AI Art Isn't Theft. Here's Why:

[@torres_asdf]

Appreciate all the comments, both the agreeing and disagreeing. Essentially what I'm seeing is that most arguments against AI art boil down to the material harm it does to artists, which is essentially the point reached in the video. So trust me when I say we're in agreement there. I'd like to unpack that in a video encompassing automation as a whole next so keep an eye out for that I suppose.

[@salmadys]

It's not only the material harm to the artists, but the fact these systems are not meant to be creative, they are remixing machines. They can't make better art than their data set they move nothing forward. They really are a stick to beat workers with. Lower their wages, devalue their work and make them anonymous.

[@salmadys]

Also that "there is nothing new under the sun" take coupled with "original character do not steal" Is the most deviant art take you could possible make. This is high school level of creative nihilism. But I'll give you a break: Maybe it's America asa whole that had their brain rotten by their culture. Maybe that's the reason they only made and consumed the same 5 movie archetypes for the last 20 years.

[@jeggsonvohees2201]

​@Alejandro Rodriguez You think Hasan was right?

[@jeggsonvohees2201]

Have there been any actual recorded cases of material harm to artists? I always see the fear mongering, but I've never seen anyone provide real world examples.

[@eonfontes-may219]

Insanely bad take. Unsubscribed. I can’t believe I just watched a “”leftist”” championing corporate plagiarism machines. Wild.

[@michalovesanime]

This is ridiculously long and I'm so so sorry😅 The reason why Dōjinshi works ( and is allowed) in Japan is that they have a strong culture of BUYING manga anime etc. We do not have the same with art. Manga is such a huge market with commercial appeal, having these other stories made by fans just drives sales of the original more. These publishers noticed that their characters were often "shipped" by mostly the female readers of manga that was made to appeal typically to young men( shounen). Thus allowing these women to make content with the CHARACTERS, in a different context, just added another market demographic for them without having to strictly cater to them or make more seperate works for them . This realization even changed the way male characters presented in the medium, it inspired a whole new wave of bishounen ( beautiful boy, often a more feminine coded guy ) in shows that you wouldn't see them in before. A bit of background. In Japan Dōjinshi acts as an addition to the market and consumption while driving sales to the ORIGINAL works( basically acting as free marketing ) , while AI art takes from one market and just creates another one( AI creators and their products), completely sidestepping the original artists of those works and those works. In a sense, devaluing it in the eye's of consumers even more, especially if they just want a cool artwork on their insta page. They don't really care about art or the person who made it and don't understand why artists cant live off of compliments and exposure alone( which is the exact opposite of the readers and creators of Dōjinshi, they care deeply about that stuff). How would you do that for artists in general? Or for artists in places that don't have the same market impact as manga and anime? Another thing about it is that we're also talking about PUBLISHERS that own or work with the actual artists, who often aren't compensated fairly or if they are, overworked. It's a business after all, and the business side makes the bulk of the cash. The mangaka's often are very passionate( like our artists or even more due to the work culture and high demands) about their work and since they are getting paid, obviously would have different feelings towards fan stories based on their characters ( most artists would feel differently if they didn't have to struggle for money obviously) And one big other difference. A story and a picture have different values. Someone can copy the characters and sets of a Manga but making an interesting story is harder to copy, thats why the original is so powerful in manga. It's about the mind of the author, where they will go with the story, who they will introduce. Besides we have fanart. Very good. And Yes Nintendo goes very far but most shows, cartoons etc have fanart. Most companies allow it, they understand it's value. So as much as I understand the comparison or that you just wanted to convey a different way of approaching copyright, its just fundamentally different. In so many ways that muddy the point you're making, in my opinion. As leftists we do believe in not having labor stolen and I feel ( very subjective) that AI creator is stealing the labor from these artists, especially since they've already started to monotize their services. You say you don't understand why people are caping for copyright all of a sudden but it makes sense. Copyright could have been a tool to protect the weak against the strong within this capalistic hellscape. Now It's a tool for the powerful to maintain that power. But it's also the only one. People are desperate. And people can already ask for works that are in the style of a specific artists, that come looking like slightly different copies ( mixes) of original works with signature still on it. Cuz people don't care over here. Most people like art but purely as a product. Like the paintings you can buy at Ikea. I personally don't care for how copyright seems treat Disney the same ( being very oversimplistic probably) as small artists. If an artist doesn't make art that can be used as an invested tool, they work on a completely different level. Their work functions differently. And that should be reflected in copyright law. I don't know, I'm just worried for artists. Worried that it will become something, like in the past, for people who are rich enough or can find someone rich to sponsor them. And what that would do to communties with people who don't have good network or are marginalized or created art catered to marginalized communties I just see the few ways of making a living become smaller and smaller.

[@rebeccachalk9970]

[@mrvaporiz]

The best thing about the video was this intelligent response

[@jaredgreen2363]

This video is criminally under viewed.

[@asmacoolhussein8285]

Yeah

[@MindfulVampire]

Honestly though. I like the Mona Lisa reference

[@banan9432]

Hot takes are pushed down because people don't want to see content they disagree with

[@WhatMakesBritainGreat]

It has nothing to do with 'machine vs humans' it is what humans are doing with machines: taking artist's works and using them for profit without asking, this is not anything to do with 'inspiration' either machines do not get inspired, but humans can feed billions of artworks into a machine and have the machine regurgitate the contents, that is simply taking the work of artists and reusing it no matter how you try to redefine it

[@avalerionbass]

But it's not using their works to make money because they're not selling their works, but brand new, completely transformative works. Each generated piece comes from billions of photos to train object conceptualizations to understand object creation.

[@WhatMakesBritainGreat]

@@avalerionbass AI companies charge money or have deals or use Ads and no artist was asked and none are paid.............it's theft and on a grand scale.

[@podyayourt]

@@avalerionbass they are using the art for the algorythm, which mean they are storing art directly in the AI, art they don't have copyright right for and nobody gave them permission to, we are not talking about a person here, we are talkin about datas, and some of those datas were acquiered dishonnestly and stored/used illegally in my opninion

[@water2770]

​@podyayourt thats not how it works. They don't store the art themselves. And if you compared it to analagously to humans... why aren't you saying artists should get consent from EVERY artist whose art they ever witnessed? If you are making a super hero comic can you give yourself a lobotomy to erase anything DC/marvel you ever witnessed? Also are you willing to throw out fair use as we know it?

[@WhatMakesBritainGreat]

@@water2770 It's not about 'witnessing art' it's using work without permission. Fair use does not include use of copyright work for profit -AI is a profit enterprise. AI buys data from data sets companies. Your face from every angle you posted online , and every part of your house and car you shared online and all your likes and dislikes are now stored . If you've drawn art or written stories and posted them they are also stored, they will be parts of programs like marketing/political analysis/potential customers/facial recognition prg'ms etc , companies pay for this data--your data, and if youve produced art/books etc -your books. All books, magazines, articles, blogs, videos, photos, artworks -everything are all stored -the web has been totally scraped -every corner, it has been purchased and AI is using that data -it was purchased from data set Cos that should not sell it (it is for research /education only) As an artist I pay for Photoshop and their photo.art stock of materials --they have now scraped their own artists who sold their work on their platform 'Adobe stock' and replaced those artists with AI which used the very same artists to create the new AI versions Adobe stock is now 99% stolen art-AI versions of the art Adobe used to sell for the artists but now has taken without permission and re-hashed as AI--for profit. Photoshop also now has a clause whereby artworks in progress and stored on their cloud can be 'used'. The profits are in the billions and so are the class suit actions. Game of thrones-new 'books' re-written, artist's work with their signatures appearing all over the world, thousands of videos belonging to creators taken and new AI versions made yet the original persons studio/place/possessions is seen in the background--these are all for profit . AI makes commercial items and they are using copyrighted material. It is theft on an enormous scale, and totally unregulated.

[@CCRUEnthusist]

Automation has been destroying the professions of people since it's existence. The only issue with AI is that this automation is affecting intellectual workers who thought they were above this process.

[@sihplak]

Great point. Professional managerial workers are getting angry that their professions are losing the perceived halo of pseudo job security. As a creative worker myself; fuck all of those who want to prevent the acceleration of automation

[@salmadys]

The people that think the output of image generations is anything like good art weren't much into visual art in the first place. Just the thought that the drab , derivative crap in the Stable Diffusion subreddit is enough to make any art enthusiast puke.

[@Ubreakable-lr2dk]

we probably have the technology to replace teachers to just make videos that every student needs to go trough but sttill we have them, but why is that?

