alive right now, to me. I find myself wishing I was my parents, growing up in the 80’s and having a great, stable career. I’m currently in my freshman year of high school, so there’s time to work around this situation and adapt, but I fear being replaced yet again. I’m scared shitless. All I’ve ever wanted is a stable life. What the hell.

[@dilya5097]

Yes, I agree that AI art isn’t really art, but does it really matter, if it can still produce pretty pictures? And if artists have almost (if at all) no legal protection against this kind of bullshit? I’m looking into career paths that aren’t likely to be replaced, but as we clearly saw with the ‘least replaceable job’, nothing is safe. I’m so mad at all of the rich motherfuckers at the top who couldn’t care less about us. I’m absolutely furious. I dread having to rely on someone else for money, I dread facing debt, I dread everything that comes with automation. I’ve always had catastrophic thoughts but this doesn’t even feel like one of my episodes. It’s happening and I’m not ready.

[@anotherstranger1273]

fr tho, I'm reconsidering what I've wanted to do for years and I will probably not pursue it because of this and all the other odds that weigh against artists

[@lemonline3719]

It's okay to be afraid! I was in the same place at your age. That said, don't let that fear scare you away from the arts & cultural industries, especially when there are so many jobs related to the arts that are less precarious/more "stable". Look into jobs like curatorial studies, arts administration, arts education, etc.

[@Syngrafer]

I feel this so damn much, and I’m not even an artist. I hate the times we live in.

[@burneracco]

Almost everyone present in the working class are experiencing the anxiety of job insecurity. The solution is quite intertwined rather than one off.

[@Shoop400]

The sheer amount of money and time these businesses will invest in Machine Learning to avoid paying artists a fair rate is almost impressive if it wasn't so abhorrent.

[@Leto2ndAtreides]

They aren't thinking about artists or paying artists. They're just building better tools. To companies like Tesla or Microsoft, artists aren't expensive to begin with. AI represents the greatest hopes of humanity. The hope of being able to do countless things that currently can't be done because the humans who do the work cost too much. Like, fully personalized healthcare is going to be the domain of the rich until someone disrupts it... Because the average person is just never going to be able to pay for the time of multiple experts.

[@PetyrC90]

Okay. So they should not have invested in machines 250 years ago and we should have been working in factories still

[@Shoop400]

@@PetyrC90 Monotonous unskilled labor=/= Skilled labor that needs intent behind it to be remotely meaningful. Also most factory jobs still use people. The problem is that they're outsourced to severely underpaid and overworked people. Which is actually a lot like commercial artists. In fact it is extremely like that when it comes to the animation industry.

[@Leto2ndAtreides]

@@Shoop400 Even in China there is an increasing focus on automating manual jobs. Both from a business perspective, and perhaps in realization of the fact that as their population gets older, it's important to move that work to machines, lest the country crash. Anyway, work that takes little effort to learn, that many people can do, will inevitably be low priced. AI might actually make countless less talented or less well trained artists more relevant, if they can develop a solid area of expertise. Since in the end, all business depends on how effectively you can serve your customers, and whether you can outperform your competition.

[@Shoop400]

@@Leto2ndAtreides AI cannot make less trained artists more relevant. It is not a tool like the host of art programs out there. It is designed and promoted as a cheap replacement for one. A prompter does not improve any aspect of their art skills because they are not the ones making the piece. They a commissioner telling the machine what they want, not making what they want and finding their own identity as an artist. Also that last bit you mentioned highlights the big problem. Companies will inevitably pay for the minimum viable product and labor to increase profits. Workers and quality be damned.

[@TalpaTulpa]

People just don’t take artists seriously. Look at how people are treated in the animation industry

[@NelsonStJames]

It's not that they don't take artists seriously, it's that they take them for granted.

[@jokybones]

Or VFX...if we just stop doing VFX well those studios will panic

[@TalpaTulpa]

@@jokybones oh my gosh I watched a video on that……🤦‍♂️

[@jokybones]

@@TalpaTulpa and thats a good thing!

[@ThorgalsWalhalla]

Ehhm.... are you from Austria by chance?

[@NelsonStJames]

As with most things the major problem is not that these things exist, but that the average consumer or audience is completely apathetic. They want to consume content and they want to be entertained; they really for the most part don't care what created it. This isn't helped by the fact that beloved creators on a regular basis are being revealed to be horrible people, as fans want to know "everything" about creators. The idea that the thing you like was created by something that isn't going to disappoint you down the line is probably a plus in many people's eyes, even while they rail against it.

[@krsmanjovanovic8607]

Hear me out, real human artists are going to thrive in subcultures and niche communities, indie industry is going to rival AI mass produced content in strength as people who want meaningful content of higher quality will flock to indie artists, problem solved!

[@ink_ko]

@@krsmanjovanovic8607 it fucking better otherwise imma be pissed no fucking way I going to lie down and get ran over by a fucking ai and the idiot people who use it

[@krsmanjovanovic8607]

@@ink_ko if worse realy comes to worse we can always pick up torches and pitchforks, but I believe we will survive, adapt and overcome AI long before pitchforks are needed, just try not to think about AI art

[@NelsonStJames]

i think you're absolutely correct. as "art" becomes more corporitized, and our society becomes more draconian in what artists are allowed to say and how they can say it, independent artists may not necessarily flourish but they will definitely always be there. I hate using the term "real artists", but there will always be artists that create art to express themselves as opposed to artists who are solely into it for the money. Those artists are not threatened by AI, and there will always be an audience for them.

[@flazay_da]

@@krsmanjovanovic8607 Naive. The people with the money to hire artists are just going to save their money by telling one of the employees they already have to click around an AI generator for a few hours until they get something workable. People don't value art for art enough to make it sustainable as a career. If you want to keep being a working artists it is imperative to discredit these generators and prevent their improvement NOW

[@AlSeg]

Thank you for this conversation, I recently saw a graphic saying that creative jobs (graphic design, concept art, illustrators, comic artists, music, etc) would be the latest jobs to be automated or replaceable. I am mad, not only because they used deceased and living artists to profit and just actively avoid to pay artists but also they are automating jobs without any safe net for people (you know, you get out of bussiness and now what? How are you even going to survive?). Many artists unfortunately keep saying "Well, AI art is just another tool", even comparing it with Photoshop, but the thing is, in Photoshop you still have to do stuff as if it was a paper, nothing is given, is still a white canvas to create something and pour you knowledge on. AI art just gives you everything smashed already and well yeah you can tweak it, but it's already made. It is a tool, a tool to keep the working class (not only artists) poor and underpayed, and yes, you should be mad too.

[@Leto2ndAtreides]

Safety net is more a government responsibility. And it's true that there should be some system for it. Like, if doctors got automated, everyone's lives would be better, and even the poorest people in the world would be able to afford healthcare. But the doctors who had spent years getting their degrees, and maybe many hospitals would be in trouble because of the change. Not that that would be sufficient reason to not make the change. But ideally there really should be some buffer that helps people adapt. As far as this goes though, decent artists likely won't lose their jobs. Although expectations on productivity will increase with AI. Even so, it's not very different from having game assets or icon packs etc. Instead of pre-built high quality stuff, you are generating stuff. But you still need vision, and understanding of the customer to use the generated art in a way that it serves them.

[@krsmanjovanovic8607]

I just cant live with this terible rage anymore, thats why I chose to believe that in the future indie and subculture art will prevail and become paradise for real human artists, while AI takes job of mass producing generic normie content, I love drawing and with each day I improve I am that bit prouder of myself, art is my life and so is life for many people, we will find the way to adapt, survive and overcome as human art is human spirit which is indominable, do not lose hope until you die

[@samankucher5117]

@@Leto2ndAtreides that's... nonsense doctors can't be replaced it's to expensive to create all that hardware isn't cheep they already maide one robot that can do hart surgery like 12 years ago robots are extremely costly to make and more costly to maintain.

[@samankucher5117]

@@krsmanjovanovic8607 good mindset . + when ww3 happens we all will be back to the stone age and most tech people aren't able to make a phone character from scratch even if they leved to be 1000 years old... while i can make images on a cave wall using some burnd wood to reach the kids in my newly formed tribe what a respective dog is " remember boys when you are out hunting the big wof wof will try to eat you so use the pointy stick to go stab stab " yah ill make a great cave man teacher .

[@xxx-pliskin-sniper-xxx8538]

@@samankucher5117 😂😂 I’ll need to look out for your tips and tricks in the apocalypse

[@GalaxColor]

This is a horrible situation. Instead of paying artists for their work, they decide to create a software (which costs a lot) to replace artists. I bet it's the same people who say "art isn't a real job". We have to stand up, no matter what

[@enu_pi_maybe]

it's a real job for sure. but an overpaid one. again, where were all the artist types when blue collar jobs got replaced by robots? probably partying in fancy apartments

[@GalaxColor]

@@enu_pi_maybe OVERPAID? Are you delusional? that's less than 1% of artists. You have no idea how many artists are being disrespected and struggle because of insecure people like you

[@enu_pi_maybe]

@@GalaxColor not delusional at all. guess you missed my point. And I didn't make it clear enough anyways. you're thinking I'm taliking about people who create artsy stuff, character concepts, things like that. Yes, those are not overpaid at all. maybe even underpaid. But no, I'm talking about people who do commercial/industrial art. stuff like photoshopping an advertisement for your small business. that is probably also struggling for money. Those guys are definetely overpaid.

