Can we talk about AI?

[@gabzito240p]

One of the worst things about it is when people assume that your hard work was AI generated when none was used, and that will only get worse with time. Had a few instances of music parodies and voice impressions I've done where people confidently claim "this was AI generated". With AI available, some peoples mindsets seem entirely fixed on making money and they can't imagine that other people would create art for the craft of it.

[@SmokeandSpirit]

I agree this is so much worse. You can't just state it's AI based on "vibes" Also it's quite common on pages that mostly do reposts. I wouldn't even think of saying such thing on an artist page. Im also an artist and that'd probably break me. I mean most artwork takes between 8-16 hours work. That's not fair to call it AI based on nothing. I mean we're most certainly going to see less of it if everyone calls everything AI. No wonder I hardly see art on my feed anymore.

[@miclowgunman1987]

The hustle to make money off of your hobby has been around a lot longer then the AI boom. The internet commoditied everything. Everyone wants to make money through their art, playing video games / tabletop role playing. The internet came with the promise that you could make money off of what you love doing, but no one considered what the consequences of everyone trying to make money on what was once their passion would have.

[@TigerTzu]

I keep seeing artists get accused of AI, only for the accusation to be proven wrong, but the stigma doesn't just vanish. AI art has also soured people to high-render realistic art as well, as people just auto-assume it was generated and move on.

[@Salamaleikum80]

That must suck man. Anyway going on a 10 hour shift as a manual worker. See ya.

[@sadiesnail]

This has become such a problem. It's like the fight against AI started with good intentions, but now it's just blown up into this crazy mess that is killing people's livelihoods. On those callout posts that have 2M+ views, it doesn't matter if the artist proves they didn't do it, most of those people will never see the artists side of the story and continue spreading the misinformation. People say it's to protect people's jobs and rights, but they get so caught up in fighting, that they are destroying many indie creators jobs and lives over assumptions. If a simple assumption can be so powerful that they call for someone to be ruined over it, I think it's time to step back and re evaluate what they were fighting for in the first place. This applies to the people who are just using it as an honest tool as well. They get the same exact treatment, even if there is 0% of the AI work in their finished product. It's honestly been wild to see.

[@SnezanaCupurdija]

My biggest issue with AI is lack of transparency. For example, if every art piece that used AI has the legal obligation of labeling itself as such, it would allow both - the artists and the art consumers - to make their own choice. For example if I search for a reference photo, give me the opportunity to exclude every AI made piece. If I don't want to see nor buy any AI piece, I should have that option without spending time to figure it on my own.

[@jananias2985]

I think this is the thing for me. I want to consume things made by humans. If a human couldn't be bothered to make it, why should I be bothered to consume it?

[@panickedshears]

Agreed. Just googling animals can get you AI generated images now, and it’s just not okay in my opinion. I want to see real images of a zebra. If I wanted to see AI generated zebras, I would’ve specified that in my search.

[@_Squiggle_]

I think an interesting question is that if an image was made using AI but you didn't know it, what's the difference between owning that image and a human-made image? If at the end of the day, the goal of owning art is to make you feel something or connect you with human nature does it matter how it was created? I think its an interesting question

[@eragon78]

@@jananias2985 I mean there are plenty of reasons why, it depends on why you want it. AI art is useful in a decent number of ways, and can still be fun to look at. Just a time and a place for it. But ofc I agree that you should be able to have the option to filter it.

[@RahkshiMaster]

like many tools and systems, it's the users who are the problem. people who want to scam you, trick you, etc, are the biggest issue.

[@LyraSilvertounge]

As someone who’s into fashion and art , I use Pinterest a lot. It has become completely overrun with AI generated images. An entire platform who used to be about sharing photos, art, collages and inspiration has become 2/3’s AI, and 1/3 adverts. It’s almost completely unusable now as a platform and what I used to turn to on a daily basis for inspiration for creation has become a frustrating collection of “uncanny valley” images where everything is homogenous and bland. Really disappointing :(

[@TheDistractingGamer]

This is my main issue as well. I use pinterest for character art for D&D games, and yet when i try to look for something its 90% horrendous AI generated trash. That being said, i'm not anti-AI, just keep it out of the google searches please.

[@SnezanaCupurdija]

@@LyraSilvertounge I completely agree with you. Pinterest became awful.

[@doodlejule]

I feel that so much. Same here. I actually made an account at Cosmos to see if it was any better - on the surface, it looks a lot more "select" and "artsy", but as soon as you look for certain art inspiration images, the same weird AI generated clothing designs etc come up. :(

[@threshanimations7430]

Ai is quite literally making it harder to find good reference images. The worst is when I try to find particular medieval/ renaissance armour. Especially on google images. half the pictures are commercial/fake armour products and now a large portion of the remaining images that were origionally historical or artwork with plausible manuverable armour have become AI images with distorted metals merging into skin etc. In this instance it is even more detrimental for me. I don't care too much about the uncanny side of it but the practical use of the images are completely gone. I'm trying to make a medieval stop motion animation and what was once exciting looking up reference piuctures sometimes turns into a sigh nowadays. Especially when looking up armour for reference on how the joints move etc. I've relied more on looking up close in museums, books and youtube demonstrations. As the AI situation pisses me off and ruins my enthusiasm at times. It's quite demorolising and ruins interest or excitment when designing. Having to scroll through or see some of these pointless AI images might as well be ads for hot singles in your area... I'd feel almost indiferent. The worst are the free websites that automatically upload the ai image. The more people that are passionate about a subject and AI the worse search engine images become.

[@velorose6435]

I was on your tabletop channel when it started. When you were doing the rogue star campaign. Y'know I never really felt like it needed that much production, it was good because you were telling a good story, forming community around something you were passionate about, and it didn't matter that the only art you had was a few key pieces and some doodles in a sketchbook. When I think about that Christmas special it makes me sad, because I know there's a world where you worked around the lack of budget in a different way, where you said "hey we may not have any art, but we're creative people, we can solve this" cause at the end of the day that's how you make something that's truly worth it.

[@lunawolfheart336]

Exactly! Why the hell does he need that much protection? This shit is exactly why I refuse to record my campaign in any way even if I had the means. I don't need people thinking it needs to be overly produced. Its literally supposed to be a game and a fun story I develop with my friends.

[@Mel-nw2ko]

You are very right

[@vuivraalbastra]

I'm surprised I don't see this comment higher up because I felt the same about that section. I don't like that people are beginning to feel that we need AI art in places where no art or less art at all would be enough. The limitations of art in the context of the time and budget we have can lead to amazing results and we've seen that in many youtube videos that were using a silly replacement for a background, which brought more entertainment to the video than an AI background would have, just for an example of the top of my head.

[@ZK-sz8vs]

its funny how they said AI would replace menial bean counting and clerical jobs no one wants, and free up people to make art, writing, and music.......and then the FIRST thing AI started to try to replace was art, writing, and music

[@mazikainen]

Let's edit that and replace 'AI' with 'technology', then take a step back to reassess. It's easy to kind of become blind to exactly what technology does for us once it becomes ubiquitous. Don't calculators, spreadsheets and office productivity software already remove the need for tons of that menial bean counting work you just described? We've just gotten so used to using Excel we don't appreciate just how labor intensive doing that kind of numbers work was in the precomputer age. Anyway, I think what scares us in large language models and image generators is that they threaten our sense of human exceptionalism as well as our livelihood. It's easier to accept Excel taking the jobs of accountants than it is to accept that human creativity can be replicated and we're much simpler and less special than we like to think.

[@hydraxon6940]

Learn plumbing and carpentry, lol AI is never going to replace what humans can make with their hands.

[@Marnige]

​@@hydraxon6940 you mean technology? These monotonous and repetitive jobs are the first to go realistically.

[@hqTheToaster]

Ikr, and meanwhile it is good at memorizing numbers, but ask it to do math? No, it has to look up what to do instead.

[@siegel4qdk]

@@mazikainen god forbid the joy of developing a skill or wanting to engage emotionally with your fellow human, am I right...

[@ncs_artist]

This makes sense for an artist possibly using ai as concepting and placeholders. But for a studio that aren't artists and just employers wanting to concept, they won't feel the need to have a real concept artist working for them. Like if they use it how you mentioned how a real artist like yourself could, they will not hire people. The art industry will and has been getting tougher, all I know is that we gotta stay strong, and be more creative than the machine.

[@fallenmango8420]

Concept artists are definitely one of the most threatened positions in the industry. I just got a degree in concept art too 😞 It’s so depressing.

[@greatnate29]

@@fallenmango8420 that sucks man. I was thinking about doing concept art back in high school, but decided to go into programming instead. It sounded like such a tough job to begin with, needing to create art so quickly. It's definitely an impressive skill that I admire. Hopefully you will be able to find somewhere new where your talents are still being appreciated.

[@Varadiio]

That last point is the bottom line. All of these arguments are largely a waste of air. It doesn't matter why AI is bad, because you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Good faith actors would just be surrendering to the bad faith ones. The only reasonable conclusion is as you say. We all need to defend our place in the universe in some way. Anyone expecting that they'd just skate by on easy street better have the foresight to be born rich. Any number of things can cut you down if you're not being your best self.

[@m.g.zilla2022]

Big fan of your work.