[@HCforLife1]

@@salmadys the reality is that AI art is a tool. If you went to subreddit you mostly going to see crappy bimbos and women. This is like 90% of generations. Can you do great design? Yes! But in reality designers are not going anywhere. But only a fool would like to fight the tech. You can't win with technology. The real fight is for big corpos wallets. They are left behind in the race so they need to catch up. The whole lawsuit is benefiting Adobe, Google, Microsoft, Meta and Disney. It won't benefit the regular designers or artists. You really digging your own grave. I work for one of the best branding/design agencies in the world. So I know that there are fears in the community. But fighting open source for sake of big corpos is suicidal. Even if miracle happen and lawsuit will go throught and SD will be killed - it will come back. 5 times more powerful - provided by Adobe/Google/Microsoft/Meta under paywall for poor countries. You will left with styles copyrighted by Disney and similar. On the other hand - how you can copyright manga or comic book? :P good luck with that.

[@pinip_f_werty1382]

Sounds like ai is the great equalizer

[@sevret313]

If Disney hadn't killed the public domain by lobbying for unreasonable long times for copyright then maybe AI-image generators wouldn't need to use copyrightable material. But I feel the real reason people suggest one should only use the public domain for training is that people know that the public domain is mostly irrelevant.

[@TheRogueVocaloid]

hard disagree. while AI art does hurt bigger, more affluent artists since their art is what's most often copied (and they're the ones that can afford to hire lawyers), the ones this really hurts are the ones who are already struggling. I'm an artist myself and my commissions have completely dried up because other people have justified AI art TO MY FACE as just being cheaper and higher quality. people don't actually want to pay for the artist's or artisan's touch when they're already so badly pinched by the effects of rampant late-stage capitalism, they want the same pretty pictures but 'cleaner' and using less money. since art was already an 'intellectual' field, it was one of the most accessible fields for people who were physically disabled, right up there with writing. both are still draining, but significantly less so if you're, say, working with half a lung and a skeleton as sturdy as a soggy pringle that's held together with rubber bands. with the advent of AI art, many of us disabled folk have lost our sole source of supplementary income during a time when we needed it the most, while we're still going to get scrutinized based on what we would have made previously even though we're no longer making it. every time someone who justifies all this says 'well AI art can't do this one thing but humans can', someone else just makes a more sophisticated algorithm to compensate and another artist gets replaced. improving material conditions of people who are struggling to survive always needs to be a priority over idealistic end goals. with the way AI art is being used in the context of capitalism, this is a very 'guns don't hurt people, people hurt people' argument of tools vs. intent, when the tools themselves are - as of right now - fundamentally designed to be exploitative regardless of intent. dying on this hill ain't praxis, man. and to shift the conversation in this direction in leftist circles? this is not where the overton window of this discussion needs to be, for any artist's sake. there are reasons why we're stereotyped as starving.

[@BeastiezCyZ]

Be honest. Do really think AI art was the cause of you not making enough as an artist? Like society has not given a shit about yall for centuries and the common perception of being an artists was that you are poor af. Your art was not being sought out for before or after AI art started to become a thing. Like you say your commissions have completely dried up tells me that you didn't have that many fans to begin with. Tbh this is also a problem of capitalism and art in general. You're trying to make a living off something that's not meant to be commercialized. As an artist, what are you concerned about when making a commission? Do think about how this piece will turn out from your imagination or are you thinking about how would the customer like it? Creativity is not meant to commercialized. Another thing is what solutions do you want? More IP Laws or better copyright? Like that's gonna help you instead of fucking you over even more when you make a Mickey Mouse fan drawing and Disney comes knocking on your door. My solution is AI art should still exist, but we should reform the current system of capitalism to a system that allows artist to live well off while their art is not their main source of income. An example would improving the safety net of living in this country for disabled folk like yourself so you don't have to worry about making a profit.

[@HCforLife1]

You don't get it what it is all about. The whole "giant companies" sounds silly. The real game is like that: huge megacorps are left behind in the new tech. They want to kill open source - stable diffusion ant two major actors in the show - StabilityAI and Midjourney. Dall-e 2 is left behind - and over expensive. The rest of the key players are left behind. Only they can do the magic: destoy open source and fill in the gap in two years. We talking about clean start from the bottom - which mean: buying the stock photos/assets company. Using them for training with extremely good labeling. Making output which would surpass anything possible today. Lock it behind a gatekept pay gap. In 2-5 years if this happen - every creative outside of fine art industry will be forced to use it as a part of paid software. If you won't pay - you will be left behind. You really think that you fighting for the small artists/designers? No - you whole fight is for corporations who didn't invested/overlooked the whole phenomhen.

[@pea7422]

youre only fighting for corporations not artists.

[@asafoster7954]

Talk about biased

[@lyraheartstringsthepony20111]

Sounds a little like gatekeeping bro 🤨

[@ivancabrera3289]

i have seen a lot of ai stuff so much so that i grown tired of it should i peruse my artistic dream or should i quit is it how humanity is evolving just soulless being consuming tasteless entertainment massively produced by large corporations? idk man is so much to take it i really tried to keep myself positive but it seems imposible as for now I will never support any artistic project made by ai while not using it myself

[@torres_asdf]

I get the frustration, but I think there will still be space for artists, writers, creators and so on. Especially since AI is limited on what it can make. If you want to make art, I think you should make it regardless.

[@ivancabrera3289]

@@torres_asdf I guess that's right 👍 as long as the ai relies in humans commands and doesn't become sentient it's ok

[@group555_]

There is still space for carpenters despite them being replaced by factories in much the same way. This has happened with the invention of every new piece of technology. Most jobs are still around. Not to forget that what ai art will replace is only "cool images". The kind of stuff that looks neat but nothing else. As of now it's even only cool images in limited styles. You can't even copy specific artists styles (but you can mix and match till its fair use) because doing so and using it commercially would break copyright. There is a lot of room left for a long time and true art, art that has meaning, will not be replaced till the ai itself is sentient. It is just a new, very powerful, tool.

[@GnaReffotsirk]

What if you are given the mind of AI. You learn as it does, and you are given billions of images to look at. After a few years, youve seen every image possible, and you are able to place pigments or pixels exactly where you think they should go. Someone tells you to paint the mona lisa. No reference, just from what you know or remember about it. Give it a twist, where lisa would be stylized similar to van gough's style, and her features would be a hybrid of anime and disney princess designs.

[@zachforbes3901]

Well to be fair you could copy the mona Lisa and sell it right now if you want, the copyrights on that are long gone. Matter of fact, they may have not even existed at the time 🤣🤣

[@mordredoforkney6185]

Guy uses his phone to trace over an image, changing the characters actual appearance completely: "Fair use." Guy looks at 1000 images and draws what he was inspired by, utilizing aspects of others style in his new word: "Fair use" Guy uses a robot to do the same thing near-instantaneously: "STEALING!"

[@TheMostEvilChicken]

You’re right

[@reinstarke]

I hope you are ashamed from this comment by now

[@johnathanera5863]

​@reinstarke why. He was right then and he's right now lol.

[@Stratelier]

The "near instantaneously" part is the bigger problem. Back before copyright laws were even invented, if you wanted to "copy" something (especially in the context of counterfeiting/forgeries) you needed a level of skill and effort comparable to whomever you were copying.

[@marcell5193]

@@Stratelier You can still use skill and effort, you just utilize it somewhere else. Here's a metaphor: imagine back in the day, when people switched from horses and horse-driven carriages to cars, some people riding horses would accuse car driver for not having to put in the same effort as they do, and they aren't as much skilled and knowledgeable at horse riding as they are. And meanwhile that is half correct, they would leave out the important part, which is that while the new invention does not require the old skills, it requires new ones. At least currently, AI is dumb, and you have to spoon feed it everything, so you need to think about the concept, and how your image will look like. In other words, the mental skill and labor of an artist is still utilized, the only thing that isn't is the repetitive, robotic work, which is something an AI is really good at.

[@UhohGundam]

You cant copyright an art style so it doesn't matter. I can look at 100 pieces of copyrighted art draw something with inspiration from those photos. Ai does the same

[@БогданРука]

No it doesn't

[@Stratelier]

@@БогданРука You're both wrong, about different things. If AI training is a simulation of human study then _by definition_ it's doing "the same" as humans ... after all, what is (human) artistic study _if not_ finding, identifying, and reproducing some underlying patterns or elements you found in the source material? But. At the same time. Think of a handgun vs. a machinegun: Both are intrinsically "just" devices designed to propel projectiles at lethal speeds. Both of them perform the same underlying operation, why do they get treated so differently? Because -- obviously -- one device performs that operation _so much faster_ than the other that there's almost no sense even comparing them. The sheer difference in scale/scope/speed is the entire point.