[@momothedestroyer]

The fact that they threw Kim Jung Gi's art into an AI before he was even buried is disgusting.

[@IvellScarlett]

Ai "Artist" - bros are vile...

[@keniamaya-schmidt890]

Wait what?? Can you link to where you read this?

[@momothedestroyer]

@@keniamaya-schmidt890 I didn't read about it, I just remember seeing the AI and then a couple of days after that the post saying that the funeral had been held was posted. the news of Kim Jung Gi's passing broke on the 5th of October, the AI tweet was made on the 7th of October, and the official twitter account of Kim Jung Gi posted about the funeral on the 18th of October. Now that I'm re-reading the tweet I realise that it didn't specify the date of the funeral and it is entirely possible that this was after the funeral, but considering the fact that the news of his death was shared so soon after his passing I don't think it's far-fetched to assume Kim Jung Gi was not burried before the 7th of October (especially considering that they had to transport his body from Europe to Korea) Nevertheless, it was still very shocking to see an AI being made out of his art before seeing the funeral wreaths.

[@hellomate639]

@@IvellScarlett They are. This is the absolute Rape of the Artist. People think that they can steal and use their work without their permission... there's so much victim blaming too.

[@tinyrobot6813]

@@keniamaya-schmidt890 there is a twitter thread about it I think you can find it

[@KoeSeer]

AI art is starting to get scary. All these prompts, learning, and pickings have made them understand what a good shape, anatomy, and composition are. one thing they still couldn't do is picking subtle shapes like 45 degrees isometric or perspective of an object from diagonal angle. But for now, they are good enough for generating images of your made up anime girls and will make it better than average anime style artists.

[@lolll7505]

What average are we talking about ? :D is it so bad with average anime style artists? could you give any example so i now what is average, ty

[@chillingstateinhabitant]

@@lolll7505 probably not actually worse, but more appealing to the consumer? For example, you might not like an amazing cake made by a professional, with those confetti, cream, chocolate figures and other stuff, but it doesn't mean that it is bad, you just don't like it.

[@90sprinceofcrime67]

It really is, it was never funny to me, i put in alot of work to get good at art, and possibly make a living off it. I'm slightly discouraged. I won't stop though because i honestly love drawing. Commission is something I've just recently found out about, so it's not my driving force

[@lolll7505]

@@chillingstateinhabitant i think i know what you mean, for Non artists - people that just consume content it looks better , but i find it hard to believe if we compare machine vs Human, that the machine would be better at creating something more appealing not more skillfull than Human,bcs machine dont have feelings, it doesnt know what is good it just learn from every image and those images were Made by ppl so even 'bad' artists or Bad art. Im not an expert but rn i feel like artist shouldnt worry sooooo much, and my reasoning is this. Ai art will take attention of mostly scammers that were scamming anyway even before ai. Then new Non artists and new ppl on social media. And ppl worry they will take their customers. My experience IS that those ppl that commision real artists is very small fraction of consumers and they already speak their mind online about how they gonna support real artists and trash ai scammers not ai fans. So my prediction is hope it doesnt get copyright rights bcs it shouldnt by definition and now artists will have customers and supporters bcs they already do IT bcs they want art from that individual. Signed if you know what i mean. And those scammers will try to make a buck out of it and they may get some money but holefully not very much and only from outside of community. Good example would be nfts , it Has never had anything to do with art. The only thing that is scary for the future is when the AI art becomes unrecognizable from Human art, the those ppl will pretend they create their art and artists will be forced to show their process just to make everybody see its them who create that art.

[@IM_GOING_TOO_HAM]

@wifu please People still play instruments despite music being produced mainly on computers, and singers still sing despite, auto tune being available. However, the best artist will instead of complaining about new technology, adapt to it and use it to speed up their workflow. The introduction of David.H as the millionaire tech bro was extremely dishonest, as he pretty much weekly states he doesn't stand for it. And has yet to brag or speak about his product on his Twitter.

[@catloaff]

Novel AI is really good at making anime AI art but at the cost of artists that never consented to their project. There were even cases where the AI just straight up stole someone's entire composition in one of their art, just with a different anime girl's head. It's extremely dystopian

[@Josephkerr101]

Link?

[@TheJustifiedDevil]

While i know the tech is still kinda new to a lot of people, I wish people will keep in mind that the art that looks like existing one is most likely a image to image input. Tldr u can give the ai a "reference" and even tell it how much or not should it follow the existing reference. Its a interesting tool to use for a artists where u could put a rough sketch or photobash in to get something more finished out but in place it shows that some people are so lazy and uncreative about this that they need shortcuts even when the creations takes a few seconds of typing and a click.

[@meemsoos2025]

@@Josephkerr101 You can look up Thumins Video on AI art, as KZbin always deletes links. In this video you can see examples of AI straight up taking the artists work and just "drawing" a bit over it.

[@DrHanes]

@@meemsoos2025 BS!

[@meemsoos2025]

@@DrHanes what do you mean

[@rgs8970]

This is really important and well-stated! It's fun to play with new toys, but it's crucial to remember that venture capitalists are not playing around. And as for being able to "create" instantaneously using these tools-- it's infinitely more satisfying to love something without having to possess it. And it's infinitely more valuable to take the time and energy to create, if that is one's motivation. Thank you, Cat, for making this video 💜

[@OldManShoutsAtClouds]

Aight, describe a layered and complex scene, go make it in a few minutes, and see what you get. Then come back and let me give it a go, you don't know what it takes to get the imagine you want.

[@enu_pi_maybe]

that's the thing I hate about artists. all they do is ramble about the evils of capitalism. But tell me where you were when blue collar jobs got replaced by robots?

[@torreykat]

Yeah I've been thinking about this as an artist and I didn't want to come off as overly worried but honestly... It's not hard to see the way artists would get replaced.

[@Rainjojo]

Claiming that you’re an ai artist when you’re not even using your own art is like ordering from McDonald’s and calling yourself a chef. These techbro’s and artist haters are scamming others with stolen works, and it’s a shame that things will have to get more strict to protect artist since they lack creativity and effort

[@FTONYProductions]

Actually, it's more like ordering from a global collection of every food chain imaginable, customizing it any way you want. Remember, the AI takes inspiration from millions or billions of images to make new ones.

[@Rainjojo]

@@FTONYProductions the difference between using a reference and straight up stealing art is that the human using a reference from another artist either credits or only uses a few aspects to stylize and not make a meshed up sharpened piece

[@Tijaxtolan]

It’s also like calling yourself a soccer player just because you bought the fifa game

[@pwnomega4562]

exactly they literally think themselves artists and act like typing a sentence requires skill and effort.

[@stinkypete9070]

@@pwnomega4562 100% you could literally make “ai art” while drunk, taking a dump and playing a game alt tabbing and changing a word when a generation is done. And these people act like they’re working hard

[@vme138]

The issue is that we artists are the ones bringing messages through art, and our art is a window to different ages, cultures, ways of thinking. If social network, search engines, they will control our voice, the relevance of topics, it will fill out the networks in a way our voices will become not relevant or even heard. Thats is the goal, to control narratives and messages, and we are losing this battle.

[@chloesfieldnotes2657]

cat, this video means so much to me because youve highlighted all my fears as an artist and i just want to say how happy i am you are raising awareness to this!!!!!!

[@novepipps]

It'll never stop. They want to replace filmmakers, writers, influencers, and they will absolutely replace even traditional artists eventually.

[@hellomate639]

It's a theft of joy - the theft of the human experience. Next they'll make an AI version of you when you die after AI passes the turing test, and will never pronounce you dead.

[@Maldito011316]

If it can be done, it will be done. Not my opinion or want, I'm just saying it.

[@khronos142]

It can be done and it will be done.

[@Tristan-mv6lc]

yeah I'm sure they want all that, they're so evil aren't they? Dude you sound so fucking conspiratorial

[@novepipps]

@@Tristan-mv6lc you're extremely naive if you think it stops at replacing artists, which is the goal of these companies & why they go out of their way to avoid compensating anyone for their forced participation.