[@M0nit0r_2]

This. Jazza seemed to miss this point. Jazza and his team may use it to concept out animatics, but a company would straight up just use the AI image output in the final video. Plus, animatics are usually done by storyboard artists in limited styles just to convey general forms and movements. This cuts that out and eliminates jobs. Jazza is contributing to normalization of AI usage and cutting of initial stage art jobs.

[@SinnfullDuck]

I spent over 10yrs honing my skills and trying to get into the art industry. I finally accomplished my goal and was making art for video games at a small studio. When ai got good enough, all the artists were let go and ai was used exclusively. I lost my dream job and, as I'm now in my 40s with a family, I don't have the time to wait and pursue that again. I had to get a normal job. My dream lasted for about 1yr. I don't mind ai being used as a tool to help artists. My problem is with people who have no art skills to speak of, calling themselves artists because they can type some words in a box. I have completely stopped posting my work to social media for fear it will be stolen. I havent shared my art in almost 2yrs now. As someone who loves creating, it's very sad and almost makes me want to stop altogether. Sharing art with people is the whole point, but I feel like I need to horde it all, and I don't like that. Hopefully, in the end, real artists will prevail and ai art will simply be a tool at our disposal and not a replacement for years or decades of hard work.

[@LapostropheAura]

this is heartbreaking. I am so sorry :(

[@notjackiechan9420]

feel for you! I think in a few years companies are going to realize they cant rely solely on AI. They will need actual artists. In the future i think 'human made art' is going to be very sought after.

[@majeric]

I've worked in video game industry for 20 years. I don't see large studios replacing their artists because AI generated images are still too limited. Is that small studio that you worked for even still around? I don't see how AI generated images can replace artists. It can only supplement.

[@Hollowed2wiz]

To me it seems that you are just frustrated that people can generate art without having to go through the amount of effort it took you to learn to do the same. I find it weird to tie the value of art to how difficult it is to make. If some people who use generated ai call themselves artists, they are totally allowed to do so. Being an artist is not something that requires a degree. Given how vast the realm of art is, it's just silly to restrain "real art" to art that is exclusively made through drawing or painting. The only real issue with AI art is how it is currently used by companies who think it can fully replace all professional artists. Current models like the intelligence to consider important caracteristics of art such as intent and composition. Eventually they will be able to do it but it might take longer than most people think as it might requires actual AGI to pull off. This is where you and all the artists that can't stop complaining should weight in by showcasing what you can do that AI cannot or struggle with i.e specifity and consistency of the art. Real artists will only prevail when they accept the reality of ai art and actually use it to their advantage to propose something that ai art alone cannot make.

[@jinxxpwnage]

@@majeric besides big companies aren't about to risk potential lawsuits coming back to rake their profits years down the road if plagiarism ever gets prosecuted. also even software companies don't want their code sourced into these models. it's only the smaller studios pulling this shit

[@smthnew861]

My argument against ai. I've lost my job as an illustrator, that i had for 7 years to AI. ✌🏻

[@Miarahdd]

Same, I have been unable to find a job in design thanks to it, as media design, especially logo and corporate design were the first fields where it had the most impact immediately.

[@Biggiecheese20]

That's truly their loss, you have far more talent and taste....

[@aether222]

What AI has given you the ability to do is create much more amazing and impressive art and produce something you couldn't make otherwise. So you have to become a bit of an Entrepreneur. This is what it allows you to do, yes it allows the company to fire the creative, or it allows the creative to fire the company and begin your own.

[@marcelathacat2739]

I am so so sorry it’s truly disgusting to see the greed of these corporations in real time. ❤

[@taysboneaparte5107]

Did you incorporate it in your work flow, or were you fired for being part of a side calling themselves proudly Luddites? If it was the earlier you should appeal or work on your own productions as AI video is coming along better than I thought it would, but if it was the later than you have only yourself to blame. The rules are the same as I told my brother: you can quit digital and keep doing colored pencil but don't cry when you can't market anything because you aren't one of those amazing 'realer than real life' type of artist in that medium. He deeply regrets his choices now, as all do who reject tuning their work flow instead of listening to 'purist' types.

[@lauramaue]

Professional artist here. Thanks for your transparency and willingness to have a calm, rational discussion about this. I do believe AI could have value as a tool to streamline the creative process (such as using it in software to make a once-tedious step fly by), but businesses shouldn't use it as a replacement for real artists. So far the main issue seems to be that business leadership: 1) Are easily distracted by shiny things, and AI is the new shiny thing every company should use for... reasons (usually because "it's the future" with little elaboration beyond that) 2) Have no idea how art connects with an audience on a fundamental human level. Sure, AI art is often flashy and eye-catching, but how does it speak to their customers' emotions? How will the image stick in their memories? What message are you trying to convey to them other than "this looks cool"? I often compare AI prompters to that guy who always loudly revs his engine at stop lights. Doing so gets people's attention, but it won't make them like you.

[@ez_is_bloo]

Up

[@adomasjarmalavicius2808]

this has solid points, yeah, the new gen of artist might be craizy, lots will give up, and lots will use somme usability from it

[@MildlyAutisticApe]

I couldn’t care less about the images AI generates. I’m interested in it’s ability to generate videos and games. It’s very easy to see how this tech could allow an individual artist to create their own TV shows and AAA video games to their exact specifications at home within the next 10 years. It’d be a billion dollar entertainment studio on your PC.

[@tanishamuntslag6369]

I like that this video is trying to be neutral .I'm an artist and while I don't mind Ai being a useful tool it should not be something people rely on too much. I've been using Ai before like how Jazza is using it as a garnish to his art. Using Ai is fine but I don't want it to be a replacement for genuine creativity, learning to draw, nor should it be used for malicious intent.

[@GummieI]

Exactly. AI is an amazing tool (in all fields, not just art), but it is also JUST that, a tool, not a replacement for actual skilled work

[@runnergunner42]

For me, using AI in the early inspirational phase is such a trap. If you outsource the most creative part of the entire process to an AI then you're removing an opportunity to do something unique or express yourself. If a client is breathing down your neck then you gotta do what you gotta do but I would never let it steal any of my fun in personal projects. If they take longer, they take longer. I'll be a better artist for it

[@AtLiberty]

Yes! Nothing to add.

[@Moth-Bells]

I think it could help people like me, with near total aphantasia. I cant get any creativity in the initial inspirational phase because theres nothing going on in my head. I cant sit and think about what I want to draw and work it out slowly because I cant imagine even a spec of what I want to draw. For brainstorming, it works for me, but the actual art process has nothing to do with AI and I could never use it in my actual drawing process unless it was more ethical (which I think we're a long ways off from it being ethical)

[@brittanygneiting3134]

Exactly! The ideation phase of the project is the most fun part! I wouldn't want an AI image to dictate what I should be imagining before I've even had the time to think about what I would do to solve the creative problem.

[@RedDesertRoz]

100%

[@TopengProductions]

I have nothing to add, you said it perfectly

[@Linxen]

I'm a Voice actor and I hate the fact that AI starting to make voices and how I'm now seeing ads for AI voice over its literally trying to take my job.

[@Aiyume7]

i hope the strike helps you out with this at least a bit :')

[@spyseefan975]

if AI can do voices well enough to get people to come watch the movie, voice acting doesn't deserve to be a job. If it cant, it wont. Its as simple as that.

[@Linxen]

@@spyseefan975 I know, its great that is sucks at the moment, But I just dread a day when it is good enough to do things like that.

[@Alexalicious]

@@spyseefan975 That's not a great way to look at it, since they could do many jobs better than us.

[@exilestudios9546]

Face facts you are a replaceable dinosaur and you are about to go extinct

[@SpicyMelonYT]

I like how in the "Grey" section the grey is multiple shades and not just flat one grey. Makes it feel larger and more important that just white or black

[@SonicntZane]

no full white tho...

[@SpicyMelonYT]

@@SonicntZane thats the point of the video just as much as no full black...

[@alexshelley9243]

Understand Jazza's hesitation and awkwardness on this topic. Nonetheless, I agree that talking about it is a better way forward than saying nothing at all. I, for one, would appreciate a deeper dive.

[@elskaalfhollr4743]

i suspect his brother is a huge part of his opinion

[@friendlyneighborhoodartist]

@@elskaalfhollr4743 Nah, I don't think so. Jazza and Shad are totally different ppl.

[@elskaalfhollr4743]

@@friendlyneighborhoodartist holy shit ive seen a few of your videos, nice surprise! but besides that, family has a weird influence, even on the best of us

[@zaraheart]

@@elskaalfhollr4743Jazza is a very political person too. He’s admitted it. Eh he’s one of those people 😅

[@mobius2626]

I agree. Pretending that AI doesn't exist or that it isn't going to continue to exist is completely unproductive!

[@sirdurtle9519]

I absolutely hate trying to find images and I have to sift through the overwhelming amount of AI art because google cant filter it I legitimately have started using MS Edge because its not as bad

[@kristinesynowka106]

add -ai -prompt before:2022 to your search if you want to use google. Works pretty well for me when I need to find reference.

[@Validifyed]

More than just art. "Dead Internet Theory" has become a reality. A huge portion of what I see online these days seems to be by AI, and/or posted by bots. It's essentially cannibalized the internet.

[@GahMyEyes]

What I do is I add "before:2018" to each of my searches. The search should leave out all images that came after, which includes most if not all AI content.