[@suleydaman]

Also, AI is capital, it's not a human being. It's whole purpose for existing is to create wealth. We should obviously treat it different to artists being inspired

[@БогданРука]

@@Stratelier now you are comparing drawing to just a mechanical process like shooting? Like murdering? What's artistic about murdering? Why are you Americans all obsessed with guns? The quality of art is not measured in scales, quality or amount of details, and if you are unable to understand this with such analogies, you have no right to talk about art at all!

[@БогданРука]

@@Stratelier if drawing for you is just a mechanical process measured in amount of output, you have no right to talk about art at all!

[@gofoucaultspendulumyoursel3496]

"Opt Out" should be the default. If they want their art trained and scrapped by the AI, then they can Opt IN if they want.

[@pinip_f_werty1382]

Wrong, people have a right to create derivative works and you would have to pass laws where you can't view art if you want to get around where things are currently headed. That's a hellscape, I'd rather continue tagging artists in an ai generator.

[@infinite1483]

@@pinip_f_werty1382 Except that's not how ai generators work you can't just "tag" an artist when they scrape millions of images

[@pinip_f_werty1382]

@@infinite1483 Where's the problem? If it looks nothing like the styles of a specific artist, but artists as a whole, that's fine. That's literally how people learn art. If the data input of an AI and a Human were exactly the same, the same result would be produced. All artists have viewed other works and it has completely influenced their style. A blind-from-birth person wouldn't be able to draw a meaningful character because they don't have the data for it. This is also true for AI. You're getting upset about something viewing something, breaking down it's features for implementing similar (but not the exact same ever) features for other images. It doesn't save anything, it just views it and understands it's sepperated features. This is the same method as 99.9999% of living artists. (More leaning towards complete 100%, with the most miniscule of anomalies.)

[@water2770]

I mean "Opt Out" is the default. If you create your work and it's not out in public the AI can't get to it. As soon as you let anyone view it on the internet it's on there for good practically, and anyone can do with it what they want. There are some legal protections, but you can't stop someone from looking and tracing the work or an A.I. to get a little more training.

[@beetogarcia9983]

I just know those opposed to ai will have reasonable and logical counter arguments in the comments

[@avalerionbass]

Usually a bunch of pretentious feelies about the heart and soul of something.

[@jeggsonvohees2201]

As an artist I can see a very obvious use for AI art. I could train it to replicate my style, which would allow me to create quality illustrations faster for commissions.

[@pinip_f_werty1382]

Fuck yes. Also, imagine when you get old in age. Arthritis is a killer late in life for artists and being able to iterate upon your own style when you can no longer physically draw yourself would save many.

[@pea7422]

​@@pinip_f_werty1382i wish people were more open minded about ai art instead of resorting to fire and swords at it for little to no reason if you look at it in a broader picture

[@r.pinheiro549]

BINGO! It’s takes months to paint real detailed art!

[@ingrida1121]

@@pinip_f_werty1382 yes, but that would be consensual, however, in reality ai was trained without asking permission, and AI is outright copying original artists work.

[@pinip_f_werty1382]

@@ingrida1121 You have a fundamental misunderstanding with the diffusion models.

[@FluxChanneler]

I think a thing you're kind of glossing over here is the difference between the ways these tools could be used in theory and the ways the ways they are and will be used in practice. I absolutely think there's an ethical way to use AI art tools, but that's not really what's happening here and now. The folks making and using these tools, by and large, have not only been dismissive of the preferences of the artists they're scraping from, but, in some cases, they've been actively antagonistic toward those artists. You recognize, in your video, the need for safeguards to prevent abuse, but you handwave a solution. This is . . . pretty bad, man. I don't really know how else to say it. If you recognize that a thing will be massively harmful to a whole bunch of workers with little upside, you should oppose it. But you're defending it. You spend an awful lot of time defending these tools from a legal standpoint, but you dedicate, what, two minutes--a tenth of the video--to addressing the way workers get left behind? That's wack. Defending tools that will inevitably let capitalists futher exploit workers is wack.

[@TheEverGrowingRosey-333]

Thank you!

[@BeastiezCyZ]

Lol AI art literally made by people like you.

[@mikem4405]

no, we shouldn't oppose automation, or increased productivity in general. We should oppose a system that creates poverty from ever-increasing abundance.

[@FluxChanneler]

@@mikem4405 Who the fuck said otherwise?

[@mikem4405]

​@@FluxChanneler "you should oppose it"

[@Coldbird1337]

Honestly, it's about how to best ethically use AI. Personally I fear that people only see this as another "hustle" among the hundreds they could have, don't appreciate the effort in art, and that it has a very real chance of LIMITING creativity. At least creativity as we know it. In the next few years a creative person might just be someone who knows which buttons to press (since chat gpt can spit out both a prompt and settings to fine tune that prompt) to get the best result--which would be hell just imagine it: "1-2-done, there a picasso derivative-that would be 400 dollars, 20 for the physical labour, and 380 for knowing which buttons to press. NEXT!" I mean the only people who honestly think this makes art more accessible are people whom have had that creativity beaten/trained/conditioned out of them since it really isn't all that useful in a society that values profit over everything. Supposedly, In Baltimore there is a museum dedicated to self-taught artist with no formal training, such as a a prisoner learning to knit and make impressive embroidery by using only the strings in his socks as material. Art being accessible has never been an issue, people will always find a way-remember macaroni art? The issue is people's not being able to use their creativity or being allowed the time to explore what they are capable of, and I fear AI will eliminate that the same we most people don't know their loved ones phone number, how to search for things, and how to get to certain area without google map. Efficiency isn't always better, that's how you get Thano's thinking the best way to save everyone is by killing half the population--is it efficient? You betcha! Is it ethical? Sam Altman: "does it matter if it works?" Also, I think you are looking at copyright the wrong way. Don't get me wrong, I think what you said about it is on point--especially with the doujinshi market, but look at your own use case for your OC or the knockoff films you talked about. These "lazy" creations were instantly caught by others who knew what the original was and who owns the copyright of that original. It forces people to be a bit more creative to stand out-which is actually to the benefit of people who take inspiration of the original. Take a look at Hotel Transylvania, it easily could have been another dracula knockoff...instead we got a coming of age tale where monsters learned that human's aren't so bad set in a hotel for monsters where the owner dealt with loss and react strongly to that loss, and it spun a few sequels. Also, copyright does expire and go into free domain after a given period, this addresses how people use these works such as myths that is in our collective knowledge. Could you imagine Greece trying to sue Rick Riordan? And about your example of the doujinshi market, it actually is ILLEGAL in Japan-the difference is that the copyright owner and the License holders of that copyright CHOOSE not to sue because they see an inherit benefit to letting the market exist. It benefits the copyright holder because it keeps both their work AND NAME relevant in the eyes of the audience while also allowing the next generation of mangakas to practice and refine their crafts to eventually be able to sell an original manga of their own-so it's getting experience and making a small living doing so. A lot of mangakas got their start like this. Also, doujinshis allows people who browse these markets to find something that would lead them back to the original of which they would have never heard of. I actually got to experience this myself online, and enjoy the original work and learned more about the creators and other works they did--this is something AI doesn't do, and the inner conspiracist in me thinks this is by design. So the culture behind copyright usage should be changed, like in that example of Disney going after a school for using Disney characters--if they allowed it they won't get any short term benefit but they would gain long term future customers who were exposed to those characters early on. Sadly with ai, I feel that there won't be a benefit to NOT using copyright in the manner Disney does if artists can't survive. [edit] I forgot I already commented on this vid a month ago, weird it feels brand new to me.

[@InfraredScale]

A problem with AI art that isn't mentioned here is the long term effects of abandoning our creative process to machines. using our current AI technology (ie deep learning), we cannot create machines that can innovate. If we let the artists rot away and have machines do all the art, we will be stuck in today's art trends for the foreseeable future. God knows how many innovators, Van Gogh's and Mozart's of our time have given up on their dreams because of AI art. We are in the process of abandoning one of the few things that makes us human, this surely will have consequences far beyond our current understanding.

[@MedicinalSquishing]

Technology improves, and LLMs are no exception.