[@hannahbalsdon7405]

The thing that annoys me about AI projects like this (i.e. one that attempt to minic or replace creatives and skilled professionals) is that you never hear about Silicone Valley companies trying to make products to replace roles/professions like B2B sales and business consultancy/strategy etc. When you think about it, surely it would be much easier to creative AI that could negotiate sales/procurement contracts or analyse a company's performance to suggest a new strategy or something. All of these roles deal with very set parameters and figures; a company will have have a certain budget to spend on procurement, set targets they wish to met etc. Wouldn't it be much cheaper to train AI to fulfil those tasks rather than trying to teach it the complexities of things like language or art? In short, they're willing to spend hundreds of millions trying to replace skilled (and, I would argue, useful) workers but not the professions traditionally taken up by business graduates. Whenever they try to justify these sorts of AI with vaguely utopian ideas like "progress" you have to wonder why they're trying to put artists, writers and programmers out of business and not annoying B2B sales people and Mckinsey & Company...

[@admanios]

I'm sure someone has created an AI to do business consultancy. I'm equally sure that a business consultancy firm then bought up the AI and quietly buried it.

[@vylbird8014]

You're wrong on that: Plenty of research has gone into making AI business management tools. As well as AI programming tools.

[@ZZ-pq6ht]

The type of researchers that work on AI would be glad to automate away middle management.

[@brianh9358]

I think that artists are going to have to work together in class action lawsuits to stop some of these AI companies from moving forward with these tools. I think very few artists have voluntarily given permission for their art to be used in the "training data sets" for these AI. Just because an image is posted on the internet does not make it freely usable for commercial purposes like that. I really think that legal action is going to have to be taken. I don't necessarily mind the tools being used to generate ideas by real artists - but whatever is created directly with these tools SHOULD NOT be copyrighted in any way or used in commercial work.

[@novepipps]

Exactly. It's not about the generation. It's the refusal to acknowledge how exploitative this is and the lack of legal boundaries. People are so delusional they think the work is literally theirs and these companies are just trying to make " a new tool for artists". It's maddening how much the same misinformation is parroted.

[@enu_pi_maybe]

yeah. bring a legal precedent for further censorship. that's exactly what they want you do you fools.

[@chrisdardis4794]

Yeah, this is rage inducing. I saw Simon Stålenhag lamenting this on twitter in response to some bro joking about putting him out of a job. Absolute rage. Thanks again for the thorough rundown Cat.

[@MaxWinner]

Do you have a link? Would love to see they're take on it - thanks in advance

[@MaxWinner]

@@chrisdardis4794 Thankyou Chris 👍

[@Danuxsy]

Why? This should be celebrated, we are finally reaching the end of human made content. People are expensive and inefficient, this was long overdue. I cannot WAIT for AI to put you all in the dirt where you belong.

[@howdareyouexist]

cry more LOL

[@enu_pi_maybe]

remember when blue collar jobs got replaced by robots? journalists and artists were laughing at that time and telling people "just get with times and learn to code lol"

[@illuminarty2939]

Ok I built a simple bot (also an AI) that detects whether an image is from an AI or not, and I did this because I thought that separating the hand-drawn images from the AI images could be a starting point. Do you guys have any ideas on what I should do next? Which functionalities would be necessary? Or any ideas on where I could get the necessary funds to sustain this bot? I used my personal server to train it but definitely would need larger servers soon if we really want to take this seriously

[@illuminarty2939]

my apologies for being so abrupt and blunt, forgot to mention the wonderful explanations and delivery of the topic 🙏 thank you for the video!

[@PetyrC90]

This is not something detectable.

[@illuminarty2939]

@@PetyrC90 fair point, i think i understand why you think so. It indeed may become impossible in the future. But at least currently, it is beating the human benchmark in a NovelAI dataset, a test that went viral on twitter recently

[@Enju-Aihara]

Is it Foss? github?

[@weeecalango2761]

@@illuminarty2939 man i tested it, seems that it works completely fine! i picked up some art i know its AI generated but one literally cannot tell, and it always gives me a 80%+ chance of being AI generated. Uploading my personal art i never got over 15% chance. Great job!

[@AlreadyFallenOut3]

There is something messed up about this, Dance Diffusion, a music version of Stable Diffusion made by the same company, says they will not train their AI on copyrighted music. They extend this ethical courtesy to musicians but not to us because they are not legally afraid of artists. We should be furious about this. My opinion is that, it is far too early to know what is going to happen. AI art as it is right now cannot be copyrighted. Even if it says you can do so, there are messages within the T.O.S of these major AI art generators mentioning a complete waiver of liability for potential copyright issues. I'm pretty sure no company will touch AI Art as it is right now. Commercial Rights can only be given to something that has been created by a human. There is, of course a chance that copyright law could not end up in the favor of artists, instead in favor of AI Art Generators and granting them commercial use rights. There are so many legal issues surrounding AI Art, the biggest being having the AI study copyrighted art without the consent of the artists and allowing the use of artists name I their generators. I try to stay realistic but also slightly optimistic. Again, its far too early to know what is going to happen. I am terrified of AI Art as an artist myself, especially with seeing how incredible AI Art has become. But I dunno, we will have to wait and see :)

[@youtubedeletedmyaccountlma2263]

AI music wont be future. Procedural music will be the future however. AI music is so trash and still trash after years of training earlier than AI images

[@AlreadyFallenOut3]

@@youtubedeletedmyaccountlma2263 I understand that but this isn't the point I was trying to make. I was just comparing the irony of Stable Diffusion allowing copyrighted works in their Art AI but not their Music AI.. It seems like a huge legal issue in the making to see. But as I keep repeating, it is too early to know anything for sure :)

[@youtubedeletedmyaccountlma2263]

@@AlreadyFallenOut3 it doesn't matter much to be honest. Stable diffusion is open source, I bet my ass corporations will train and use their own model using stable diffusion silently to avoid all the accusation and they will admit "AI assisted art"

[@AlreadyFallenOut3]

@@youtubedeletedmyaccountlma2263 Yeah, I agree, unfortunately I bet some corporations are gonna try find a way around it. I don't understand why they want to get rid of artists so much :/

[@IvellScarlett]

I think copyright law is not the solution. Copyright laws are already bad. (Thanks Disney) Ai is a new underrepresented tech, that calls for new underrepresented regulations. An Ai protection law of sorts, that would forbid Ai companies from using copyrighted material.

[@joooja]

Thank you for this video. As someone who isn't an artist clicking on this video, I've gone from mild concern to pure terror and I'm only 8 minutes in.

[@joooja]

Conclusion from watching: It's artists, coders and writers being replaced today, tomorrow it'll be my job

[@Danuxsy]

This is a good thing, the faster people are replaced with AI the faster we'll have UBI implemented. If anything we should support these innovations and make it happen even faster, you can do this by buying videogames, graphics cards, anything that is associated with NVIDIA, Microsoft, Meta VR, etc...

[@joooja]

​@@Danuxsy In theory. In reality this will never happen. In capitalism businesses lobby to pay as little tax to fund infrastructure, you would end up with rich individuals and monopolies controlling majority of wealth and work, with gatekeeping already taking place ($25 subscription to use Novel AI - This is technology built on plagiarism it absolutely should be free at a minimum). This fee will only go up as the technology improves and no one will be able to compete. With most the wealth in the hands of the rich the working class and those on UBI would find inflation constantly outpacing what they receive, resulting in never ending poverty. Socialism isn't much better. Instead of being in control of rich individuals you would find government in control of wealth redistribution and all it takes is a few corrupt individuals and your house of cards falls down. AI replacing jobs would mean unionising and protests would become less and less meaningful, as all the important jobs will have been replaced with only vocational jobs remaining. All you have to do is look towards China and think how that country will look when it fully harnessess AI technology. Terrifying.

[@allermenchenaufder]

extinguishing creators who created the source. 😅

[@VLee-wb4gx]

Loved this. It put into words what i have been feeling these past few months

[@carloscinemacorner3182]

I’m an artist myself, not someone who makes a living off of it and just for fun, and still fundamental see how wrong this is

[@wifuplease5926]

you're not, shill

[@squashoo5506]

Agree. People really undervalue artists, and seem to be alright just shitting on them if it suits their needs.

[@thebristolbruiser]

Same thing has been happening to coal miners for decades.

[@RaineRed]

Judging by this view and some of the comments you guys over value yourself. Art is great, I love seeing it and enjoy it but in the end you guys are higher tech\more experienced versions of my kid with crayons. I know you guys like to see yourself as special, welcome to real world. You now have to deal what every industry is facing from tech. Adapt or perish.

[@squashoo5506]

I was commenting on how, from my observations, artists are undervalued compared to many other proffessions, or not treated with much more respect. About your thoughts, I do agree with your slightly crass "adapt or perish". Of course, artists fear for their future income, but we also care about the ethical ramifications of AI Art. Me and many other artists believe it to be theft of our work. We are not just angry towards new technology.