[@badizzl]

Since when is Edge a search engine? As far as I know it's a browser with Bing as default search engine

[@MrBrineplays_]

​@@GahMyEyesI add "-ai" and "-prompt" to searches to remove most ai content but still include new real content.

[@TheSummerChu]

Programmer here. I'm in the part of people that made AI the thing it is today. AI is also replacing our jobs here. All of us are suffering under the rise of AI, technically speaking. On a personal opinion, though, I treat AI the same way I do tracing - It's okay if its for you, you think its okay, and you aren't going to affect anyone else for it. You can use it as a backdrop or an idea for the real thing, you can have the thing just for testing out how that certain thing operates/feels, and you can even use it for things that you would never pay anyone else to do anyways. However, when you do it, make it explicitly clear you are using it, don't try to sell it off as your own, and when something breaks/doesn't work, you don't have the background knowledge to fix it. That's what tracing is, that's what AI should be. At least, in my opinion.

[@alexh1465]

I'm a developer (not for AI though) and our company is trying to leverage it as a job aide, we're not at the point that we trust it to do our jobs 100% because integrating our stupid number of systems and complex business logic is just not feasible. As a hobbyist creative: I use it like Jazza does, as part of brainstorming and ideation, but I would never post it claiming it as my own work

[@blazearmoru]

We all learned this in 3rd grade english class when we cited our sources iirc. I think most pro-ai people at minimum think it's morally dubious to sell off other people's art as their own... But one side literally think it's ok to sell other people's art off as their own It's not the side with the asian tradition of no-self reincarnation, where a student honors their teacher by taking up the mantle after training as the new embodiment of that artstyle. It's the side that says "I learned from tracing and it's mine now" Fuck antis. But also you're right & everyone ELSE agrees, stealing is bad

[@edwardwestmoreland-caunter6128]

@@blazearmoru What I find hilarious is when people use AI to generate content, claim it as their own work, then get mad when other people used the same words as them and got a similar result, accusing them of plagiarising their work. The lack of self-awareness in the AI bro world is truly something else

[@garyparadis4708]

@@alexh1465 I'm an engineer who has used AI to get into creating automation with Python, despite coding not being a part of my specific career. While I'm not particularly interested in learning to code, I have used it to make such a wide variety of tasks, that it has taught me to interpret, verify, test, or configure basic Python structures. I have learned what libraries and tools are available and it has allowed me to make more and more complex automations over time. I've certainly been enjoying it for low-level programming.

[@jwr6796]

Interesting. I actually get the impression that most programming jobs can't really be replaced by AI... At least not yet and not in the near future. It seems to me like the big "programmer replacement" AIs are scams (like Devin), the best programming aids are severely limited and require a human programmer in the lead (GPT, Copilot), the companies that claim x% of their code is written by AI have skin in the game (Google), and the companies laying off programmers are largely doing so after the massive tech boom during COVID. I feel like AI is having an impact and may someday get good enough to be a major threat to all jobs,but right now it's mostly overblown hype.

[@BlazeMakesGames]

I hate people using the term "Democratizing" for AI art, it is not "Democratizing Artwork" because it is not letting people do art. Free Art tools like Gimp and Blender are Democratizing art because they're tools that are available to everyone for free as tools to give them the opportunity to learn and create things themselves. A pen and paper democratizes art. AI is not the same thing because it does not let "you" make art. It makes the art for you, so you're not actually doing or learning anything. It's literally the equivalent of commissioning art from an artist and then claiming that that somehow makes you an artist yourself. No, you just told someone else to make the art for you. There's nothing wrong with Commissioning artwork of course, I've done it myself from time to time. But I've never commissioned something and been given the impression that it somehow makes me an artist or that I've somehow learned anything from doing so. The only difference here is that you're replacing the artist you're commissioning with a Generative AI that cannot actually come up with anything original. And no, you don't have to build up "Skills" with learning how to write good prompts. If your "Skills" can be transferred to me wholesale with a simple copy/paste command, then it wasn't a skill to begin with.

[@timseig4200]

I think there is a valid point here, but this is also pretending that everyone using it is reallocating money away from artists. Some are and that sucks, but it is nice for instances where I wouldn't have commissioned art for things like my d&d character. I wish there was a better answer than sucks to be an artist, and I feel this as the two things I do to make money will also/are already under fire (I'm an aspiring writer, and a junior developer).

[@TheUntamedNetwork]

prompt creation at this moment in time is undeniably a refineable, and meaningful skill. So much so that the more gimicky image creators like the one in messenger run your prompt through an LLM to make it into a better prompt before making the image, because most people are so woefully uncreative in their description that you get crappy images. Its a skill thats more inline with a language degree than an artistic one, but it is there for now at least. The best AI artworks were made by artists using AI. But its not even really relevent that its a skill, because that skill will soon be superceeded, as the AI improves, the necessity of good prompts diminishes. At some point it'll be like interdimensional cable. The question is why should anyone in power care about the ability for artistic jobs to exist when theres almost everything to gain from AI. Its not like it replaces you in the old timey sense that now you starve to death. Its making the majority of human mental labour redundant. If you cant create something I find more entertaining than I can make for myself with an AI then why should I value your artistic labour?

[@j8acob1]

I would agree that many AI artworks are prompted by someone with no skills and who didn't learn anything in the process. However there really is an unlimited amount of skills and knowledge to be learnt in the space of AI artwork for anyone who wishes to take it further than simply typing in a prompt and clicking generate. As with 3D software like blender, AI software is built upon many layers of complexity that you can dive deeper and deeper into depending on how much you wish to refine your artwork to your exact vision. There is certainly a shift towards more technical skills and less artistic skills, and the difference between the work of an expert and a beginner is far more subtle for AI artwork than for painting or even 3D rendering. The shift to AI artwork is a lot more like the shift from painting to photography. For example, judging paintings based only on realism could take you pretty far in distinguishing between the works of novices and experts, except for more abstract styles of painting, while it will take you nowhere in judging photographs because every photo is realistic. To judge pictures one must recognise that the skills have shifted elsewhere and it is the same for AI art. Both AI art and photography can be, and often are, done without skill or thought, but it is silly to say that there is nothing to learn or no skill to be gained in either field. It is also rediculous when people claim the same kind of credit for their AI creations as a painter might claim for their artwork, no matter how much effort the AI artist put in, and there are of course many ethical considerations in the field of AI art. However this conversation needs to be separated from a conversation about how much skill and knowledge are involved in AI art creation.

[@Julez60]

​@@TheUntamedNetwork so it's the skill of being an annoying, nitpicking client? Lmao

[@TheUntamedNetwork]

@@Julez60 That is EXACTLY what it is.

[@BubblegumStudiosOfficial]

I feel like Jazza is the only person I could listen to talk about some of the useful things with AI without cringing because you can tell how much he cares about and loves art.

[@LegoTardisArchives]

In stark contrast to his brother Shad who knows nothing about anything including ai

[@edwardwestmoreland-caunter6128]

Especially because he's not trying to defend or hide anything. He knows that AI CAN be a useful tool, but is also aware of how horrifically damaging it is. Like, whenever Adam Duff talks about it, he always skirts around why people are so angry and upset about it, and most of the comments are along the lines of "You're just not listening!" it's like he only sees it from the perspective of someone who's already successful and secure, and not the millions of artists desperately trying to just exist. IMO Jazza really shows how humble he is here. You can tell he hasn't forgotten where he came from and really understands the perspectives of the little people

[@Jrdn357]

@@LegoTardisArchives Exactly, Shad is an idiot and a man-child. You should watch that clip of Shad throwing a tantrum when Jazza (way too politely) disagrees that Shad's "professional-level artistry" should give him 2 art points in DnD, it's hilarious. Everyone just wants to move on and play the game but Shad acts like a 5-year-old and can't handle anyone saying that his AI slop doesn't make him an artistic genius.

[@xjakanton2576]

@@LegoTardisArchives I used to like Shad, but one day he just went off the deep end.

[@Soliddimension3D]

@@xjakanton2576 Wait what, how did he go off the deep end?

[@zazzy2015]

My partner is a concept artist and when it was first coming out, he was excited to use it for ideas and exploration before he got to his final artwork. Right away I said "Oh no, they're going to use this to replace you." I think the initial idea of "hey, I can explore concepts and composition" more quickly isn't bad, but it still takes away work from artists. It will take away a lot of opportunities from Junior artists who can not produce as fast or accurately. It is important to train the next generation. If all of them just end up in debt from school and have no opportunity, they will move on. It is already so hard to a person freshly out of school to get their first job, and this just makes it worse. Companies already do not want to waste money on inexperience. On my hand, I am an animator (we all know whats happening with that industry right now) and a live artist. I have killed myself for years trying to juggle both professions, and honestly, I am very lucky I did as I am still working regularly at events. I went to one event recently where are few people said "ok, you just take my photo and run it through your stuff right?" and I was confused. I thought I was safe but apparently people are going in as a live artist and running people through ai instead of drawing them. People and companies hire me because it is cool how fast I can draw someone, I am part of the entertainment, and they get to take home some personalized work. Paying someone to run you through ai though... I just don't get (and these guys are likely charging more than I do). It's cool for a moment, but it's going to be tossed in the trash like other branded garbage people receive at events that they don't need. I don't know. I think Ai has a place in medicine and data analysis. I think it can be great for replacing menial jobs that people don't want to do. I don't think it should be used to replace creatives in sought after jobs which help define our culture and keep us human. I don't see the point in consuming ai content online, in media, it just feels like a waste of my time.