[@InfraredScale]

@MedicinalSquishing I don't know how this is related to what I said, LLMs can only generate text, not images or audio Also current AI art models are specifically designed and trained to replicate existing art, no matter how good they become at replicating existing art, by the definition of their purpose, they will never be innovators. We need a completely new way of training AI, presumably beyond deep learning, to create AI that can innovate

[@MedicinalSquishing]

@@InfraredScale Firstly, I do not recall LLMs being exclusive to text. Are they not what grants all AI generators functionality? Second, there are novel advents within this field throughout the year, what AI is incapable of now is likely to be surpassed.

[@InfraredScale]

@@MedicinalSquishing LLM stands for Large Language Model, it is designed to process text. Image generators use different models such as GAN (which is rather outdated at this point) or Diffusion. When you ask ChatGPT to generate an image it sends your prompt to DALL-E, which is an entirely separate AI model As for you second point, the way we train AI makes it impossible for it to surpass human art, it can only get better and better at replicating it to perfection. There's no room for innovation. We had a similar problem with game playing AI. when you train AI on gameplay footage, the AI can at best be on par with the human playing the game in that footage. We had to invent Reinforcement Learning to surpass that We could have a similar breakthrough in AI art, but creating art is a much deeper process. Considering the way humans create art, if we attempt to use the same reasoning we did with Reinforcement Learning we would have to create a 1:1 life simulation for the AI to experience and reflect upon. Maybe it will be possible at some point, but definitely not with the tech trends we have today

[@ThatGreenSpy]

Abolish copyright. It was created by Queen Mary as thought control.

[@SleepyRulu]

You’re ignorant

[@meikahidenori]

Wait until something you sound hours, weeks months ect making by hand gets stolen by someone else with absolutely no idea how much time, effort, love & craftsmanshio goes into your work. You might change your tune

[@punksci6879]

Honestly it's that people still think humans are magic and "creativity" proves it. The idea that some maths can do basically the same thing breaks that viewpoint and makes it harder to deny that we are just a bag of chemicals that if you shake it right does some maths.

[@RodrigoSilvaBarros]

Exactly, man. We are still thinking in religious terms, but it's as you say: we are just chemicals and our operation is enclosed by physics, which is mathematics and AI is just more mathematics. There's nothing in us that a good model and a good hardware can't do. The proper hardware wasn't invented yet, but very good strides have been made.

[@oo--7714]

Yea basically

[@n1kogrindraws447]

I made a character that the AI ​​can't generate lol. No matter how much I try, it does not give the desired result. AI has mathematical calculations, but so far it cannot learn as well as people who need to see two cars to understand what it is instead of a thousand

[@Souleater7777]

@@n1kogrindraws447and when it does someday . What then?

[@Sakuna451]

Amen, brother. A lot of people think in this super vague religious way. Where the art is where you inject your "soul" into the piece or whatever nonsense they're gonna spew. It's all these non verifiable bs they constantly spout. But failing to realize that it's all just math. Music is just math, music is made of notes, and notes are just the frequency of how much something occurs in a given time. The concept of Harmony exist in nature, we didn't invent that. Melodies are done by animals. And rhythms occur everywhere. So literally, a machine who deals with numbers can make music. People for some reason has really fetishized the idea of human as being "special" or what have you. To the point that when something else can do what we do, we make up reasons to invalidate it. Because if others can do it, then that means we're truly not special after all.

[@meikahidenori]

Sorry but as an artist, hugely disagree. It's the biggest middle finger to learning a skill that absolutely easy to get started with & if you choose, you can build with harder more specific skills. This is why so much stuff these days is GARBAGE as AI art/imagery ect doesn't understand basic art & design fundamentals & other things. It's why hacks who don't know the first thing anout design are getting hired and are unable to do a decent job!

[@WhatsTherapy]

Strongly disagree with a lot of this video, but I can tell the creator is a nice person and cares about artists in a lot of ways. A few of the comments made it sound that the creator doesn't consider themself an artist, which I find interesting if I'm understanding correctly. Anyway I disagree with the video first because I think creating machines with the aim of profit means they are different and should be considered different from humans. Even if the humans are creating for profit, it can't be comparable to the resources of a company, and so the use of images in training a company's tech is not comparable in my mind to the process of an artist gaining experience and inspiration. And second, I thought the section about artist authorship was not convincing, I think connecting authorship to ownership actually makes a lot of intuitive sense, and personally (also, as an artist, I should say) I'd rather retain the concept of authorship than give it up with the hopes that I'm fighting for the decentralization of property ownership rather than shooting myself in the foot.

[@group555_]

the issue with your viewpoint is that the same logic was behind the creation of any convenience in an art medium. digital art programs were made for profit and took many jobs. but they also introduced new was to be creative and create art. ai can definitely be developed to the point of making things like commercials. but unless it gains sentience it can never make art. art can be made with ai not by ai. if you'd want to use to make a movie for example, you need to set the theme and vision or it's just meaningless.

[@LaOwlett]

The algorithm "trains" it self the same way we do when we see art, and attempts to create a unique image from multiple images - and even if it did borrow the image, it's not a copyright infringement if the work is transformative. It also doesn't have to give credit to artists who inspire it, because I can paint an oil painting of Justin Beiber in the art style of Picasso, without naming Picasso as my inspiration, or Beiber as the one in the painting. The AI may hurt some artists (digital artists) to some degree, but it does help entrepreneurs. People will still pay good money for custom and high quality hand made works of art.

[@budi_bravo_9]

In short, fuck artist and praise be entrepreneur, yea?

[@kristoferolson1663]

So you can download millions of images and instantly paint like Rembrandt? It’s not even remotely close to how humans learn or create art.

[@kristoferolson1663]

@@unlikethem Because it’s not arbitrary, artwork requires experiences and context which requires time. Look I don’t really care about you pro ai imagery perspective. It’s sad, depressing, and antihuman. I’ll take human made anything over the best ai fast food image. You can create images with your ai and real artists can create artwork that expresses the human experience in a substantive way. You’re not an artist because you have an ai make an image that could only exist because of the work of other artists. Get off your computer, look at the world around you, interact with it, paint the thing in front of you that inspires you, or paint the feeling that is evoked from your experience. An ai cannot. It is nothing. Empty, meaningless, useless in attempting to emulate something touching actual humanity, lacking all substance. Art requires humanity and it requires experience of reality through an emotional perspective, and guess what that shit takes time.

[@ericcarabetta1161]

Sorry, but I'm not down for just bending over and taking the oncoming, further, capitalist exploitation, of artists and creators. The best time to preemptively take action against the unregulated proliferation of AI generated art was yesterday, the next best time is now. Being an artist is already hard enough, if these corporations can find some obscure creator that they think is stealing their work, and sue them, then that same level of investigative work could be used to credit the original artist to pay them. Spotify, (pays too little), but still manages to turn record profits, even after paying royalties to all the artists that get plays on the app. Why couldn't other art be treated the same way?

[@beaverson]

Right!! It's such an outrageous double standard.. Just goes to show how little society cares about artists and their rights.

[@GS195]

Also, Mr. Fingle Flaggle is just straight-up Humpty Dumpty

[@KiddKyle67]

Automation under capitalism literally hurts the most vulnerable people in any field. So until we achieve communism A.I. art is awful and should be Opt In.

[@playstationninja]

Perfect point.

[@CCRUEnthusist]

This is true of all automation. You can't even have Capitalism without automation. Automation also decreases profits in the long run. How do you expect to progress beyond Capitalism without automation? This was always going to happen.

[@basil3663]

opt-in would be nice, but it doesnt make automation stop hurting workers. it just lets individual people feel like theyre not being used. all this campaigning for "dont involve me" instead of actual public support structures just comes across as individualist brainrot to me

[@sihplak]

As a Communist, this is a stupid point. Material reality premises changes in our production relations. Capitalism emerged as a political system only after the forms of private enterprise rose and spread within Feudalism. All automation should be accelerated and implemented as quickly as possible; the higher the degree of economic development, the more advanced the class struggle necessarily becomes. Opposing AI art is no different than peasants demanding the return of Feudalism because enclosure acts forced them from their land and into factories; it is the literal textbook example of being a reactionary.

[@playstationninja]

@sihplak I think this person is making a broader point that automation in itself isn't the part to be disparaged. It's usage under captitalism to generate more profits for millionares is the broad point. Automation in something like a socialist/communist society makes life easier for everyone Automation under captialism makes life easier for those who can afford it, and those who relied on a certain Job that have now been obsoleted by said Automation may not be able to draw money from that profession that they excelled at anymore.