[@RaineRed]

@@squashoo5506 Fair enough and i was using a semi famous quote didnt mean for it to come off crass so sorry about that. the video just kinda came off badly to me. next few decades are going to require ALOT of adjustment by all of us as these techs advance. some jobs/professions probably wont survive. to me i see it as industrial revolution * 10. its scary cause none of know where we end up. the genie is out of the bottle,no amount of laws will fix it. look at music industry and stream it tried hard but couldnt stop streaming.

[@RaineRed]

@@squashoo5506 even if giverment did come up with regulation its too late people will train their own models.

[@Uratz]

I tried to use my own artwork to train the AI and the AI said "No need, I've been using your images"

[@AA-sz5wm]

Sounds like bullshit

[@kofeaclarrinfea9877]

🤔😄😂🤣🤣😂

[@brainbomb.]

No need for that AI.

[@glowingcrowns1692]

Ain't that a bitch🤣🤣🤣

[@enu_pi_maybe]

yeah. and I had an orgy at the moon during my time as the pope.

[@spaceman1501]

Ai-scumbags abusing this system and stealing from other artist is the real example of "Big power falling in the wrong hands" Worst part is that they get so incredibly cocky getting away with it.

[@howdareyouexist]

cry to mommy about LOL

[@spaceman1501]

@@howdareyouexist oh look the clown itself appeared

[@enu_pi_maybe]

you're artists. you don't know math. you don't know programming. you don't know the basics of how the AI works. Stop complaining and get with the times, gatekeeper. it's not a bank of images "full of every image ever created". the whole database can probably fit a regular pen drive. It simply does not have enough data. Why don't you try it and see what I mean? come up with some weird poses and angles and try making it. come up with some weird abstract concept and try to make it. not in the training data (not database, whole different concepts which makes a lot of difference). since not in training data, not gonna happen. you artists are overpaid, and have became fearmongers and gatekeepers

[@lotijuay]

I think this kind of technology (so as GTP-3) are examples of Silicon Valleys attempts to fully automate the creation of content. Content is the blood that keep this type of platforms (KZbin, Facebook, Instagram or Twitter) alive. So long as this AI-generated content can be differentiate from human-created content creators have a chance within this enviroment. PS: I'm really interested to know your vision about NFTs now that, apparently, the boom has slowly faded. I feel like between April and August I was bombarded with content about NFTs that now have apparently vanished 🤔

[@NelsonStJames]

The one thing that seems to get left out is that independent creators in the arts that don't wish to work for corporations will still be in the same boat they've always been in. The corporations are the sharks of any sphere they're a part of with or without AI. An independent filmmaker will never be as profitable as filmmakers that work in Hollywood, Independent musicians will have a harder time getting exposure than some face getting pushed by a label, same for writers, same for artists. Generally speaking all the independent artists are pretty much relying on a pretty dependable demographic when it comes to the audience that wants work that has meaning, and that audience also knows that "art" can't necessarily be pushed out on a schedule.

[@20_Juan]

Been a professional freelance artist for a little over thirty years now (yes, I’m an old-timer). My initial response to AI generated art was kind of soul-shattering. A machine can do in minutes what would take me several weeks or months! And it looks good! Definitely felt pangs of existential angst, like the party was over, that I was now obsolete, and that a lifetime of honing a craft was all for naught. Not gonna lie, it depressed the hell out of me. Then it dawned on me that the amount of energy I was wasting worrying about this was actually getting in the way of me being creative. Yes, the tech is new and scary. So was photography when it first came out. If you’re truly and artist or a creative person, then you’ll have no choice to DO WHAT YOU DO, regardless. Keep creating. Try to remember that all the drama, all the existential angst you may be feeling, is secondary to doing the actual WORK. Keep going!

[@someuser4166]

It's true what you're saying. I also felt that end of the line feeling when I first saw these after having worked my ass of for a decade homing the craft. But sure we've lost the respect of the laymen but who needs them. Before the ai they'd get impressed by fancy rendering and ignore complex perspective or anatomy. They don't know anything anyhow and I'm sure other artists (the peoples opinions that actually matter) still appreciates actual art as they know what goes into it. It's kinda like when my older family members praises me for helping them send emails or reset their passwords. It's nice of them to compliment me and be impressed but it really doesn't mean anything to me as anyone could do those things without much practice. Sure it's nice being appreciated for all your hard work but since they'd probably praise a fancy shaded images with bad anatomy over the inverse their opinion don't matter much anyhow.

[@vme138]

we need to stop thinking that art is a product because is more than that, is our voice and the footprint of our views over the time. Art is a window to the past, to the present and the future.

[@Ghettofinger]

Yeah, but people are still upset that they can't make money doing what they love.

[@xll5668]

I was waiting for you to talk about this one after NFT and here it come! Thanks for being so honest when a lot of people pretend to be blind.

[@Technilogica2019]

so what im getting is we waited until i was actually in a position to search for a viable art career and now that i can finally search for a job i enjoy and can consistently perform, now all of a sudden theres people programming ai to do it instead of me being able to afford a house k word

[@dilya5097]

Same here. I’ve wanted to be an artist my whole life - and had a solid plan, too. Now, I’m getting panicked and I hope there’s still time for me to find a way to shift my life and adapt to this shit

[@Koreapouwa]

I think human made art won't ever disapear because we simply like what we do. We simply like holding that pencil and playing around. But I believe that it is highly probable that artists won't be employed as they are today, if at all. AI will surpass in anyway what we are able to do in a very short amount of time, better and cheaper. The thing with AI too is that it feeds itself and trains itself based on what people like or not. And all of that faster than any human could ever do. While we take hours to make one art, AI does thousands in a matter of seconds. Also, "AI artists" that believe they deserve to be called artists should as well consider the fact that AI will inevitably come to a point where they won't need them to create "art". In doing AI art, they too feed the machine until it won't need the human factor anymore (because that's the goal). So as it has been well explained in this video, the goal of these image generating AIs, is businesses who create a service for other businesses (mostly) far cheaper and far "better" than what human could offer today. One could argue that any machines that came along the way of history, destroyed and created jobs. But AI is probably going to massively and completely change our world on every aspect of it, in a scale never seen before in human history. PS: Using references is not equal (at all) to completely taking it and processing it by a machine. This is the narrative that these megacorps want you to repeat blindlessly. Although I can understand that it can be confusing for those who don't draw.

[@Oreca2005]

Art might as well be a fun hobby or a show off skill to do

[@radudancoroian5169]

You are wrong for couple of reasons but the major one is that with ai you have little to no control of the result, the vision or the ideea. Also the ideea that ai can get so performant that it can create complicated art work is a mith as that would imply an ai that specialise in multiple aplications like perspective antomy composition etc, so using ai might get more time consuming in the end in a larger production. Also if ai really gets used by corporation that will open the flood gates for their own demise as everybody will be then able to make their own production

[@Oreca2005]

@@radudancoroian5169 true after a while I could see stuff people wanted to do but it’s not the exact result I wanted in my head

[@michaelpeters364]

If art is reduced to a hobby, even for those people with the desire and aptitude, they won't achieve the high levels of skill as professional artists today - - they simply won't have the time to put into it, working a full time job or two and squeezing in a little drawing on days off, or doodling while watching Netflix. It's not the same.

[@GalaxColor]

humans will always like human art more than ai. At least some. Yes, some industries might not want to hire human artists, but many others will still use humans because it conveys a different emotions than AI

[@Kat-probably]

i dont think AI will be replacing art anytime soon because the whole point of art is the creative idea and meaning of the human behind it

[@ChristianPerez-gc2hm]

AI art reminds me of Bryce back in the day. A bunch of cliches blenderize into a semi coherent image. They look ok at first glance but the lack of intention bleeds though the longer you look at them.

[@An1ma]

In my opinion it is a bit simular to chess, where AI has studied billions of games, calculated openings to death and can no longer be defeated by humans. Which is also why a lot of the "magic" in the game is more or less gone. AI is just way too strong in any field its employed more or less

[@phiavir5594]

Art as an output is not a mathematical entity though. Even if you wanted to argue that a canvas can be defined numerically in pixel terms, the number of generations possible far excels AI "understanding" the game of chess. It's never gonna get to the point where it can produce entirely what you exactly want from a single prompt, it will likely take hours of using advanced outpainting techniques and manual editing for it to ever be useful for creating viable pieces. At that point I guess it's kinda up to people whether they're mad at people for painting with words and not technique.

[@dibbidydoo4318]

@@phiavir5594 everything is math my dude.

[@KoeSeer]

@@phiavir5594 art is strangely, the most mathematical thing ever done. all those kids picking art college because "I don't want to deal with math anymore", is doing the most hardcore math ever.

[@Latrimie]

@@KoeSeer What exactly do you mean by that? Like figuring out perspective?

[@KoeSeer]

@@Latrimie composition, perspective, anatomy, shape, everything. Even with caricature, on the first glance doesn't look anatomically right, it's deliberate and calculated. you're constantly running math in your brain when drawing. Even mathematicians don't do that.