[@tarabooartarmy3654]

But think about it. One day we will all have the freedom to explore concepts because we WANT to, not because we have to make a living to have a roof over our heads and food in our bellies. If AI eventually does ALL jobs, humans will finally be free to do what we want for the pure passion of it, without the need to try to monetize everything because of this need to, you know, survive.

[@niedzisiaj6645]

@@tarabooartarmy3654 If you wanna completely abolish capitalism and entirely change the way we function in society then sure. I still don't see the way AI art fits into that vision though? I'm gathering you're excited about AI doing physical labor and task that are more menial while humanity can do art, so how does gen AI imagery help with that idealized future?

[@pipkin5287]

I completely agree. These algorithms have a place in our society when it comes to pattern recognition and data crunching. I'm sure it can really help a lot of scientists in fields like medicine, but I truly don't see a point in using something like a generative model to create visual products that, at their core, are judged on the merit of their execution and based ideas. Things that are meant to remind us of our humanity should not be automated.

[@lefourbe5596]

I started AI art in 2022 because i found fufilement easier than 3D (since 2020 lazyly) despite it's limited use. I like to bend the machine to my will and vision and i realized that it can be pertinent in producing quality work. But consistency... Rough... I can do "something" faster. But not the PRECISE unique thing most of the Time. Previous tools and knowledge is what can set you appart in this dire industry. So make sure that you keep an eye out at what makes you relevant in the eyes of your clients.

[@zazzy2015]

@@lefourbe5596 If clients expect me to use AI to stay relevant, I am done. I am not fighting for scraps. I would rather find something else to do and create things just for myself on my own terms.

[@רפאל-ב]

10:07 But that's because you're her boss, you have the point of view of an artist, you appreciate the humanity in art, you can't expect corporates to do the same when it comes to artists

[@gertrashcan]

But you'd still expect a big corporation to not trace every pixel of 10.000 existing artworks to Frankenstein them into one.. That's what AI is doing. Calling it AI isn't even that logical to me considering they act based on codes and not on their own.. They aren't really intelligent as you can see when you ask ChatGPT how many R's the word 'Strawberry' has. Art is more than a craft, cavemen did art before communication was a thing, why would we want that to be replaced by technology? Art is so much more important than people realize..

[@רפאל-ב]

@gertrashcan Well, it's not like they manually do it, all they need to do is prompt or hire someone to prompt and bam! Money printing machine as far as they're concerned My hope is that people will not let that happen, but it really is a difficult stone to stop

[@gertrashcan]

@@רפאל-ב yeah, that's the issue. They don't need to trace anything if a machine can do it for them. It's even worse like that, tracing is bad enough but they are even too lazy to do it themselves Not so sure if it will make them much money tho. People are already sick of getting scammed by robots

[@Luxo-tm9mp]

Even if AI didn't exist corporation have been doing that since forever so you are not giving a point you are just repeating what everyone knows just adding AI to the sentence

[@gertrashcan]

@@Luxo-tm9mp Back then they just payed the artists very poorly, now they literally replace them. Clearly no difference- But seriously now, I get your point but it's just not that simple

[@bradugar]

So much funnier when you remember Jazz’s older Brother is Shadaversity who uses AI & claims it’s ’ real ‘ art

[@TopengProductions]

Ain't no way..... His brother is shadiversity? The guy who had a 30 minute melt down about how the mario movie was corrupted by the woke agenda? The guy who wrote a book where his self insert tells a r^pe victim to forgive her r^pist? That shadiversity is Jazza's brother?!?!

[@pipkin5287]

​@@TopengProductions eeeeeeyu-p. Exactly that Shadiversity.

[@PaulHofreiter]

I'm an only child so it is wild to see how far siblings can diverge. I had watched Shad for a long time because I always liked older combat styles, arms and armor etc. and I stopped enjoying it as much when the personal stuff started leaking out. I really don’t want to know anyone's political ideas in the creative space but people just can’t resist. However, I didn't know Shad uses AI art as "real" art lol that is just wild

[@pipkin5287]

@@PaulHofreiter not just generative images. Believe it or not, but he's a published writer to a book that is, shall we say, for niche tastes, and he had no problem using chat gpt.

[@MonsterPumpkin]

His views are very interesting considering his brother is a artist huh.

[@lydia6477]

i'm an artist and have been watching your channel for ages. I remember always scrolling past your old "can a computer draw better than me?" videos bc i simply. was not interested. I do not find ai to be interesting. Not even the concept. As I've gotten older I've only become more and more fascinated by hand-made everything. hand-woven textiles and hand-made clothes and masonry and traditional art and live music and animation drawn ON PAPER. I am endlessly enchanted by the work and skill of other humans. And my fear is that I won't be able to professionally be the kind of artist I want to be, because I want to do things myself. I want to learn to be able to do what people did with the tools they used. The process matters just as much as the product to me. With every step forward in technology, there is something lost. Pros and cons, obviously. Saving time and labor at the expense of certain skills and oftentimes quality. I want ai to be helpful. The cat can't go back in the bag, so damage control it is. I think ai is the least useful in artistic fields. the places people are begging and clawing and dreaming of being. I want ai to make medical cures and solve crisis's that we can't do on our own, and complete tedious tasks that drain us and keep us from making the art and improving our lives the way we want. the problem currently is that ai is honestly bad at art. it's bad at everything. It cannot be accurate, it does not know how to properly synthesize information and it gets things wrong in catastrophic ways. but at first glance! it's ok. So it should be the standard bc if it's good at first glance that means it's good enough. at least, that's the attitude I see from companies who are integrating ai and firing their artists. It's going to take me a long, long time to come to terms with whatever the future of ai is. Im devastated. and I feel like I've missed the boat. I'm grieving for something I never had and will never get to experience first hand. (dont come for me about the downsides of the past I am plenty aware, that does not mean we didn't lose something in our pursuit of easier and more convenient)

[@MaakaSakuranbo]

I mean, as far as going traditional goes, don't you have the edge there? AI can't really do that yet at all

[@minimal3734]

It seems to me that what you have said proves the irrelevance of AI to the field of art. This largely coincides with my point of view. That's why I find it hard to understand why people see AI as a threat to art, apart from its industrial aspects.

[@lydia6477]

@@MaakaSakuranbo on a professional scale, especially within visual storytelling (animation, comics, etc) digital art makes it so much easier and faster to produce more images. As that's my current interest, doing something like that traditionally would be nigh impossible to make into my job (it is tempting tho. it would be so coooool) (i might do it anyway)

[@cybertpax]

It will sound harsh, BUT, no one will pay u to do something like U want, ppl WILL pay u to do it they way THEY want ,Fast and cheap, most ppl dont care about Quality. This is just the reality, sorry =(

[@joshuagrahambrown]

Honestly I’m just so fucking sick of seeing all that AI slop on my Facebook feed, like “This child made a Lamborghini out of Sprite bottles!” or “I’m 134 year old and make my own flowers & cakes!” and “This just in - there’s another movie in the _____ franchise coming soon! Here’s the official poster!”

[@mordiHarbinger]

Facebook is an AI hellhole. "Poor kid made Jesus out of Salmon in the desert" "Praise god Amen 🙏"

[@0PercentImagination]

A lot of facebook users (like older people who aren't so tech savvy) are easily tricked so no wonder some of the worst ai exploiters spam their nonsensical stuff there.

[@DefaultFlame]

Your first mistake was using Facebook.

[@AllGoodOutside]

I think you're misdirecting your anger, just remember what what huge company allows all this shit to be thrown at you. facebook is shit. PERIOD

[@BacatauMania]

Why the fuck you guys use Facebook? Where I'm from there's only old people left on Facebook, which makes AI bullshit tasking over everything very coherent because they don't know it's AI. But now I'm very curious to know why are there young people using this shit I abandoned ten years ago.

[@Nuswodahs]

As a small artist, I’ve spent my entire life making art, listening to others tell me it has no value and is worthless. I finally felt I could make the jump into turning my art into a business in one way or another only for Ai to come along a year later and destroy any chance I had. Now anyone I’m around, including my family has gone back to telling me how worthless my dreams are because Ai is better, will forever be better, and it’s cheaper. I’ve been beaten down my whole life because of my dreams of art, only to be forced into a position of being unable to compete at all. The past year alone we have watched major companies layoff their artists for Ai and cheaper workers and the cheaper workers still aren’t being paid a living wage. We have been treated poorly for so long, being told we are worthless to find out we are essential to so many things but have been led to believe that pursuing our dreams means we can’t charge enough to survive. We are tired of being bullied, threatened, and stolen from so someone else can charge the wage we want and they become rich while we still starve. Most of us don’t want to be rich, we just want to live comfortably doing what we love. I still make my art, but in the end, no one will look at it and no one will buy it despite it being put out there. I find myself lacking motivation and confidence because “what’s the point.” I don’t care if it’s used as a tool but it’s built off the back of millions of stolen work, meant to compete with the very work it was created with. Forcing many out of jobs and devaluing the very thing it aims to replace. The developers themselves said the goal was to remove the human from the work. In the medical field it’s currently being used to give deniability to doctors so they don’t have to treat patients. Students have been using it to create p*rn of their underaged classmates. Ped*files have been using it to create child p*rn so they have something new to look at. What it could be used for versus what it is being used for are drastically different and should be taken into consideration when addressing the issue.