[@phamduy1906]

It's quite sad that most artist who "fight" AI don't even know how AI works, even in this video. But I can't blame them either. Bias is a thing

[@nothxbby]

Hi, I think this video, like a lot of your other videos, is really well done. Your visual style is very cool and depth of research is apparent. One thing that I think you gloss over in this video is that machine learning is not the same as an artist, and by anthropomorphizing them, you are both giving it too much credit and buying into the narrative of the people who are making it. AI is not like a person, and isn't creative. It isn't being inspired, or gathering influences and merging them together to further the work, as you mention in your joke and copyright section. Machine learning is pretty much like an Instagram filter. It takes in an input and does linear regression on it until it maximizes whatever it is supposed to and outputs the result. If you compare that with the unknown process of taking in information and inspiration from the world along with an individual's experience and using those connections to create a new thing, it doesn't line up one to one. I think that thought slimes recent video does a good job of explaining the distinction. Phil Edwards also made a video on this topic that does an interesting job of comparing it to the automation of lace, which all but wiped out the lace industry during the turn of the century. I know you want to see the human in the technology, and I definitely appreciate that sentiment, especially with AI. AI serves to magnify our cultural biases through the data we feed it and its ability to recognize the patterns of society without the ability to question them. However, AI is not human, and cannot create in the way that people can. Already, AI work is unable to be copyrighted, as it doesn't have a creator. I agree with the fundamental problems with copyright, but that is not my critique of AI art. Phil's Video:kzbin.info/www/bejne/eZe5eYt6qd5ohs0 ThoughtSlime:kzbin.info/www/bejne/eISvlWaDl51oeLs

[@SuperbSchmarts]

The issue is that once we stop talking about stealing then we can start talking about the amazing things that artists themselves can do with these technologies and how far they will go. You've got a huge anti-ai crowd where a large portion think that the model is literally copy/pasting the visual works from scraped artists into new images. So the argument gets stuck at "I don't care what can be done with AI, it is a non-starter since it is just copy/pasting stolen work."

[@lesbianesti]

Surprisingly, I actually agree with this video mostly (don't destroy me artists), the only thing I'd say is that, within a capitalist system, AI is always going to be used as a means by which to screw over workers. Within a socialist economy this would probably just be a funny joke thing that no one cared about, because artists have to sell their labor, they fear that a future, more advanced AI, which could make actually good art nearly instantly in whatever style you please, will push them out of their industry. The same goes for copyright: a lot of artists cling to copyright and defend it because they see it as a means by which to ensure them some kind of protections against blatant theft by bad actors (which in some way, it does), even though it has wider, more deleterious social outcomes, like textbooks costing 69 gorillion dollars, or Michael Mouse showing up at your local school board with a lawsuit because you thought it would be cute to paint Donald Duck on your school playground wall.

[@jessl1934]

I would be interested in your take on whether ai art reproducing facsimiles of closed cultural practices in images counts as cultural appropriation (e.g. face tattoos that closely resemble Maori moko or Inuit kakiniq) because, not to strawman you here but, if ai art isn't theft then the logical conclusion would be that ai art isn't capable of cultural appropriation either.

[@group555_]

Cultural apropiation isn't even a real thing. If you genuinely think it is a real thing there a whole host of things you should boycot. Not the least of which Christmas. You can only celebrate it as a religious practice of you are Christian without any presence of santa claus or anything related. You are culturally appropriating a different way older tradition that has nothing to do wit Christmas. The original meaning is long lost and it is actively hurting it

[@jessl1934]

@@group555_ Tell me you don't actually grasp the concept of cultural appropriation without telling me. Participating in a cultural celebration is not the same thing as cultural appropriation.

[@group555_]

@@jessl1934 santa isn't participating in celebration. It comes from a different celebration and completely omits mention to the origins. It is documented to be stolen from it.

[@salmadys]

In that last part about copyright you speak as if artists are unable to create anything new and that copyrights should not exist; explaining it with a juvenile sketch as if it's didactic; but the truth is that nobody is buying your character as a "product" copyrights are an artifact of capitalism, that artists must sell their work as products to survive. I know you leftists dream with this socialist revolution that never comes, but in the real world artists need to sell products to survive and the copyright is their best friend. I am just waiting for this bad take to end with the words "but small creators only make furry art anyway" or "artists are petite bourgeoise" and this will basically be like those tankie forum where tech brocialists decides whos a worker and who is not. Once again you think of art as just treats. You just see the finished product, the thing delivered to your home and you wish it was cheaper, more like mass produced vending machine object delivered to your home for pennies that nobody owns. This isn't letism; It's libertarianism: People making this argument would happily take away the human element from any art and pretend that there was no work behind it. That it is a "free good" that anybody should take and that it spawns out of nowhere. Essentially this is what many workers fear out of AI... not that it is a miraculous system out to get them. What is clearly threatening about these AI's is that they provide the perfect talking point for idiots and malicious people to devalue their work. And basically say what you are saying in that last part: Artist you don't own anything you do, become more alienated. Thankyou for parroting that very "leftist" ideal.

[@BeastiezCyZ]

You do realize that copyright is not your best friend????? Like you do realize that fan art under stricter copyright would basically become non-existent as Disney would abuse the system like no other. I mean you can look at how copyright is punishing KZbinrs for just showing a 4 sec clip of music or TV show. I don't think you realize how strengthening copyright will fuck you over in the long run. Also, no one thinks socialism will happen in a day or week, or even by a revolution. Only idiots think that. If we want socialism you start small by improving the material conditions of everyone under the current system as best as we can. One way would be strengthening the social safety net so artists don't have to make an profit of their art and still live a good life.

[@salmadys]

​@@BeastiezCyZ Oh please! Using fanart as an example is just deflecting the focus of the conversation. Ai regulation is not affecting fanart in any way or form and I know a couple of high profile Blizzard artists that started doing fanart for World of Warcraft. There is a well known pipeline between fan art and professional illustration that I'm sure you wouldn't know of. You tubers are enforced that way because of google's specific rules on their platform. And you tubers are not really making 2d artwork are they? So yeah lets get back to the topic at hand: Copyright is not any artists' friend you are right about that. But in a world where the work of creatives is constantly being devalued, in a world where consumers want to eat up the work without giving proper credit and remuneration to the people that worked for months or years to make it possible. Copyright is one of the few leverages creators have. This is especially true for small studios and indie creators taking on large projects like animation, movies and videogames. Projects that usually take years and health from the people working on them. Corporations will always spit on creators, copyrights or not. The system is designed to slowly dehumanize them and devalue creators, to take away the fruits from their creative output and make then anonymous. These AI systems are part of that same impulse. Use the output of humans as materials and deem them worthless. This current iteration of AI systems will not replace the artist, it's just a new way to denigrate them. There are hundreds of ways image generation technology could be useful for artists. things like 2d relighting, creation of 3d meshes from 2d shapes, ai color matching, depth maps applied to illustration. But the people behind these systems specifically choose these paths because it makes a lot more money to create a vending machine. The logic of capital is to erase the workers. The problem with American leftism today is that any highschool kid thinks they can decide who is a worker or not because they watch you tubers parroting the same thing over and over again from their phones. More so, any so called leftist can make a you tube video and make wild assumptions about industries they clearly know nothing about. It's just the same as all the clowns signal boosting NFTS's because they are "good for artists." Only this time you feel entitled because you are the left. The jokes write themselves. And sure the revolution won't happen any time soon. I'm just very surprised to read how a lot of so called so called leftists very happily embrace AI because they just want to chug on the treats like the glutton little piggies they really are! Just look at the world around you: Artists unions are scarce, large corporations go to great lengths to bypass established unions like the ones for practical effects by abusing CGI. The CGI industry is in shambles, underpayed , overworked and under the unreasonable deadlines of a movie industry that is more concerned in making fad products than works of art. Most of the games you played last year were probably made under grind culture by passionate artists and developers whose name you don't care about. And you are telling me that one of the few guarantees in this landscape, the ability to enforce by law the ownership of an IP or a large scale project should be shunned by creators? And to top it off they make this argument with the example of: "Original character do not steal" Making it clear that the extend of the knowledge shown in the subject is what they read from 10 year olds in deviant art

[@oo--7714]

Problem is that art doesn’t behave much worth to begin with😊

[@salmadys]

@@oo--7714 You say this as you defend an automatic system that is supposed to create art, again your stance does not make sense.