[@Carl_Frank]

Excellent video. I really wish there was something that could be done about the unauthorized use of images by these companies. Not just the artwork but all kinds of personal images that no one gave permission to be used. Sure, some was probably uploaded to sites that had fine print that no one had the time to read, that said, "we can do whatever TF we want to with the images you post", but it is my understanding that there are a ton that were not acquired in even that legal but sketchy way. But I fully expect that the billionaires behind all this will use their billions to retroactively make it 100% legit in the eyes of the law. My fantasy is that class action lawsuits will cripple these thieves, but I am not holding my breath.

[@IvellScarlett]

If you live in a country with artist or media unions than contact them and join them. I guaranty you the people there have no idea what Ai Art even is. Like Equity, a Union based in Uk I sometimes feels like peoples doomer “nothing can be done about it anyway”- attitude is just complacency. A cynical and there for clever sounding excuse not to do anything. Like, AI Art, appearsd just now. Just right now. We haven't even tried to do anything about it yet. We haven't even done anything about ityet. How can we give up already?

[@Carl_Frank]

@@IvellScarlett Thank you. You’re right. I will look into that. It’s easy to feel overwhelmed, powerless and unsure what to do, but you are right, we need to try to do something.

[@artman40]

For years I've despised copyright laws. They don't reflect the attitude if making/preserving something and the effort of making something.

[@Tijaxtolan]

They’re fair overall, but still a buy excessive sometimes

[@P4wrT00l]

People are awful, People are drones People are selfish.

[@moderndayjames]

Thanks for making this video! We need more people to talk up about the implications of AI

[@NobodyJones]

This is only the beginning of AI taking jobs, I generally didn't think artist would be the first to go. It's a shame

[@kittykittybangbang9367]

And then the next thing you know, professionals will go next

[@enu_pi_maybe]

it began years ago. but it didn't affect you back then, only poor blue collar workers. so you didn't care

[@babyzorilla]

Musical artists are dealing with the same issues

[@An1ma]

how so

[@babyzorilla]

@@An1ma well for one there’s auto tune and beat generator software.

[@An1ma]

@@babyzorilla Sure, but that is more a tool for humans to use, rather than a self learning software that outperforms 'human' made music though

[@calebcampbell5951]

@@babyzorilla that’s not the same at all and the music-equivalent of these art AIs aren’t daring to use copyrighted music for their learning algorithms, but nobody gives a damn about these companies using copyrighted art without consent

[@babyzorilla]

@@calebcampbell5951 Those algorithms use Samples

[@jotr.9786]

" It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear."

[@RagnaR3xa]

I've given these ai generators a try myself, and one of the things I found was if you add in an artist's name you would tend to get more vibrant results as opposed to just simply typing in objects or verbs. Hence, these systems are dependent on the intuition of artists to create inspiring imagery. One can't imagine the many years these artists have had to spend honing their craft. I know some personally who've gotten screwed over as the industry is privy to that. What more now with these systems that sift their works unsolicited so that the end user can call themselves an "artist"

[@FTONYProductions]

Humans learn to be artists through other artists.

[@TalpaTulpa]

@@FTONYProductions yea but they aren’t cold ai that based it’s art off off patterns, it’s motivated by so much more. Ai can’t do that, it copies

[@Shiranova]

@@TalpaTulpa It doesn't copy. Copying means to imitate but it doesn't imitate what it "sees" it's learning what the concept asked from it is looking like in a vacuum, it's a mimetic process rather than an imitating one. If it were just imitating the works created by it would look identical to what has being fed into it but they don't. That's why it's so hard to do anything about it from a legal standpoint.

[@Hissora]

Thank you for making this video, much more people need to be talking about this

[@sub-jec-tiv]

The real problem is that artists are treated like garbage. If creatives were valued in society we wouldn’t have everyone running around pulling their hair out because they won’t be able to feed their families should their corporate-valuated contribution to society be replaced by poor quality AI approximations. The problem is we have allowed ourselves to compete for scraps in a pitiless corporate sociopath generation engine that doesn’t value human beings with true creativity and artistry. And there is zero safety net or compassion for anyone who isn’t a total cog. That’s the real problem. Have been training AI on my own hand-painted abstract art from the last 10 years, and this process is simply amAzing and i’m so happy. It’s helping me push further into my own ideas. This isn’t just capitalist horror for me. Real artists are going to make mind-blowing work by letting AI spark their own process, essentially removing the anxiety of the blank canvas. I’m kind of lucky in that I don’t share my work online and have never had any interest in corporate valuations of my work, and/or fame. So others aren’t out there stealing my work. I’ve always used my creative skills to survive, but i have never felt comfortable with the disgusting fame machine in the art “industry.” And it is an industry, you’re supposed to make one thing over and over like a factory, for rich people to buy as a commodity. But where’s the disgust against this system? Nowhere because even artists claiming to be anticapitalist are trying to become famous and are lining up to have their work valuated by a sick system. For me, i simply have never chosen to participate. As a result, i’m living my life and enjoying quietly making beautiful fresh new work with a truly remarkable technology that i am still not attempting to use to gain fame. Hang in there everyone.

[@snarkycat9563]

Thank you so much - this video makes me feel like I’m not going crazy. A number of takes I’ve seen lately attempt to erase valid concerns (as you’ve beautifully outlined) all seem to ignore the fact that artists are reasonably worried about our work being stolen and exploited, without consent, and pulling the rug from under us.

[@RoboGoby]

I worked for weeks on a commission to do a hot sauce bottle label and in the end they went with some images some guy generated on "nightcafe ? I had to look it up. Learning more i found this video. In the end... they still paid me but can't help but feel insulted they chose an AI generated image vs the one i actually sketched and painted. AI artists beat me out of the next paying gigs bc their ETA to produce is same day. Makes me want to puke.

[@cloudlove1]

This is getting crazy. Adam Duff just put out a video on this, I will watch after yours. What do we have to do? Watermark everywhere on our art? You do the most amazing research btw. Your art is incredible, can't believe you found it on that site:(

[@RandyMony]

This is just depressing - cars all look the same, music all sounds the same - and art? Why did I even go to art school? Nothing creative has a soul anymore! Soon AI will own our emotions too!

[@NostalgiaDigital]

Do you think that missleading hashtags could work as a way to confuse AI? I started doing it. we cant do anything to change the current database, but Babylion may fall twice if we make our own language thanks for your work #bananas

[@drbethekoch6295]

The depth of your analysis and commentary is greatly appreciated. Keep the faith (I hope).

[@fabriciocastrovizzotto9106]

If people used AI image generation as intended, to generate copyright free images because AI made products are not copyrighteable, half of these problems wouldn't even exist

[@slimepsychic]

I've been a fan of computer generated art for a while but also came along to agree with you. PS - I love your top!

[@mysteriouswolven]

Thank you SO MUCH for covering this very important issue!

[@LukeCanWin]

Wouldn't it not be copyright because the output image is a composition of billions of images?

[@takke9830]

AI art is really just a replacement for artists and we are the tool. not the AI. And the implication of art, something we like doing, is being automated is sickening! So many fields would benefit from being automated so ppl don't have to do aweful work anymore. but no! They just gotta ruin culture and human creativity and self expression instead. these people wanna ruin everything for profit. be it the environment, entertainment, food, housing and pretty much anything else. ai art is a dystopian nightmare. nothing you enjoy to cope with your life now will be an escape anymore. cause you won't even find human connection in art anymore or entertainment. we are ruining our very species by turning passions into automated corporate generators wich also mind you are above the law as well it seems. you don't get to plagarize. you don't get to steal. you don't get to monetize work including copyrighted content. those AI's can do all these things and make people rich from piggy backing off our work and labour without our consent or our agreement. If you are an artist and you don't strongly oppose this, you are the enemy here. because this isn't art. this is theft and abuse of human creativity on a mass scale and if you support this in any way including doing nothing, you're furthering the replacement of artists with soulless machines who'll only serve the rich and create corporate propaganda on a mass scale as the only source of entertainment. The music industry has been also way more self respecting regarding this. also because they have their own corporate interests and good lawyers are involved. No AI has gotten permission to use any copyrighted music in their datasets because the industry has warned these AI goons. Unlike artists, music ppl actually seem to respect themselves and their creative work while we artist lie dormant pathetically surrendering to the thing that is actively going to kill us. Be self respecting and oppose this madness because you have to if you don't wanna doom yourself. Do not be a pushover! Your art is YOURS and so any dataset using it without your consent is a nasty thief stealing from you in broad daylight. If that doesn't enrage you, you've lost yourself completely.

[@DustyMusician]

I want to watch this but I’m very afraid of seeing the Dall-E mini images come up. They make me physically itch to a very serious extent

[@knight-of-rain]

It's so sad that we barely have the time to wonder at a new technology's capabilities before realizing it's being used for nefarious purposes...