[@DuskfoxOfficial]

Wow, that really sucks. I don’t usually comment, but I feel really bad for you. Please tell yourself that your art in fact does have value, as there are still many people out there who seek for art from talented people like you. ❤ I’ve dealt with something similar. Reading what happened to you genuinely infuriated me. Don’t let these people in your life influence you, in fact, they are only jealous of your ability to create art, something they crave to do but can’t.

[@sadiesnail]

The people who can't see the difference between AI art and your art were never going to value your work anyway. AI can't produce art with emotion behind it, or subtle references, or use concepts like Appeal and symbolism. To do that, AI would need to be able to process and feel emotion, understand what it is, and know all the little nuances that comes with humanity. I grew up being told my art wasn't real art because I wanted to focus on digital art instead of painting like I was originally. I was told no professionals would ever accept that, and it would never have monetary value because it was too easy to do. Now digital art is one of the most commissioned types out there, and it's an industry standard. Make art for you, because you love it, not for other people. New technology will always be coming out, especially now. There are people out there who still see Copy/Paste, Dupllicate, and stuff like stamp brushes as cheating and basically AI, even though it has been common practice for years. Find your niche, what it is you enjoy most and can put passion into, and people will see that and want your work. Art isn't all about the tools, it's about the expression, and that is something AI lacks.

[@bitfiddler]

@@sadiesnail Yes, I just posted this same basic thing on another comment. 40 years ago we had this same fear and argument about digital art. It was going to be the end or real artists; it was going to take all the jobs away from painters etc. And now here we are, and nobody bats an eye. Digital art is now accepted as real art and is considered just as viable as a canvas and paint.

[@minimal3734]

I'm not sure about the future of art as a profession. The whole world is going to change so drastically in the near future that I'm not sure about anything. I tend to think, that the term "profession" may dissappear altogether. If we share our art publicly, it will be stolen. But on the other hand, we are contributors to the trajectory that humanity is on. However small, we are making a difference. If we no longer share anything, we are removing ourselves from the equation altogether. True, by sharing ours works we get no reward. The only reward is the awareness of being part of a greater whole.

[@torejorgensen5344]

It is the time of Jack of all trades. Computers and machines of "all" kinds are cheap, and readily available information, tutorials and AI will help you along the way. As an artist, you probably have steady hands that will help you transform your ideas into reality. Woodwork, metalwork, 3D-printing, electronics, programming, music, pictures, whatever you need to turn your ideas into reality, it has never been easier than today. Leonardo da Vinci would have a blast today. You can't control what others do, but you can control what you do yourself. Ignore negativity and let your mind soar. It is the only advice I can give, if you want to get out of the negative thoughts. Life can be tough, but your mind is free, and learning is fun.

[@Yamimarukun]

While I appreciate the transparency and honesty here I must say I don't exactly find the argument that X can be justified because it made Y possible good enough. Like sure I agree it's great for you that you were able to use AI to fill in gaping holes in your projects and creative process but that's exactly it, it's great FOR YOU. It's still accomplishing an end with an unethically crafted tool that is hurting many other people. This argument sounds like saying "it's ok if you mug a few people a month if you use what you steal to finish paying off your credit card debt".

[@tenneluna6948]

I understand being open to pro AI perspectives specially when there is the controversy going on with your own family member. But it's easy to not fear or embrace AI when you're in a position where you can monetize your art from another angle (as a youtuber/art influencer) but for nobodies that make a living from just selling the art itself it's hitting really hard. People are losing tbeir income, being fired, replaced and quitting their art jobs. And because no one is financing their creativity they have to find an unrelated 9 to 5 or retail job, taking away the majority or the time they could dedicate to art and wageslaving their life away. I say this as someone who "failed" at being a full time artist, not having an art job implies i only have two days a week to work on my art projects if i'm not too exhausted or busy. AI was meant to do the tedious work no one wanted to do, not take away our culture.

[@AndiNewtonian]

This is one of the chilling effects of genAI on art.

[@MaakaSakuranbo]

"People are losing tbeir income, being fired, replaced and quitting their art jobs. And because no one is financing their creativity they have to find an unrelated 9 to 5 or retail job, taking away the majority or the time they could dedicate to art and wageslaving their life away." Which would be in his anti-AI arguments. Though it's sorta amusing you're saying "And because no one is financing their creativity they have to find an unrelated 9 to 5 or retail job, taking away the majority or the time they could dedicate to art and wageslaving their life away." when it feels like KZbin is recommending me 2 new "Don't make art your job, have a job and do it on the side instead!" videos. And no, not cause AI. Cause of "Yeah, I thought I'd like it, but having to produce really kills my vibe and creativity. And I won't have time to produce what I want as I have to produce waht others want"

[@tenneluna6948]

@@MaakaSakuranbo That usually happens because people have to constantly take on commission work to make ends meet so they also end up having 0 time to work on their own personal projects, which is another side effect of art being poorly paid... AI only helps devalue art even more so it's only going to make that situation worse. I've watched some of those videos about people quitting and i notice it's usually due to burnout, like having to take in too much paid work, having to work weekends and no time off because each project isn't paying enough to pay the bills

[@MaakaSakuranbo]

@@tenneluna6948 Idk, if I'm doing coding (by all acounts a well paid job) the general expectation is to work 40 hours/week as well. Sure, weekends and evenings should be off. I'm mostly talking an art job here I guess, not self-employed commissions. So videos where they had a regular job doing art (at e.g. an animation studio) but found it too exhausting having to constantly churn out creative work. Especially wehn it wasn't what they actually wanted to be drawing

[@umarthdc]

The year before AI was the time where there was the most artists in human history. What's the prospect now?

[@daynoart]

I very much appreciate the distinction you made about AI art being dangerous when in a capitalist atmosphere. If AI and its output are privately owned, then it becomes fundamentally anti-competitive. It's a cheat code - no human can possibly compete with an AI, save through profound innovation, though this too will only be a short term advantage until the AI adapt to that innovation. If an AI is trained on a persons output, or a populations output, then it must belong to that person/population. Alternatively, (and better imo) If AI and its output are PUBLICLY owned, and its output benefits the entirety of humanity, then post-scarcity might legitimately be achieved, but I think we'd be talking about a completely different context at that point. Ya know... "essential means of production" and all that jazz. -a. Thank you for being bold and talking about this, I would LOVE to see a follow up piece.

[@MrFram]

Well the most popular AI models are open source, yet artists still scream at them despite them effectively being community owned.

[@masonphillips4744]

I am in college in the US right now taking a course called Legal Issues in Media Arts, and my teacher once mentioned that, legally speaking, for a piece of art to be eligible for copyright protections, it must have 'authorship', or as he called it, the 'hands-in-the-pie rule' - someone must have had a minimal amount of creative input. Therefore, since a human making Ai images only technically puts their authorship into the prompt and not the image itself, and it was the AI that made the image (and only humans are legally able to perform authorship over a work), all AI generated art is immediately in the public domain upon creation If that AI generated art is then altered by human hand in some way though, then I think it may be eligible for copyright protection in some form. I'm not totally sure though, it's all new in the legal sphere

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

​@masonphillips4744 The Video Game industry is decades ahead of the Art Industry given the past 50+ years. True... Under USA Copyright Law, pure 100% Random Generated Art falls under Public Domain unless other Factors are involved. Under the guidelines of the USA Copyright Office. Although it is case by case and not law yet, they heavily advised to at least be creative with Ai Tech as a tool. AI Art isn't terrible but humanity is extremely malicious about it and against it.

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

​@@MrFram Private Source or Open Source, it matters not to the law. What corporations did, was to Copyright Infringe when they used unauthorized IPs to fuel their Data Bases and sold it as a service. If they only sold AI Pictures and not the AI Art Generator, then they would be in the legal right as Copyright lawsuits are 1 to 1 for the Output, not for the input. Of course, USA Copyright is more complex and international Copyright laws are even more or less. (I don't appose technology but there are ethical ways to go about it. If Mankind fails, then I need not keep this temporary world.) Well... It's not if but when... For that Fate, I have lived through over infinite eternities. "The Machines are the Sons of Man as Man is the Son of God", as Primordial Mankind once put it. Ancient wisdom long gone from this iteration of existence.

[@winxpusr]

@@MrFram "Open Source" by opening the source of something that never belonged to them, all while the companies get millions in investiment and funding by investors, we know how they are proffiting from it, and we know they violated copyright to do it, it's all the matters to law, this is why AI is toxic for actual professionals and this is why mass adoption will be constantly fought against.