[@levacarvalho]

I can't stand the huge amount of AI crybabies

[@KiraBlueCore]

lil bro artists cry about ai so much more than ai enjoyers ever do lmfao 😭🙏 your comment just proves that y’all are crybabies while 90% of the ai community doesn’t give a fuck about your opinions and continues to enjoy their life

[@fetanuki]

"AI art isn't theft", then proceeds to say this at 3:05, educate yourself man. It's already competing with real life jobs

[@water2770]

That's not the argument. It's whether or not the A.I. model competes directly with an art piece it was partially derived from. The legal issue isn't whether or not it competes for work, but whether or not its very creation directly takes money that would've gone to the creator. Like forgeries. With your logic all art is art theft, because all art competes against other art in all sorts lf ways.

[@fetanuki]

​@@water2770 Yea I get that. But he said "where AI art might get into trouble whether it competes with the copyrighted art where it's trained on" *Legally, this is still vague and that on it's own is already competing with the copyrighted material ie competing with the image that it's trained on, or work. What I'm stating is he could've *worded* this in an honest manner where AI art is already competing with the copyrighted material WHICH IT ALREADY IS TODAY. Why can't youtubers just say what it is and stop being safe wouldn't you agree? these guys have power to influence people who aren't educated on this. with "all art is theft" logic, I completely disagree on that. just because it competes within the industry, doesn't mean it's stealing. The question is, is the competition morally and ethically being done? AI generative art that is trained on one's art without consent is simply theft. it is immoral and unethical and just plain lazy. Just hire people. simple, just reiterate that on this video, stop being "safe". discussing this very controversial topic without a stance is just so irresponsible and it's giving more harm than good. The title of this video is already a machiavellian move so we can click on it.

[@baronwest]

Ai Art is theft. If it wasn't theft, then the music industry wouldn't have been able to stop AI Music generators from being trained on copyrighted music, because "it's just using a reference". Yet they have, because the reference argument is inherently flawed. The difference is it's easier to victimize visual artists, than it is to plagiarize record companies.

[@torres_asdf]

Good point. It's giving me something to think about. But, isn't there a difference between a physical characteristic like a singer's voice or a person's likeness, which I think there's merit to protecting, over a style? How you sound is how you sound, your voice is your voice. An AI generator making music that sounds like Drake sang it is neat but also creepy and probably not good. But it can make a beat in the style of his music and it'd be fine, imo. Visual art is a degree removed from the artist that music just isn't. Either way, I haven't seen anything about the music industry successfully stopping AI music generators, but maybe I've just missed it. And the real threat AI poses is economic, not moral or ethical in my opinion. So even if we disagree on whether it's theft or not, I still think there needs to be *something* in place to preserve the livelihoods of artists.

[@group555_]

You can not suddenly act as if copyright on visual pieces vs music are similar enough to condemn ai for both when they are notoriously very different. Music copyright is much stricter. If visual art had the same rules. You couldn't make anime without breaking copyright. That style itself would be owned by the very first person to draw it no matter how different the character.

[@sr_ryoadm]

you are arguing that something is wrong because a trillion-dollar lobby bought the regulatory agency to do their bidding

[@yag-yet_another_gamer]

the music industry doesn't do too good of a job backing up your point, because they're is notorious for having enough influence to do whatever they want to whoever they want (remember what happened with Napster?, and when people started taping from the radio?), and AI Drake being able to take attention, and potential profit, away from their monopoly is bad for business, bad enough that they're banding together, and attempting to use their collective influence to try their hardest to stop it.

[@MrFram]

AI Art is not theft. If it was theft, then the music industry would have been able to stop AI Music generators from being trained on copyrighted music, because "it's theft". Yet they haven't, because the theft argument is inherently flawed. The difference is, on our visual-centric social media platforms like youtube and twitter, visual artists have more cultural capital and can call attention to visual AI, while audio AI gets to be trained without people talking about it, leading to people like you being less aware of what's happening in that space.

[@Alec_Woldt]

AI and automation present numerous benefits, yet the implementation of foundational regulations is crucial for responsible deployment. Below are proposed laws aimed at fostering a balanced and equitable integration of automation into our workforce: Human Workforce Requirement: Mandate that all automated systems maintain a minimum 30% human workforce component, comprising roles such as programmers, engineers, and supervisors. Automation Taxation: Institute an automation tax, calculated based on the number of employees replaced by automated processes. Entities deploying automation must contribute a minimum of 10% of the prevailing minimum wage for each replaced worker to government funds. Universal Basic Income (UBI) Implementation: Introduce a universal basic income system accessible to all individuals, with the amount varying depending on personal earnings. Suggest a proportional reduction model where for every dollar earned, basic income decreases by 50 cents, encouraging productivity while ensuring a safety net for all citizens.

[@carultch]

On top of that, we need to require the AI to abandon all of its training data that was stolen from copyrighted content, and require the original contributor to opt in ONLY with informed consent.

[@greevar]

The issue about worker displacement is that the people displacing the workers don't face the consequences that the displaced workers face. If they did, they wouldn't displace any workers. The systemic change that needs to be made is that the workers and the people deciding who gets a job should be the same group of people. That is to say, all industries should be under the command of the workers. The workers won't get rid of people to increase profits, because they would only be hurting themselves. Instead, they would seek technologies that reduce the burden on all workers while increasing quality of life through increased productivity.

[@HumanBeing2137]

your argument on ownership is flawed, artists should have more right over their images nor, they should have right to digitized diffused data produced from their exact work, this is just another form of data to store properties of image, just like pixela or vectors. If we should base our societys' laws on something, it should be, and is, like you pointed out, amongs others - insentive to create, artists own their works, and another huuuuge insentive to not work, or create is free ability to take your work, and add it to the system. Many artists give their understanding to others when they get inspired by their work, because as humans we understand concepts depicted, and AI doesn't, it just corelates probability with word, it doesn't truly understand, because we relate those things to emotions, and experiences in our life. I understand that now someone might say "AI just does same thing as humans getting inspired" well, I just might add that AI analyzes more images than any of humans can in their lifetime, yet makes abysmal amount of mistakes, that no human would make. AND if we base law on morality, and insentive for work (thus productive society), then in my humble opinion, we definitely should expand rights of artists to their work, and how they are used. On top of that all, automatization of everything seems to be touching mostly creative and pleasant to do jobs, while everyone predicted that first the manual ones would be... this doesn't seem to be happening, we are driving towards dystopia, where everyone will depend on universal basic income, controlled by authoritarian rule (because they control your only stream of sustainability and power), because noone will have jobs, and as more will lose theirs, the less value will stay in available jobs. I know every new tech opens new jobs, but it always seeks to make cost lesser, thus less jobs in the end.

[@PeterPeter-hi9sg]

Every AI image should come with a tag of the artwork it sampled. Then ppl can judge for themselves if its steeling or not........

[@jackmcslay]

You statement is double stupid. First that AI does not create images by sampling and second that it is not possible to trace every single image which influenced the output, if it was, the dataset would be multiple terabytes in size

[@PeterPeter-hi9sg]

@@jackmcslay It literally maps every location and color of every pixel in of pictures in its data set. That is pixel by pixel reproducing other peoples work, to the point where their signatures show up in some AI art. Now go make love to your plastic blow up doll

[@NamsaRay]

If you will tag every artwork it sampled then it would be billions of them. Every single image combined to form something AI createn. And most of images won't look similar anyway because AI's image will probably be of Rock building a house out of balls.

[@PeterPeter-hi9sg]

@@NamsaRay Then why are some artists signatures leaking through the final AI render. If its really billions.. that doesn't follow..

[@NamsaRay]

@@PeterPeter-hi9sg It seen all of images on the internet. If amount of art including signature has more than 1% then AI will start to signature some of his work. And... Isn't his signature is gibberish anyway? He just tries to recreate what he seen.

[@Jeholista]

The Good part of A.i art is...i can read your own design....it the right word prompt of the artist...create your most complete version that no one can design....it can generate a whole world with a vision of the artist art....ive done it..i just dont want to post it....

[@carultch]

If AI art is art, then microwaving a frozen meal makes you a chef. Once it takes no talent to make art, it's worthless.

[@Darren_S]

This is the best video I've seen on this topic. Unbiased and objective. If a person is emotionally affected by AI art then it's going to be difficult to be objective, hence the people who have a negative emotional reaction to this video.