[@TheGabeOfGabes]

No human can be an AI artist

[@LyubomirIko]

Just call them Skynet collaborators.

[@meowinde]

Your marathon analogy was on point.

[@bluewren65]

I think the salient message here is: why are tech investors pouring billions of dollars into this and what is their end game? It's all too easy to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it's not paranoia or fantasy if it really is happening, now is it?

[@SirRichard94]

Do you think photographers aren't artists because it takes no effort to click a button? I'm a professional artist and I think Ai artists are valid. But i also know it's going to disrupt the lives of many artists, but it isn't the machine fault, making art more accessible is a net positive. It's because of the economic system around it. People will always do art because it's our nature, it's profit and exploitation that chains us.

[@fish_birb]

THIS has been my greatest concern when it comes to AI art generation, ever since it initially popped off. It has exponentially becoming so good that it is plausible and even is actively being used to replace _actual_ artists who do the hard work by greedy capitalists. Why would a company spend thousands of dollars paying their artists a living wage when AI art generation has become a viable, cheap alternative? Why hire a prolific artist when companies can just use AI to extrapolate their work to the company's own liking? It seems like the system that we currently live in is actively working against us to satisfy the wealthy few at the top. Let's just hope we abolished Capitalism before this nightmare occurs especially since class consciousness is growing due to the problems our real world face recently.

[@samankucher5117]

the evil thing is the used the art of artists without paying them for it even though it's there property.... that's not capitalism it's just grand theft .

[@maryamotion6398]

I agree with you but the issue is not capitalism, but rather corporatism(unregulated capitalism). I can go on and on explaining capitalism but I'll just say the system is designed to benefit everyone, not the way you said it

[@samankucher5117]

@@maryamotion6398 you mean "let it be capitalism"? it's basically capitalism without any laws and regulations ... basically jungle law capitalism.

[@maryamotion6398]

@@samankucher5117 basically

[@PetyrC90]

So in communism the systems must be inneficient and we should pay for people to do work that machines can do better? Should we abolish technology used in factories and farms so we can have more jobs available too? You are so dumb that you gave a great argument anti communism. The problem is not capitalism. Has never been. Remember: it is YOU that want the monopoly of doing art. It is YOU that is being more capitalist here. AI art is great because it gives power to any person to generate art by their own. This is very democratic and good imo.

[@aparajitgupta]

Totally agree, but at this point, what job isn't at risk of being replaced by AI? We probably need to rethink the concept of property and ownership entirely now, or we're all going to starve. And if we're all broke, the economy collapses too. Wonder if the billionaires are worried about that.

[@parkernelson11]

exactly. computers and technology have been rapidly growing for years now. we need to be working on our own personal freedom and what WE CAN DO OURSELVES instead of consuming this bullshit that this world wants us to consume on.

[@dinosaurpower3862]

I want to say sorry to whoever tries to code using gpt. I uploaded my code and every commit is marked as different variants of crimes.

[@techwizpc4484]

At least NFTs stayed in the cryptocurrency scam, this AI stuff does not.

[@four-en-tee]

As both an artist and a programmer, i think the solution in regards to art commissions is pretty straightforward: we're going to have to get really good at spotting AI art. In terms of professional art (because as far as hobbyists go, both traditional artists and AI art users aren't really gonna be making much money off of this shit), there's going to need to be a bigger emphasis on policing creators that may be suspected of making AI art and passing it off as actual art for profit (because y'know: you don't want people getting scammed into giving their money to people who are just putting prompts into a machine and churning out a picture in seconds). This is obviously easier to show proof for if you're a digital artist since you could just take screenshots of the piece's Krita file or whatever program you used to draw it in (or just provide a copy of the file in general for inspection). This would mean though that as a digital artist, you're going to want to get in the habit more of merging layers less often for authenticity. Either that, or making a video time lapse of the piece would be a good habit to get into doing. As for physical art, the best you could do is just document the production of the piece with pictures from a camera or something showing the WIP piece on a canvas or whatever. I need to reiterate though that I think this should only be enforced if someone is suspected of using AI art. I don't exactly like the idea of people harassing artists online out of the blue. I personally think art commissions are going to be the least impacted by this sort of thing in the long term since its the easiest to self-police. I'm more so concerned about concept artists and other industry positions, yet at the same time, i think this technology is great for people who need to make album cover art or book cover art on a budget. Like, i'm all for empowering those kinds of artists in that regard.

[@shadowbanned111]

An optimist I see. I'd rather wager on the opposite happening, as AI gets better and better no developed nation is going to be able afford to stay behind and have part of its population producing art when other nations just steal or use AI to produce entertainment.

[@four-en-tee]

@@shadowbanned111 How is that different than what I just said? Art commissions are freelance stuff, you're describing industry jobs. And again: why would you pay for someone's AI art when you could just spend 10 dollars a month or some shit to make your own? Thats a fucking scam. Its not like people are suddenly going to stop liking authentic art after all this. Artists still have their own styles and shit, and the really good artists out there tend to put a lot of meaning behind their work. Plus its more technically impressive since you're not cheating out a result. You know what you're getting is authentic.

[@haaland9997]

It is easy to make an ML classification algorithm to classify art as AI generated or real

[@boligas]

What?! Kim Jung Gi died? :(

[@toanluduc4776]

yea

[@jeremyk9400]

Really sad, I wonder if the jab had something to do with it.

[@charysesay8476]

i definitely think the bit about the boston dynamics dog is a great portent for the future of AI art

[@Pfoffie]

Great video and insight. I absolutely agree and hope that people eventually learn the meaning of the words art and original

[@novepipps]

People are addicted to novelty and have never cared about artists. They're the reason this is going to succeed without consequences; pure apathy & arrogance. Cheapening artist's skills is clearly a gleeful thing to commenters here. These companies sell themselves on the propaganda that "anyone can be an artist".

[@fragarena9910]

AI "art" is just stealing using 4D chess move

[@PerfectPencil]

11:08 I took a bite and signed up for midjourney's unlimited plan for a month and I spent... nearly all my freetime on discord pumping prompts into this thing. Funny thing is I have this same sense of ownership, even knowing I just typed in a few words and clicked left or right a bundle of times. I'm a real artist myself and there is some really weird internal disagreement on whether the stuff I made with midjourney ... i actually "made". Midjourney lets you evolve a prompt over time and one prompt I evolved for almost a week, creating quite a few really interesting images. Of those, one or two images I feel really proud of. But again... I don't think I should. It feels weird because I could have just as easily drawn in myself, but instead I chose to evolve an AI via a few hundred iterations to get to the end result. I feel like I had a hand in it's creation, but I'm not really an artist for it, maybe a skilled pilot? ... It's complicated. The experience was fun for a month, but that was enough for me. I have since picked up my water colors and have operated as if this month didn't happen, but deep down I feel like I tip-toed for a moment into a dark future, then stepped back into the now. Not a pleasant feeling.

[@FlashySenap]

"maybe your barista is the only one who can make you mocca espresso latté just the way you want it. But most people won't care and just want a decent cup of coffee".

[@bryanp8042]

If a mathematician were to study a large amount of images and through their studies come up with an equation to create art, would this be copyright infringement? If they were to use a computer to speed up this process, would it be copyright infringement? This is what AI art generation is, at it's core - a massive equation with billions of coefficients. You can download all 4 gigabytes of coefficients for free (at least for stable diffusion). Those 4 gigabytes do not contain any copyrighted imagery within them, just a whole lot of numbers that map out the relationship between colors, shapes, and words. There are no inherent ethics to these equations, they are just information. There are numbers within the equation that relate the words "Apple" with the concept of "the color red" and "round" and "plant" and "fruit", and different numbers that associated "plant" with certain shapes and textures. There are also numbers that relate the words "Greg Rutkowski" with the idea of dragons, fantasy, dark palettes, and certain brush styles (among countless other things). Nowhere in those numbers does it have a copy of Greg Rutkowski's art, it's just a whole lot of numbers representing connections between concepts ranging from extremely specific to very abstract. How the technology gets used does, of course, have ethical implications. A corporation using the equation so that they don't have to pay artists is directly making it harder for artists to afford to live. It's important to note that the issue here are the implications, not the equation itself. The solutions to the issue is not banning use of the equation, this would be basically impossible, like trying to ban the use of F=ma or e=mc^2. Paying artists royalties for the use of the equation would also be basically impossible. If a user passes in a prompt that the equation interprets to mean "dragons", "fantasy", "dark color palettes", and certain brush styles that happen to be the same that Greg Rutkowski uses, does he get a commission? What about the millions of other artists that also use this style, or pieces of this style - their art also contributes to the construction of the equation. Plus given that the use of the equation is inherently free (it's just math, after all) where would this money even come from? No, the solution for the downstream effects of AI art generation need to tackle the effects, not the use of the equations themselves. There is no other way to do it, as all it takes is 4 gigabytes of information to create AI art - it's effectively an info hazard. The data exists, and millions of people already have the data, so stopping its propagation at this point is quite literally impossible. Even if you could, the method to re-make the equation from scratch is publicly known at this point - there's a bunch of freely available research papers on it.