[@personalirageneve]

I studied the expansion of AI as part of my thesis in other fields, and I am also an artist. I think the first important step into making this conversation grey is making a difference between AI and generative AI. AI can help in medical fields, in efficiently mapping streets and living spaces, can help in education. Generative AI didn't come to answer any questions, any needs. It's not creating a new medium like photography did, like digital art did, it's only standardizing and making art into content, into fast food. I've found generative AI while searching for: muscle reference, the skeleton of an elephant, Egyptian symbolism, nail art (for myself lol), Greek statues + gods + architecture, crochet products, cosplays (yes literal AI people cosplaying as certain chars...as if we don't have real, hard working cosplayers already), jobs being posted on popular jobs platforms. NONE of these subjects I happened to search in the past 2 months needed AI and yet here we are. It's not a tool as long as it's not used as one, and people using in obviously negative ways it SHOULD be held accountable just as much as companies. I think it's important to realize that, by trying to find a middle way, we make the work of companies easy. They don't need to change anything because we, the really creative people, find a way, and the really greedy people like the current way. So it's a win for the companies! I follow you for a long time, I appreciated you and your enthusiasm for everything new, and your passion to foster and push creative boundaries. My personal stance is that I will refrain to touch AI even if I will be put in the "anti AI" side until it gets regulated. I did use it, I was curious, I want to be able to use and make certain things easier in the process of creating so I can create more, but I with all due respect I feel like trying to make it ethical when it is not, it's a bit tone deaf to a lot of people giving up on art right now. We can definitely learn to use it, adapt with it, but not while it's fundamentally built on what people "think" creativity is. Make 100 artists draw the same thing from the same picture and they will all have differences because we always use our own lived experience, even if we get inspired by others. Every artwork we make it's a story unique to our eyes and hearts and brains. I would feel like a hypocrite if I preach creativity and profit off the backs of my peers by using AI at the state it is now. (and I don't mean just monetization). When someone blatantly traces an artist they are always held accountable by the community. Generative AI just does it better and faster and in much bigger numbers. Thank you for trying to stay in the middle, it's good, and even if you continue to stay in the grey I know it doesn't come from a bad mentality. But there are too many greys that cover their pro-AI mentality only because it doesn't affect them directly. I remain against generative AI, while I am not against AI.

[@arianabradley4595]

I appreciate your comparison to fast food. Useful, affordable, convient, but dangerous in excess. I recently heard the term "dead food" to refer to overly processed foods, and I can see AI quickly creating "dead art." It may be useful, affordable and convenient, but if it dominates an industry, and our lives, some very essential things to humanity might start to devolve. our communication, sense of community, ability to effectively learn and comprehend - just to name a few

[@personalirageneve]

@arianabradley4595 I didn't know the concept of dead food, that's interesting and concerning at the same time. I agree, generative AI, at least the way it's in the market right now, will diminish creativity as a whole, long term

[@pure5152]

The distinction between gen ai and ai in general is a useful one, but while I agree with your disdain with regards to using generative technology for creative fields, I do think there are legitimate and valid uses of generative ai technology in other fields, such as in generating protein foldings and predicting weather patterns. The problem is that we shouldn’t be criticizing the fundamental technology which is in itself neutral, but instead criticizing specifically the application of the technology. It’s similar with blockchain and bitcoin- the blockchain technology is neutral and has some very useful use cases as a decentralized secure ledger for banks or whatnot and also some more debatable uses such as for recording transactions for cryptocurrencies

[@personalirageneve]

@pure5152 aren't your examples on the AI in general side? what I mean by generative is the one that is used in images, videos, music, writting, basically all creative fields like you said, usually requiering a database they don't own. If the algorythms used in your examples fall into generative AI, then my bad - I was making a distinction there, although I don't know how correct it was. I can see how it can genuinely help other fields. My thesis was on accountancy in particular, with some examples from medicine, archeology, tourism and education. These fields that work on fixed data and theories could greatly use algorythms that make researching and using such data easier. So yes, I agree that AI tehnology in and of itself can and probably will be useful, my beef is with the push of it in fields that didn't need it. Someone said in another comment, I want it to do my chores and job so I can focus on art - not to do my art so I spend more time at my jobs.

[@jezd2223]

i wish everyone was as verbose in this kind of debate, and i wholeheartedly agree, the damage done by ai is far too much to use it "ethically", jazza's love for art is undeniable, and i'm glad instead of instantly turning it down or shimmying in he tries to find the middle ground that calls out to him as reasonable, but the fact is using ai indirectly fuels the fire in the grand scheme of things,,, regulation is all that's needed, and unless companies somehow turn for the best and starts seeing the interests of artists and the world as whole and not just how much money they'll receive, using ai "ethically" isn't really an option

[@inkbetweens6920]

I have a hard time getting on board with "I couldn't have afforded to do it" as a justification for its use. If I see a CEO saying the same thing people would be sharpening their pitchforks. It's a bit disappointing to hear it from you with how you have been so involved in the animation community. I'd be less disappointed if it was only trained on art you have made or paid for, but by the sound of it, it wasn't.

[@yeswoo4452]

why do you have a ahrd time getting on board with it?

[@inkbetweens6920]

@@yeswoo4452 because its its a lazy excuse for using something built on stolen art.

[@haveidonethisbefore]

​@@yeswoo4452because big companies can do the same

[@yeswoo4452]

@@inkbetweens6920 it's not lazy excuse. and machine learning is more complicated than just stealing. I'm in the middle with AI, but I think this really oversimplifies it and ignores a lot of good points

[@inkbetweens6920]

@@yeswoo4452 glad to hear you agree that it is stealing though.

[@Jakeneutron]

I’m really glad you made this video, cause it’s been really annoying to ONLY see two extremes whenever videos about this topic come up. Either they’re super pro AI, this sorta marvel and wonder for what it can do but always so dangerously close to forgetting its roots (since many enthusiasts are not artists and don’t really try to learn the skills, so they don’t have an eye for what looks good beyond surface level stuff) and implying artists need not try-- or the extremely pessimistic flip where AI is the devil and there’s no way to use ANY of those tools without it being inherently unethical, which is often held by folks who either don’t actually know how all this stuff works and is more focused on the buzzword than realizing this tech has been with us for decades and just kinda got way better in the last couple years... or people who cannot face the reality that most creation is derivative and it’s really hard to draw a line between when it’s okay when people do it and when it’s okay when AI does it SPECIFICALLY enough. I have a lot of detailed opinions about AI and what it means for art, but in this context I personally believe AI is best as a tool, stepping stone to your vision. But not the ONLY tool. Letting AI do all the work but claiming it’s yours is just plagiarism. We’ve used computers to help with art for so long and almost everytime a revolutionary boom in that tech happens, there’s a puritan pushback, only this time it’s much more obvious how this creative destruction affects jobs when capitalism encourages cutting people out for robots. But that’s not the AI’s fault and AI can be useful if we’re smart and empathetic about how it should be used. At least in regards to more traditional consideration for media, I don’t want to get into how it’s indisputable that AI enthusiasts have created their own genres now but don’t seem to want to be honest about how it differs from manually created art by artists (which I think them not understanding that distinction is the biggest reason most of us don’t want to give them any leeway) There’s truly a lot of angles to talk about this in, but ultimately I wanna see more rules out in place to protect artists from greedy actors who want to snuff them out with AI shortcuts.

[@Aleszero]

I like your answer, It reflects my thoughts too, I would only add that the problem currently is more of how are we going to legislate AI or any other techonology that can replace to a degree any significant portion of the working force at such a great speed, my worries are more towards what can we do to make a transition or conciliation happen quickly if something like this happens to other Jobs and suddenly there are more and more people unemployed without more niches they can fill in society to earn a liveable income. Another issue that I saw on another comment is the education on specific skills, I think there is a very real risk that AI becomes a negative factor on the preservation of knowledge because it acts as a demotivator for us to learn anything that an AI can do better, so there is a very real scenario where people in the future forget industry knowledge that today is common sense because there are less and less people trying to acquire the skill, although we could argue that said knowledge persist on the internet but we will probably also rely on AI for that, probably.

[@Stratelier]

"...where AI is the devil and there’s no way to use ANY of those tools without it being inherently unethical..." ...is it appropriate to say "amen!" to that? There's an actual metaphor for this: "radioactive". It's like a combination of forbidden and infectious -- it contaminates and destroys _everyone_ who touches it, regardless of motives.

[@Glichyy]

The idea that most creation is derivative, whether it's true or not, doesn't justify billion-dollar companies stealing millions of copyrighted images from the internet for commercial use. That's mass theft, copyright infringement and exploitation, not at all comparable to creative inspiration.

[@cosmicspacething3474]

I can understand where you’re coming from, but tbh I just can’t buy the whole “tool” argument no matter how hard I try. Mainly because “AI” is such a broad term, and some things that fall under the umbrella are FAR more harmful to creativity than others. Apathy, Ego, and Impatience are just as bad for creativity as Greed is. That’s unfortunately a part of human nature not exclusive to Capitalism. I feel whole “tool” argument is glossing over that part.