[@lathalassa]

"unbiased" doesn't exist. this video is good, yes. but not unbiased

[@BoneMachine1443]

AI art can be an interesting tool, but under capitalism all it will do is put artists out of work. The result will be *less* art being made, not more. Inputting parameters to an algorithm to generate an image is like commissioning an artist to create an image for you, but cutting out the craft and intent and the worker being paid for their labour. If we didn't need to sell our labour to survive and could freely use our time, a lot of people would spend their time making art. Tech is working to eliminate the wrong part of that equation; not increasing productivity to free up people's time to do what they want, but trying to replace the thing people want to do with automation. It would be like completely automating sports or music. Again, it's a potentially very interesting tool, but under our current economic system it's only going to benefit corporations who can cut labour costs the most, and it's going to hurt small independent workers the most.

[@Cecilia-ky3uw]

It will not make less art being made, obviously more, if you consider ai art art, which functionally is art in the commodity sense. No automating sports is retarded because sports' entertainment is mostly about watching humans do it, but automating music is less so, some may value the story of the artist as well, but the music is the primary product, same with art.

[@dronako]

⁠@@Cecilia-ky3uw can’t wait to consume all that yummy AI slop

[@Cecilia-ky3uw]

@@dronako Most human made shit are slop by that standard.

[@tacticaldachshund2734]

Awesome take, especially coming from a creative who has a stake in this situation. Most reactions are knee-jerk and emotional but you took the time and did your research. I'm an artist & I know what AI is doing can't legally be classified as theft because I do the same damn thing. AI will be a great thing for all of us, but capitalism as we know it will suffer if not fail. Art is honestly the least of our issues. Like you said, UBI is the very least we should get due to the displacement & is a step in the right direction. Hopefully this happens sooner rather than later.

[@HumanBeing2137]

"artists should at a minimum be able to opt-out" bro... at the minimum they should be opted out, and have a option to opt in, it's like someone subscribing you to every streaming service, you can opt out, but you shouldn't be opted in, in the first place.

[@pinip_f_werty1382]

People have a right to create derivative works. Them's the breaks, pal.

[@zax1998LU]

I agree copyright should be abolished. Artist van flourish under no copyright by shifting their income from the distribution of a work to the production of the work. This is already seen with smaller artists taking on cominsions to make a peice. This can be applied to movies too where by a studio raoses funds online such that the peoce of art gets made.

[@BoneMachine1443]

Copyright law is wack and mostly exists to protect the interests of megacorporations, big time, that's a line of thinking worth pursuing. But man--artists owning the works they create being compared to capitalists enclosing the commons is probably the worst comparison anybody anywhere is gonna make all year. Absolute L take.

[@pinip_f_werty1382]

You can own your works, which you do. However, people have the right to create derivative works.

[@BoneMachine1443]

@@pinip_f_werty1382 Of course people can create derivative works, that's why the comparison to enclosure of the commons makes no sense.

[@heavyflamerheresy2581]

Here is my 2cents about this. Music was through this Long time ago, with DJ’s and sampeling? Good sampeling make new song out of Cut from a diffrent song. So Ai is just sampeling But with pictures. So a good sampel with pictures would make comlete new picture. As good sampeling is not copy but transform what you have to something new. So I Think all this hate about Ai art is more about that its not transformativ enough.

[@mikem4405]

I think this would have been better received if you had talked more about the crisis of overproduction and how capitalism generally turns increased productivity into increased poverty. It's easy for artists to take this personally, but I think it would make more sense if framed in its proper historical and economic context.

[@mikem4405]

I still liked the vid, btw

[@pinip_f_werty1382]

But that would be a false topic. Capitalism is still the only economic system that raises the econimic status of the poor. All the others only lower it. Poverty and the difference in wealth between the highest and lowest are completely different topics. The former requires a solution, while the latter is just jealous people being mad that others have more than them.

[@mikem4405]

@@pinip_f_werty1382 If you don't know about the problem of overproduction or how capitalism turns increased productivity into increased poverty, I suggest you read up on it, or ask some basic questions. Speaking on topics you're unfamiliar with can lead to looking foolish.

[@pinip_f_werty1382]

@@mikem4405 Please, I'd love you to enlighten me oh wise one. (Also, overproduction is a problem with specific companies, not all companies as a whole. You don't have to overproduce if you only produce by a short surplus of your projected consumer numbers. Read some random pop-eco book isn't an argument. Please explain how increased productivity leads to increased poverty. Actually make a case for it otherwise I just have to assume you have no idea how economics work. If you look at the institution of capitalism in african countries, the opposite of you claims appears true according to the data of wealth and life expectancy.

[@mikem4405]

@@pinip_f_werty1382 Overproduction in this context has nothing to do with the environment, nor is it restricted to individual companies. It refers to the fact that if I buy a banana for $1, maybe only 20 cents of that goes to the workers. Therefore, the workers (in aggregate) cannot buy back the goods that they produce, hence overproduction. Of course one solution to this is for workers to go into debt, and that's a big reason why household debt is now at $16.9 trillion. You're correct to think that individual companies will cut back production if they are producing "too much", but this only exacerbates the problem as workers lose their jobs and are able to buy even less. In the case of the Great Depression, the problem was alleviated by WWII - i.e. mass destruction and huge government expenditure. It is very easy to see that increases in productivity are leading to more poverty, just look at this comment section. Artists are losing work due to AI. In a rational economy, advances in AI (or any other technology) would be a good thing. But in capitalism, workers are terrified of self-driving cars, automated warehouses, and AI that can create poems or art, because they know that their livelihoods are at stake. We have to fight against this irrational system that takes great advances in technology and production and turns them into mass layoffs and austerity. To be OK with this system is to have a cuck's mentality.

[@Phrismo_Vekanandre]

So basically AI isnt theft becouse to a certain degree, it learns just like humans I must say that i have heavy concerns with this logic, AI might mimic how a human brain learns, but it isnt a human brain Objectively saying the AI is an algorythm, a lot of zeros and ones, a machine, so data being scrapped and uploaded into a dataset in order to make the machine able to replicate it, cant be compared with someone being inspired by an artwork This argument is very used by AI bros becouse it basically give them a free pass to scrap any sort of image from the internet, copyrighted or not and add it to their models, simply becouse its convenient, not becouse they think its right

[@phamduy1906]

I will try my best to not sound like nitpicking but how can you know human brain don't work like an algorithm

[@Phrismo_Vekanandre]

​@@phamduy1906 its actually a fair point to bring but its more about not treating machinery like if they are organic

[@Sakuna451]

It is! Artist here. Art is just data ultimately, it's just math. I am a musician by trade. And music is made up of notes. And notes are just the frequency of how much something vibrates in a second. Then we have harmony, which exist in nature and isn't invented by humans. Then we have rhythm, which occur everywhere. So when I listen to music I love and it inspires me to pick up my guitar or go to the piano. Numbers/Data are basically what inspired me to create more Numbers/Data. And for art, if you boil art down scientifically. You can boil it down to geometry, colors, lines and coordinates. This kinds of lines in this specific coordinates with its color numbers with a specific kind of brushstroke. So yep, ultimately, you can turn it into science. And if it can be turned into science, then it is data. Which ultimately means that how AI learns "art" is no different from how we do it. Since it's all data being gathered, then turned into new data

[@Chockitkat]

Honestly, I agree with the part that artists shouldn't own their work. We all learned from nature, artists alive, artists dead. Claiming your art as your own when you draw something and then spite others for referencing your work is just insane to me. Plus, even the "copied" art requires our hands and thoughts. I would just prefer getting credits but I will not dare say I am fully original either

[@Coldbird1337]

honestly I am terrified and am seeking therapy

[@Slicer-ft7cc]

Interesting points 🤔

[@Pumkim-stew]

You can ask it to make someone’s style and the company’s use artist work with out there permission it is

[@HumanBeing2137]

"in world without copyright, can artist survive, I think so! So just stop worrying, adn do cool stuff" - any argument how they can survive again? on paitronage you say? WHO, who will give money to artists if they can get the same result for free? "just adapt, and create with AI" - you clearly know nothing about creative process, to most it's about your skill, and time, and work you put in to achieve something, you see how what you do has meaning. Art without work is like mcdonalds, like weird fantasy that you can see on monitor of phone, it all loses most of it's value to you, and to creator. please think about it, change like this is not inevitable, and copyright saves little guy more than corporations.

[@pinip_f_werty1382]

It's not "just adapt and create with ai", it's "add ai to your workflow so you're not left behind, instead of bitching and moaning about the inevitable". It is inevitable, if you want to be the one trying to sue them or pass legislation, go ahead. You're in the minority. Most people aren't artists which is why most people aren't going to support you taking away their neat toys. The truth is that this is going down whether you like it or not. If you fail to adapt, that's on you and no one else.