[@cartoontalk4568]

I agree we can stop what these guys have done. So, like any criminal they should be forced pay restitution and be thrown in jail. All rights to their ai should be revoked and the ones not released to the public should be destroyed.

[@andrecorso1637]

@@cartoontalk4568 Hahahahahahaha you didn't read it because it had the word "equation" in it, right? The commenter told you how it works and why it's impossible to make illegal...

[@gondoravalon7540]

@@cartoontalk4568 > *So, like any criminal they should be forced pay restitution and be thrown in jail.* If you can prove any criminality - which is not proven by just saying "they did, because they did."

[@cartoontalk4568]

@@andrecorso1637 If I made an equation that spat out copyrighted music I'd still get sued by a record company. It doesnt matter that it uses math, all art uses math to some extent. If the AI were sentient and it produced artwork that would be an entirely different conversation. As of now it's just a fancy way around copyright and elaborate means of theft.

[@geoffstockton]

Nine months later, I can still get massive laughs out of typing something as simple as “The Simpsons“ into an AI art generator. I’m considering compiling a whole book of these “The Simpsons” pictures that I’ve been generating. Each one gets even more disturbingly weird and wrong. As somebody who’s tried to use AI art in a project, I don’t see artists being out of work just yet. AI music is even worse so far. I don’t feel even vaguely threatened by it yet. AI jazz is especially embarrassing. But the crux of the biscuit for me is the following: It’s only under the capitalist framework where jobs going obsolete is a bad thing. Imagine living in a world where are you had a right to reasonable housing, food, water, education, healthcare, where work was an optional way of gaining luxury income. Creative people could create for the pure joy of creating, and sharing without having to make a business out of it. As far as AI goes, the genie is out of the bottle and there’s no stuffing her back back in. It’s pretty much on us to make efforts to restructure our society in a way where we all benefit from the automation of work.

[@jessicadragonare7993]

Why would the companies using automated work share any of their benefits with us? You're thinking of this as an opportunity to give equal rights to all people, but what makes you think that the people benefiting from this will share.

[@gnowra]

This has been highlighted a lot by the writers and actors strikes going on right now, the more disturbing things they are protesting being companies wanting to be able to use past scripts to train AI and wanting to be able to take the likeness of BG actors and use them forever in unlimited productions. It's even harder for a lot of visual artists to protect themselves because it's not like graphic designers and freelancers have strong unions.

[@natevans8024]

"anymore?" this was always an offensive, dystopian perversion! I'm glad ppl are catching up i guess? 😭 this is a huge deal, we should all be up in arms sueing the hell out of these ppl for using our art. hell, all visual artists working in hollywood should quit all at once! I had the most depressing time on twitter trying to explain how monstrous this shit is to ppl who simply do not remotely understand or had ever even considered the value of art and art-making (ie most ppl, bc we're all gd brainwashed and alienated by capitalism). gd ppl literally argued that there is NO difference between a human being making a piece of art vs AI. when AI literally wouldnt exist if it couldnt feed on artwork made BY PPL! SO GD STUPID OMG

[@pencilmage]

one of the defenses i hear a lot from professional artist, it that this is going to happen, it's best to adapt and use it... i have tried to think of how this could be used by a real artist in any way that will help them sell their "real" art. honestly, this is a replacement. triple-A titles will flock to this. at some point hasbro/mgt will only feature a piece or 2 for "nostalgic" reasons. this will not go good for commercial artist... on the brightside, I do see performative art becoming more prominent... live streaming art (which is already pretty huge on twitch) will blow up even more... well that's my clairvoyant thought of the day :)

[@-LTUIiiin]

They are already making text to video model, so your videos of you painting are also in danger. Isnt that great!

[@pencilmage]

@@-LTUIiiin yeah i've seen that... i really cant see a good outcome to this... i see the destruction of creativity. more than our educational systems has done so far.

[@mafinalmessagechangedaworl7131]

Boohoo another industry experiencing job replacement due to technical advance’s.

[@-LTUIiiin]

@@mafinalmessagechangedaworl7131 yup, it was inevitable, but no one was expecting that literal art would be up next to get automated by machines. Truly some scifi shit. No one couldve predicted this even a couple years back. I cant even fathom all the implications of this tech.

[@pencilmage]

@@mafinalmessagechangedaworl7131 this feels different... this is a piece of technology that has the power to completely negate the creator. Its not just 2d and 3d... its video and audio

[@artemisshaffer8654]

Can't have AI without "Artificial".

[@64-bit63]

You can't have artists without (art)ificial

[@xxx-pliskin-sniper-xxx8538]

@@64-bit63 “Artists” doesn’t have “Artificial”, that’s like saying, “Can’t have Artists without f(art).”

[@xxx-pliskin-sniper-xxx8538]

@@64-bit63 Also, you’re statement is also literally wrong, as we can, have and will continue to do so 😂

[@ThePointlessBox_]

cant claim to live the ''struggling artist'' life without ''struggle''

[@n0one555]

This comparison with running a marathon was amazing! Great video, thanks for the insight

[@victoriaescobedo5458]

honestly if big corporations replace artists with Ai then we no longer have to feel obligated to support them, because the ai is the only one doing the creative work

[@jeffchynk5420]

Corporations won't use ai generated art because it's uncopyrightable. If they used an ai generated character, i can literally sell it since the art is not created by a human. That's the only thing preventing companies from using ai generated art.

[@ctrl_g]

@@jeffchynk5420 I see that, but all it takes is corporations gaining the ability to copyright AI art and that layer of "protection" is gone.

[@jeffchynk5420]

@@ctrl_g Which is why we have to fight to keep this layer of protection.

[@NelsonStJames]

@@jeffchynk5420 Yeah, but until some type of legislation is put in place that a corporation has to reveal that art is AI generated, then you wouldn't know to begin with. People consume art every day without giving a thought to who the creator was.

[@wilnonis]

​@@ctrl_g I've read somewhere that simply editing AI-generated images could be all it takes to make the material legally copyrightable. And there isn't even a real way to tell what is AI generated in the first place, which is another huge issue. I hope for the best, but knowing billions of dollars are invested in this... not sure how much hope there is. And how individual people can even fight this

[@onlywithbuts1781]

I needed to hear this and everyone in the world needs to hear this and finally understand what this really means to the world of art and artists as a whole.

[@onemorechris]

the general public successfully killed of NFTs as a way for digital creators to finally make money without a client, so i’m sure if people don’t want AI art either, they can kill that off too…

[@onemorechris]

This AI stuff seems silly and it’s not a satisfying process or outcome in the way it’s being done in 2022. The power this kind of process could have is as a starting point for a creator rather than the result: artist never have to start with a blank piece of paper…

[@onemorechris]

fyi: people choose convenience over almost anything, even quality (not what people say they do, what people actually do). lower cost can be a form of convenience

[@onemorechris]

also, it’s definitely going to be used to write news articles and create images quickly. the quality will likely go down, but the convenience will go up. shame

[@onemorechris]

Boston Dynamics as a military device to kill people was obvious from 1 second into the first video. it’s disappointing that everyone sleep walked into that without questioning anything…because funny video

[@onemorechris]

it’s weird that these hedge fund types messing around with art are the same people who buy it all from sotheby’s. weird

[@martyfrank3548]

Really appreciated this upload.. its right on the money. The Laion training model being used is an unethical montrosity designed to smuggle 5 billion pieces of human made art in such a way as to specifically make litigation very difficult. The end result is nevertheless no less damaging to peoples livelihoods. To quote S.Gordon's film, From Beyond.. " "that machine has got to be destroyed"

[@thelittlethingsinlife4334]

after watching steven zapatas well crafted video with arguments against AIs, i started spreading the word and its truly shocking, exhausting and taxing to talk to people, they truly dont care about how its created and how they abuse non-profit laws to steal over 5 billion pictures. I am truly disappointed by some websites too, for example pixiv, is now flooded with ai art and fanboxes selling those.