[@bluemoonthenightwing3026]

What scares me is A.I. is going to get to a point that I’m not sure what’s real and what’s fake anymore

[@GregArtDude]

Firstly, thank you Jazza for inviting constructive conversation... For me as an art professional trained traditionally and working digitally full time as a freelancer it's complicated but... Here are a few of my thoughts for what it's worth: Ethically - for me it's an easy decision with current main generative AI options. As far as I know all are trained on art used without correct permission and/or consent, so in my view should be illegal, are unethical and basically ... wrong. Anyone saying ''it's not stealing because it's the same as people looking at other art' ... that's skewed logic and deep down I think we all know that. Just how many artists out there would have agreed if asked 'hey mind if I take all your best work to help make a program that will replace your creative process and ultimately you too ... and no I'm not paying you'... it just isn't right to use someone's creation in any way they would not want it used. Basic copyright law 101. And it's not that artists mind people being inspired by their work. Almost every artist I know or can think of would encourage new artists to be inspired by their art ... even if it means they end up competing for the same clients. 'have at it and good luck fellow artist!' The difference is that one is soulless and disrespectful to art and creativity where the other celebrates art and creativity and helps continue our craft. Practically - the technical idea of a program that learns from a selection of existing images in order to generate similar pieces based on text prompts is super cool & fascinating!... as long as it's trained and used ethically (and noted clearly when displayed that it's AI)! That then becomes something we instinctively as artists know is creating something of less creative value but super useful when 'real art' isn't an option like in your xmas special. (although I must note like others I personally feel AI was not the best route there but if it was ethically trained on your own art for example that would change things to a degree) Current generative AI is kinda like the biggest middle finger to every artist out there all at once and the next step on from the infamous 'hey you'll do this art for free yeah - great exposure for you'. There is one other point and that is the concern for the effect on creativity of up and coming artists and work ethic - this goes for generative AI in any sphere... it does concern me that more and more we are being pushed to 'take the easy route' and rely on AI ... first very basic example of this for me was spellcheck, very handy but I did notice I stopped trying to actually learn how to write so made a conscious effort to avoid leaning on that... many years later a certain AI writing assistant started being advertised everywhere to help students and/or anyone in a position of creative pressure ... surely while it's easier this is not helping to teach or educate students and surely isn't helping develop new and exciting talents in creative fields. It's like allowing robot assisted weightlifting... yeah huge weights would be lifted but athletes would become weaker and eventually engineers would win instead. Kinda 'cool' but defeating the whole reason it was a thing. I LOVE art and creativity, the whole reason I ever started watching your channel was because YOU created, because you shared YOUR hard earned skills and ideas. I deeply care that we as humans get to continue enjoying each other's skill and personalities artistically... the process matters, it really does... I don't want to see that mashed up and spat out as 'visually pleasing' but soulless pixels... An image created through hours of careful brushwork and years of knowledge gained through hard work, fills you with wonder and joy...

[@weltlos]

It's not illegal and totally ethical - a copyright lawsuit against OpenAI's scraping was just dismissed by a NY court.

[@GregArtDude]

​@@weltlos Are you pro AI? And forgive me but just because a case was dismissed does not mean it's now totally ethical or in fact totally legal to take anyone's art and use it in a way they don't want you to. I should probably make it a little clearer which parts are my personal views - editing it now.

[@weltlos]

@@GregArtDude If artists don't want others to make use of the information stored in their images, why are they posting their images all over the internet for everyone and everything to see? Authors don't do this. They don't display all of their books' contents on social media. It seems to me that artists were unaware of the informational value of their work, always gave it away for free, and are now in rage, because someone else has discovered it.

[@GregArtDude]

​@@weltlos Ok, that is a good point and assuming this is a genuine question, here are a few factors: 1. Many artists are uneducated in copyright and how to protect their work and a lot of the time simply inexperienced in the danger of posting all over the place online. 2. Those who view artist's work online are uneducated in copyright and what is and isn't legal in the way they use art they see online. 3. It has always been hard to avoid art being taken and used without permission, hence why copyright is automatic (lasting until 70 years after the original creator dies). The trouble is you have to know who the original creator was and what limits (if any) they have on the use of said art. 4. Online services ... especially social media and search engines do not have enough measures in place to protect the results they display - including clear copyright information. 5. 'Artist vs Author' - depends on the type of artist. A painter who sells physical art prints of their own pieces would probably not upload full resolution images similarly to an author who only shows a page or two from their book... on the other hand a freelance artist might want to post art all over the place to make a name for themselves like a writer might post short stories and pieces on blogs etc. It all comes down to copyright and understanding of how it works and how to make sure your viewers are aware of how you want your work to be used or any limits you have on it's use. At the end of the day you don't walk around expecting anyone to use you however they want just because you were around them and they are able to interact with you physically... we have limits on that for good reason and it's generally understood when something wrong is done because it's been made clear.

[@weltlos]

@@GregArtDude I think you misunderstood what copyright means. If someone posts a video tutorial explaining things online, and at the end of the video says that the video serves an artistic purpose only, and that the information contained in it cannot be used for anything at all, then that holds absolutely no weight. Viewers can go ahead, and can generally make use of the newly gained knowledge in any way they like, without facing any consequences. The uploader has shared what they shared, willingly, just a second ago, after all. Copyright only prevents people from directly profitting off exactly the content in its existing form, for example by redistributing it. It does not prevent me from making my own tutorial by repackaging the information, which is not protected. It does not prevent me from creating a machine that automates this process. It only prevents me from essentially selling the exact video that I have watched under my own name. AI does not do this. The whole point of AI is to create new images, in this case, that did not exist previously.

[@cazmarius3442]

Netflix just shuttered their entire in-house Team Blue game development studio and fired all of the staff, so their director could convert his position to "VP of GenAI for Games" and then replace every working creative position with machine generated slop. I get that you are excited to get small projects with no budget off the ground on the back of this technology, but you cannot use it in any ethical way at all because the fundamental bedrock of our creative careers will get eroded down to nothing if it persists beyond this bubble.

[@MysterySteve]

The big difference between artists taking inspiration from other art and AI art ripping off artists in my opinion, is that every single brush stroke, whether consciously or not, is a motivated choice in art made by real people. If you ask any artist about any specific part of a piece they made, there's a good chance they can give you an explanation as to why they chose to do that little bit. Whether or not the explanation is anything more elaborate than "I thought it'd look kinda cool" or "It just felt right", it wasn't *just* motivated by watching other artists, it involved them making distinct opinions about every piece from every artist they've ever seen, consciously or subconsciously. It comes from how that piece of art intersected with the human life they were personally adding influence from in a way no one else really could. AI is really cool and a nice fancy tool (I think it's decent at making vague reference images for some stuff, but I never put it in final works), but it's taking out of a piece what actually makes every art piece special. When you commission an artist and make a request, the cool part of all that is the art you get out of it and how it was made, and being able to use this valuable, motivated piece as you see fit. AI takes specifically that part out of it. It's cute as a party trick, but not really good for anything more. Oh, and yeah, it simply cannot be understated that many companies will use any excuse possible to cut corners and stop paying people for their services, and AI is *beyond* good enough to make a lot of places never pay a real artist as long as they have access to it. All of that said, I really appreciate your transparency and vulnerability, despite my pretty deeply disagreeing with certain uses you've had for AI, and I agree there's no good easy answer to this entire matter.

[@pampamtamtam4001]

I appreciate that first paragraph. I see that some people like to point out quality inconsistencies in AI art as a sort of "gotcha" moment, but intention is what really will always set apart human art vs AI art.

[@lydiagalantmotherf]

Yup. Even if the human does it subconsciously, I've noticed many little details I hadn't though about in my art supporting my vision even more!

[@Starry_Wolf]

tl;dr but i 100% agree with what you said in the first part!

[@MysterySteve]

@@Starry_Wolf Ok. I guess that's the most important part anyway, thank you

[@Thunder-di2gi]

Ai scares me, it's becoming harder to tell what's real, and what's fake...

[@GeekySquidoo]

Look at the fingers, ai cannot do hands…. Not surprising no artist has ever said ‘hands are easy!’ Lol

[@SweetestWalrus]

​@@GeekySquidoothis isn't really true anymore

[@henryhere]

​@@GeekySquidoothat's very outdated. AI can totally do hands now. There are some other tells to watch out for though, such as belts going behind an arm or other obstruction and then not coming out the other side, or "detail mush" on jewelry instead of an actual pattern

[@lumi-lumi-lumi]

I guess we just have to learn to trust nothing now unless we saw it with our own eyes

[@skulkingshadow]

There are weird artifacts and stuff in AI images that could help differentiate between real or fake, but I have a feeling that will be fixed too and it would be tedious to look for those artifacts anyways

[@beardybard4423]

I want AI to do my dishes and laundry so I can make art. Not make art so I can work.

[@meikahidenori]

As an illustrator & parent I second this. I want more time to create & perfect my craft and AI does jack towards that.

[@Korodarn]

It's a lot harder to do dishes and laundry,m and this is actually a step on the way there, because better understanding of reality, perception, skill, all comes from the ability to do replicate. We do this without even realizing we are doing this, just because it being done in our mind isn't putting it in a medium others can see it. But we create icons and shortcuts and abbreviations in our head to store information all the time.

[@catsarecatsarecute]

People who wash dishes at restaurants and people who wash clothes for money would ask why you think it’s okay to take their job with AI, but when it comes to your job, it’s suddenly off limits. Why?

[@DevilishlyDutch]

​@@catsarecatsarecute washing dishes and clothes are tasks we as humans do not enjoy doing, these are chores that need to be done, and people make money doing these chores. If money was not a factor, they would absolutely want a machine to do their job for them. Art is not a chore. You can fully automate creating art, and people will still create art. That is the difference.