[@Megaritz]

"copyright saves little guy more than corporations" Wow, that sounds VERY contentious, and at odds with what I usually see happen in the news of copyright disputes, and at odds with what I'd expect given the extremely corporation-led history of copyright law. I'm gonna need a source for that.

[@joery969]

I really disagree, simply because the input of human art is needed to get anything good out of it. Its a new way of implementing it through machine learning. But the source material is essential to get the output, without it you have nothing special.

[@derfu55l]

this guy gets it. AI learns but cannot add anything to the things it has learned so it needs the Images of Artists to be as creative as them.

[@Sakuna451]

Yes. Inputs of humans are also needed to get anything good out of humans. If all art in all fields where to disintegrate. We would make garbage ourselves. We needed all the art the came before us in order to make the stuff we make today. Need proof? Look at the earliest recorded art known to man. It is literal slop. It is nothing special.

[@crestfallenprofane1617]

Sorry, but it is.

[@jamesshepherd9390]

smartest drawcel

[@XxBaused667xX]

Even if the artists in your comments say your wrong with your takes in this video, these are just emotionally misunderstood people. Sure there's people using AI art unethically but thats just like any tool in the world "remixing machines" "modern photobashing" "art theft" yeah these terms show me some people still don't understand the process of AI image generators even when bigger youtubers are deconstructing such claims, even if AI image generators released to the public were trained on stock images or public domain the open source nature given to us thanks to stability AI would just have individuals on the internet just train the model on existing artwork or generated artwork that has no copyright from pre-existing models and make everything go back to square one, and if the lawsuits do go in the favor of the artists I can assure you the open source models trained by the internet will be backed by more of a malicious intent, once you challenge the internet you rear its ugly head and no laws or ethics are going to slow that down.

[@HOOOPER]

this is and already has aged like anti matter

[@xboxswitch9457]

*ai art is theft. There ya go. I fixed your title.

[@rud3y1]

Artists should have to opt in, not opt out of AI models - your suggestion uses the assumption that you're free to use someone elses art for your own gain and thats its the their job to stop you doing such. AI and humans memory are completely different in their function, you try and suggest that humans and AI amalgamating an image is the same process and thats demonstrably untrue, human memory is proven to be unreliable as it constantly changes learnt information, computer memory is picture petfect making the two completely different in outcome. Youre example of a flawed mona lisa is also wrong imo as you even hinted-the AI had to be programed not to give a perfect copy of the original as a perfect copy would be the first option the AI would come up with given such a prompt. The perfection of the AI's memory has to be altered to replicate a less perfect result. AI art is damaging to creativity, and in turn culture, and the human race it inspires, without which we would still be living in caves.

[@tomaszurbaniak4312]

And as it's turns out, it dose steal from artists

[@johnathanera5863]

No lol. It does not. At least not for the majority of its training data, and I mean like 99% of its training data is publicly available.

[@peacefusion]

you have stolen from other artists too. in your colors, your thoughts, "original ideas"

[@TenebrousHero]

Litman is right in that Artists don't create- but what we value is the singularity of their interpretation of reality, not this fanciful notion that they produced something ex nihilo

[@shakazulu3594]

AI is a wonderful tool for artists. I'm sure Andy Warhol would agree. Praise be!!😄

[@l.e.phillips]

Andy Warhol would fucking love AI. 🤣

[@shakazulu3594]

@@l.e.phillips Yes he would!😄

[@carultch]

@@shakazulu3594 Using AI to "create art" doesn't make you an artist, any more than microwaving a frozen meal makes you a chef.

[@neilsmith5510]

​@@carultchnobody even said that it did

[@righttobearwalls]

They use the family photo books you order too lol

[@venusiansociety9483]

Intresting vid

[@FJNBKPMMPS]

This is what I've said for months.

[@sashyf]

i disliked this video!

[@martinebonita2658]

me too!

[@Darren_S]

It's understandable that it's a very emotional issue for you.

[@Creighty]

🤥

[@qazmko22]

I love this autistic argument! Yes, if you steal from one source it's plagiarism... but if you steal from multiple sources it's "research". However, it's very unclear how this AI system "works", it's a "black box" that pulls stolen art into it, and spits out something that looks like garbage. Is this "transformative"? The creators of these AI systems don't know... because they don't even understand how the system works. They are just exploiting low payed workers in 3rd world countries to filter, and label the data that comes in. The truth about AI, is that it isn't intelligent.. rather it's quite stupid, it requires armies of people to feed it info in order for it work and to fool us. AI "art" is not the future of art, it's the unprofitable future of plagiarism.

[@Jeholista]

If an Artist doesnt reach.....to a point that the only thing that he has in life is his vision in mind and creativeness....to a point that physically he cant do art...but mentally with the used of my sketch and A.i...i can do Art.....that i value it....those people who cant feel art in a different form will not reach the most complete form of their creation......im A MAGE artist...powered by imagination....A.i help me get thru...even suffering physically....those Swordsman and templar tanks should stop bashing A.i. technology.....

[@kego6010]

you really thought you were doing something huh? how about just listening to artist? the people in these comments also seem to have a better grasp of the topic

[@BeastiezCyZ]

No. If a person has an agrument about a topic, then they should be able to express that argument. Regardless what group they're in. How about you and other artists come up with a rebuttal to his claims?

[@kego6010]

@@BeastiezCyZ the argument is incredibly disinformed and actually tons of people have come with rebuttals to those claims. Like they are everywhere, even in this same comment section. Shocking the information you can find once you actually read and do research. Also artists are the ones actively being affected so there opinions hold a lot more weight. They also have a better understanding which is once again, why non artist should listen to them.

[@BeastiezCyZ]

@@kego6010 Artists understanding the issue is not a guarantee and their opinions do not hold more weight. This is very simplistic level of thinking. Considering the fact that most people refuting this barely understand what AI art actually does. By your logic, we should listen to the people who use AI art and how does it work? But I don't think you would extend that same courtesy to them. Even in Torres video, he himself included research that no one in the comments really pointed out. Most people are reactionary to a topic that sure is affecting them, but the wrong outlook can fuck them over even more in the future.

[@basil3663]

im a artists i broadly agree with the video

[@Darren_S]

Cope lol

[@lespectator4962]

Except the AI "looks" at things by scanning and remembering them pixel by pixel. Ahh, the naiveness of people who compare machines to humans as if they're the same. I wonder what you would say if someone made a scarily similar derivative of your work by "analyzing your pen strokes". If you look at all the guard rails introduced to AI, it's all focused on trying to prevent it from copying other people.

[@luisbermudez4756]

“Without economic incentive, no one would create art.” Spoken like someone who knows nothing about art.

[@koumorichinpo4326]

yes it is

[@omgukillkenny7576]

Wow what a great well thought out emotional free counter argument. I am sure you changed the mind of Daniel.

[@aronhalaoui3188]

These artist, that are against AI, are all saying the same shit. This just proves, that they have no idea, and are closed minded wimps who feel attacked in their ego. I dont know who you people think you are, but you are definetly not someone special beacuse you can draw. Wimps, absolute wimps.

[@declanfarthead]

So basically, with your logic, if I copied a piece of art and threw the art away, technically I didn't copy it, right?

[@playstationninja]

Never been so early to a video.

[@Artesian_mirage]

It is

[@PeterSchw]

Just terrible images generated by AI. But at least a few people who use this AI garbage get the appearance of intelligence.

[@JoseGarciaJaen]

AI is theft. By you trying to justify it says it's theft.

[@basic204]

lol

[@carultch]

AI = the high cost of free social media.

[@EugeniaLoli]

Exactly, as you said it. It might not be ethical, but AI art is legal -- in the US legal system at least.

[@ArmchairRizzard]

The problem is, most people don't object to it on whether its "legal" or not. Most people onject to it on moral or ethical grounds. And, its a little annoying that the first entire half ot this video focuses solely on the legality of it. As if that is even the main objection people have.

[@group555_]

​@@ArmchairRizzardthe problem with the ethics issue is that you can use any medium to commit fraud. By this logic pencils are unethical because they can be used for shady things. Ai generators are a tool. The only art it will directly replace is cool looking pictures not actual art. Otherwise you still need an artists to make art wether you use ai or not

[@beaverson]

@group555_ I disagree.. A pencil is a tool for creating something with human intent and skill. "AI" is the automation and replacement of creative skill and actual intent from the individual..