[@Marcel-yu2fw]

What if OpenAi had to pay the artists if they use their art as training data? Could that be a solution? Of course, for this to work, they would have to be paid not only once but for each image that is created. The problem with this would probably be that we'd need a new "AI-law" for it because as far as I know, using an image as training data in not a violation of copyright. The interesting thing with these AI's is, that they don't just copy and paste different parts of different artworks together into one. The images they create are truely "original". Sure, you can tell it to paint in the style of a particular person like Van Gogh, but a human artist can do the same and as long as you dont claim that it is an actual Van-Gogh painting that would be completely fine. If you think about it, humans and AI are not so different: They take already existing paintings as inspiration to then create something new based on that. Of course a human artist may develop their own unique style of painting instead of copying others, but im sure AI can do that too, if you tell it exactly what and how to paint, (tell it to mix different styles, etc.) And about AI art being 'soulless'/meaningless: That may be true, if you just tell it "draw a nice landscape" and let it run, you'll get a pretty generic picture. But you can also tell it exactly what the image should contain and what not, and if you dont like the result, you can tell it to change some details until it is exactly what you had in mind. Then there is an actual human behind the image, they just used a more sophisticated tool. (This might not yet work with the AI models we have today, but in a few years...) I can imagine, that in the future, more and more jobs will become automated by AI. Maybe now that it can draw images, AI videos will be next: You just give the AI a script and it generates a complete movie for you. Actors will lose their jobs (or maybe sell the rights to use their faces in AI generated movies?). But it will also help in areas where it would be just too much work to do everything "by hand".

[@jessicadragonare7993]

I 100% agree with you, especially on the part where new artists and Ai are trained the same. However, artists take hours upon hours to create the things that they do, while Ai takes maybe 30 seconds to a few minutes. It's very similar to printing money in my eyes. If Ai art continues to expand at the rate that it has, all art, Ai or not, will become worthless eventually. I believe in Ai art as a tool, but not as a product.

[@Alza.art4518]

Here’s what I think about AI art in the future, and how I think it’ll fail. So, let’s say the backers for this are right, let’s say AI art does indeed take over, how will it keep up this traction it’s been gaining? If it’s free, and anyone can use it, it just becomes overdone, it’s just art but free and faster, not even better in any way because the AI only learns from pre-existing artists, AI art will lose all its awe and interest, it’ll become the GMO’s of the art world, meanwhile artists will become the non-GMO eco friendly healthy alternative. If they bump the prices of AI art way up, again, artists will become the more authentic, safer option. But if they manage to get through all that and more, and AI art still remains on top somehow, at the end of the day, to all the artists, this is super important, all that talk about replacing all artists is a lie, at worst, they replace art as a business, but as long as you have a pen (or any supplementary drawing utensils as pencils, tablets, paintbrushes, etc.) and paper (or any supplementary canvases as painting canvases, digital displays, glass frames etc.) and creative freedom, you are an artist (or any other supplementary creative outlets as dance, music, game design, etc.)

[@Oreca2005]

Yeah I can tell the difference now when it comes to this Idk a metaphor to put in this comment but the output of creativity and thoughts always have to be different

[@neolordie]

ai will iterate on itself to get better, and I don't think it'll stay open to everyone, companies will lock it up and sell it to others companies, there's gonna be ai prompt generator, fed by the ones used today and media trends, and then, you'll have a practically fully automated media pumping bot who'll work for free every media will be a pale copy of itself, and it'll be the death of art

[@Alza.art4518]

@@neolordie that’s your fantasy, in reality no matter what happens to AI art, locked out of the public or not, AI prompt generator or not, AI art will naturally become irrelevant over time. Cope and Seethe or whatever.

[@neolordie]

@@Alza.art4518 oh I really hope you're right, I'm an art student, I just tend to be pessimistic, and I can't bring myself to believe it'll end in a good way for us

[@Alza.art4518]

@@neolordie no need to be pessimistic about it bro, it’s all good. Like I said, as long as we have the ability to draw, art will never truly die

[@SnakeArtist]

Great video, made some really good points. I have lost a lot of jobs in the past to digital. Signwriting, air brush, process camera, half of screen-printing. Every time I had to adapt, AI won't effect my business much, but it will effect what the general public considers good art.

[@CuteKitten321]

I was a bit confused about the art from places like dA being taken from because that art is protected under copyright laws. So, I am watching to see if artists come together to sue as a collective (which may or may not work against such large companies) for using their art without consent. Also, at least artists can display their talent by actually physically going through the process of creating art vs those who are just selecting images to feed into the AI. What does that count for in this environment? Not sure.

[@gecko5873]

Isn't it fair use

[@saucetto2016]

@@gecko5873 no

[@gecko5873]

@@saucetto2016 I might be wrong but iirc google books was being sued a similar issue in the past. The court ended up ruling it as fair use.

[@youtubedeletedmyaccountlma2263]

@@saucetto2016 so even if artists won the lawsuit then what? Lots of companies will train their artstyle in their own studios. Lots of people will train their own since stable diffusion is open source and will remain in internet forever

[@CuteKitten321]

@@gecko5873 That's actually a good point. The question is what will be determined as transformative in this case? Also Google Books has limitations in what is displayed or searchable. Here, AI is trained and it spits out something very close to an artist's original art style. Similar to tracing, if you tweak a few things, can you claim it as your own and not credit the original artist? Can you use it for commercial means (e.g., put it on a shirt to sell)? These are some things I'd be curious what the answers would be legally because they will change the climate of this even further.

[@haryudanto]

One of the AI weakness is it can't make art if there is no data to be fed. So, all the artist have to unite to prohibited all of their works to be fed. And need a regulation, if AI company/use wants to get more "data", it have to get permission from the artist.

[@NoizyInSeattle]

This is a very good essay. The problem of "stealing" an artist's style, and the potential for copyright violation is unethical. I admit that I have experimented with AI art generators. Wait, I can explain! I'm just a scientist, but I also really enjoy my hobby as an artist. I was trained in painting and drawing, and have learned it is fun to use programs like Photoshop to edit images of my paintings. Lately, I focus on making science fiction portraits of my friends. My "pay" is to be praised by my friends. I have used the AI thingies to help make costumes, or experiment with lighting. I hate to think that my "innocent" use of the technology would harm actual professional artists.

[@claffert]

Style isn't (and shouldn't be) copyrightable. You shouldn't have to excuse yourself for using a tool. As someone who has had a lifelong love of both art and technology, I think that AI art is causing a moral panic among people don't really understand how it works. I don't see how your hobbyist work hurts anything of real artists other than perhaps pride. Anyone who needs good quality work will AND SHOULD hire an actual artists. However, this will be fantastic tool for hobbyists, and even for some creatives who otherwise are held back in creating other works because they couldn't afford artists in the first place. I've known many indie RPG writers who have projects sit in purgatory for YEARS because they simply can't afford to hire anyone to do even basic work. Even shoddy AI work is better than no art, but again, real artists work is better and real artists will begin using this as yet another tool eventually.

[@sunlightswift]

@@claffert Spot on

[@ChrisEchoesMusic]

The closing statement about working through trauma with art has really left me thinking and feeling.

[@devileshsona2556]

ah yes can't wait to lose my job to a robot..

[@youtubedeletedmyaccountlma2263]

To a freaking chunk of metal

[@ThePointlessBox_]

you're not the first and not the last. get in line bucko

[@youtubedeletedmyaccountlma2263]

@GalaxiaPLAYZ either go to STEM field now or enjoy the final day of being artists before getting mass unemployed

[@Ksu_]

agree with every word. Seeing these developments is demoralising, I know it will be harder than ever to make money from art but that being said I'll keep doing what I love and working on my craft, even with no monetary gain

[@zehnkatzen]

I have nothing to do with "AI art". I will have nothing to do with "AI art". It is horrid, and is a triumph of money over life.

[@MiyuwiTV]

what

[@tnperkins4art]

Well done, my friend! Thanks for discussing this troubling issue!

[@NateJGardner]

How would you address those who say the AI training on others' work is fundamentally the same as human artists studying others' work? It's clear this is going to put a huge amount of strain on artists, who will now need to pay for and learn entirely new sets of tools to remain competitive in commercial markets and whose masterful work will be buried beneath cheap knock-offs in the fine arts space, and I'm worried there doesn't seem to be a solid argument for legal recourse. I've been a musician a long time, not professionally, though I've known a lot of professionals in the community, and I wonder how long it will be before AI comes for my own form of expression and its depth and meaning is stripped away too.

[@CrescentUmbreon]

Well, it might be functionally similar to how a person learns. But it's like when a couple of corporations get huge, buy everything, and become the defacto cornerstone service. Suddenly everything either belongs to them (the primary beneficiaries), and all competition is either priced out of the market, destined to get bought out, or driven to a tiny niche. And all their creations now belong to the giant entity whether they wanted it to or not. I dunno. I think we should reframe the argument away from whether there's any difference between AI and human learning. What people ought to care about is who this impacts and the laws that need to be made to protect them. I think it should be a consent issue, whether you allow your images to be scraped or not, credited and included in the profits resulting.

[@chokolatgurl]

So informative! As a former graphic artist who threw in the towel after dealing with dwindling customers and the rise in AI, this is great stuff! I actually ran to get paper and pen to take notes. I'm horrified and fascinated by the implications of the growing AI capabilities. I appreciate you sharing this info.

[@cpi23]

the one upside I see is that in 10 years we're going to have a huge number of businesses whose logo was obviously designed by AI and the amateur eye dismissing its slight surrealism will let an absurd corporate aesthetic grow