[@catsarecatsarecute]

@@DevilishlyDutch If money was not a factor, some would still choose to create AI art. You can tell this is true because people do it now without getting money for it. So money not being a factor still didn’t make your argument make sense, so let’s go back to including money: why is it ok for them to lose money from AI taking over their jobs, but it’s not ok for your artist job? It’s selfish to believe that.

[@GrayD_Fox]

I respect the people who post their ugly, bad or weird art on deviantart more than any I will any ai generative image guy, because those people are making it themselves, god damnit and I can’t hate them for that.

[@GrayD_Fox]

The way people use “AI is a tool” has turned me sour to the idea of using AI for an actual tool. When they say that, they mean they generate an image, trace or draw over it to hide its AI and then post it. Effectively “streamlining” the process of making art, as if they have to have a new piece out daily. The first time I was actually impressed with AI being used an actual tool was a demo for the Undergrads movie, where the director is using 3D, but wants the 2D style of the show. It definitely isn’t streamlining anything, he has to draw every main character multiple times for the AI to even get close to what he wants. It’s working more as a shader/texture than just “undergrads movie Nitz gets sucked”

[@GrayD_Fox]

Besides that, every other aspect of AI should be used for what it is, a toy. A toy that generates stuff that should never be passed off as legitimate works of art. Rigamarole uses it perfectly, it’s clearly AI and it’s on screen for 10 frames. Blink and you miss it type shyt. Not to forget Mr Oney, he makes AI actually funny.

[@allerleivonanisai]

I am actually more concerned about AI scams and AI deep fake than about using AI as resource in the process of creating something, be it art, text or software that is wholesome.

[@scoutiii]

Chat, is blatant, unoriginal, stolen and thrown in a meat grinder, minced meat slop "art" wholesome???

[@scoutiii]

But as a tool yeah its pretty alright (heal tools, small exerpts of text being made more concise, etc.)

[@paniiziima]

yea deepfake p0rn and vile stuff like that is disgusting... people off themselves over this stuff

It's scary how it can be used in politics or targeting innocent people. Like deepfaking someone's face on someone commiting a crime. Or deepfaking a politician saying something outrageous that they never said... This can be extremely dangerous.

[@gutterg0d]

People have trusted the shit on the internet far too much since way before the emergence of AI. We desperately *need* AI, as it will force humanity in general to become better critical thinkers.

[@PaperThinnGlennHall]

Ai should be used as a tool to assist & not to be used to as a replacement. AI can not create anything on its own, so it shouldn't be called artificial but algorithm intelligence

[@TheSpeep]

I'd look for a different word for the i as well, cuz thid shit aint intelligent.

[@Kormeister]

Questioning the term "intelligence" as well.

[@scoutiii]

Artificial intelligence my ass, this is vaguely useful unoriginal slop machine

[@NicoNobody]

Algorithm Interface

[@lumi-lumi-lumi]

I mean, a person with a camera is not automatically a photographer, and that’s exactly it

[@viktorijavaitkeviciute5888]

I think you should also not just talk to the artists and a.i developers about this, but to corpo's as well, especially the marketing sector, since the marketing sector was the quickest at integrating a.i into the work. There was a viral video of graphic designer losing his job to a.i after working for a marketing agency for many years. Having a marketing's sector voice in there might be beneficial to hear as well, to hear about a.i from all perspectives.

[@chrono4998]

true tho as a consumer, ads that are clearly ai do not even register in my brain. ads are a nuisance in general but sometimes they were good shows of artistry in their own right, now it's meaningless slop even more useless than before that feels like it's trying to shove slop into my brain(even more than vefore)

[@HONDOMACLEAN83]

All I ever hear is the term ‘increased productivity’. The creative industries don’t suffer from productivity issues, quite the opposite, the issue is we’re hitting saturation point with content, games, movies where there is just too much content for people to consume, a.i is just going to contribute to this.

[@kimeojin1234]

"The creative industries don't suffer from productivity issues" Pro or Anti-AI, this is the most ridiculous claim I've heard all week. Artists have been complaining for DECADES that: - Good ideas aren't being made into budgeted projects because each project takes too much time and money, therefore movie companies only make "safe" movies that are bound to be "moneymakers". - Artists in the CGI and VFX industry have complained for decades that the studios are pushing them to do unreasonable workloads at a small budget or time constraint. - Small-scale studios were failing left and right because they could only afford to make ONE project with a limited amount of artists and time, and if that failed, they were Dead On Arrival. I believe that AI, when used by passionate artists, can be used in a truly creative way, to tell stories and create stunning work WITHOUT sacrificing the hard work of the artists involved. The opposite, actually!

[@pRahvi0]

@@kimeojin1234 If only... but due to the nature of executives, I highly doubt that will happen. Instead, they will sacrifice most of the artists to cut the budget and have the few (if any) remaining artists do as unreasonable workload at even smaller budget but with AI tools, and expect the quality stay the same - which it won't but the executives can't tell the difference, they only see the budget. So, does the smaller budget mean more productions of more obscure topics can be made? Well, it might, if someone finds a target group that used to be too small to justify the production before. And said previously marginalized group may be very happy they got a thing made just for them. Or they might be very unhappy, if the thing they got is crap, which it may well be for all the studio cares. It was made with small budget after all. One can always just throw a bunch more in the wind and hope one happens to find it's audience. But I don't really know, perhaps the overall result is net-positive still. I mean, I believe the algorithms can enchance the artists' ability to create things without big budget. But I also believe their ability to get their work be noticed in the flood of much lower effort stuff will stay the same at best, if not even degrade as the quality becomes much harder to know at glance now.

[@Azzazle]

this is the single lamest ai apocalypse we could've ever gotten

[@jamesfoxsmith]

Its just begun, what are you talking about. Wait it becomes sentient.

[@obsu]

@@jamesfoxsmith What we currently have has no chance of becoming sentient even in the near future without some insane breakthroughs. All we've seen since it first came about in 2021/2022 is development of the same technology with better hardware and server space. They're very advanced and complicated algorithms, but they don't work anything like neurons in a brain, and we are nowhere near even close to developing something that's advanced enough to be even sentient, let alone self aware.

[@GothamClive]

@@obsu What is required to gainsentience and how do you know that? Please, share your insights because all the scientists who deal with this issue haven't come to answers.

[@ryttyr14]

True. But it's probably the most realistic one.

[@LaurArt_UK]

@@obsu Well some ai are already capable of deception and threats :') Ai are being used in the development of ai so its speeding up rapidly. Our best hope is that the research also soon helps developers implement enough safeguards and for leaders to implement regulations.

[@Pir-o]

Main issues I have with ai: - Greedy corporations will use it to save money. Even Wacom that sells drawing tablets was called out for using AI drawings on their covers. - Ai problem could be easily fixed if AI wasn't using stolen art from other artists without their permission just to replace them. Give artists an option to submit their art or not, pay them small fee (just like actors get paid every time someone uses their voice or their likeness, literally the same thing) and let it learn from that - There's a huge difference between how people learn from other artists and how AI learns but AI bros always dismiss that fact and pretend it's literally the same - Even before AI job of an artist was extremely underpaid and often people wanted them to work for free just for "exposure". It will only get worse now. That will eventually create a dystopian future where every piece of art, from drawings to music will be created by robots. Just AI models copying other AI models. Art will become completely soulless. No one will spend 10-20 years perfecting their craft when they can create something much better with a click of a button. This + not being able to get a job as an artist will discourage 99.9% of artists

[@GalaxColor]

THIS!!!

[@AndiNewtonian]

Truth. If they'd just done public domain and opt-in work from the start, a lot of the controversy would be a non-issue. If they took the hit and started over with only public domain and opt-in work, that would address a lot of the concerns. But they're too greedy for that.

[@MatejCharbusky]

I'm not trying to take either side of the argument about AI but I'd just like to say that I feel that art (at least in some mediums) has been becoming soulless in the recent years regardless of AI. I mean specifically movies and TV and music. When they're made at scale, they lose the passion and soul that would normally go into them. It's getting harder and harder to find art in these mediums that would be considered good by most. Therefore most good art these days comes from independent artist, which actually ties into your point about greedy corporations. And I agree with you that this whole AI situation will likely discourage artists from pursuing a career in art

[@geistar]

So, does that mean any art that’s open and visible is fair game for training AI-just because that’s what artists do, too? And does that imply no one values the time and effort put into mastering a craft? If that were true, we’d only have IKEA, and no one would ever go to a skilled carpenter for custom furniture. I think a lot of people misunderstand the issue because they’re the ones affected right now. Did anyone protest when a big supermarket opened next to a small family grocery store? Sure, some did, but now they enjoy the convenience of the supermarket without even thinking about the family business. Is this always a good thing? No, but it’s part of progress. Things change, and there are always winners and losers. Instead of dwelling on what we could have done, we should focus on what we can do to support those impacted by these changes.

[@ballzetr4652]

​@@geistar you say we don't complain but instead find a solution... It's about not losing a part of our humanity to greed and soulless consumers, art is a vital piece of our existence, it conveys a range of emotions and messages that should be valued more, not just ditched at the most convenient situation just for a background or to make shitty music, everyday I have to eliminate some ai music channel that yt recommends simply for the immense amount there are. You are saying that we accept losing a part of our humanity for the convenience of progress? Perhaps in the past automatization made big changes, there was medicine and mechanical inventions, but it wasn't for hedonistic reasons, the world and humanity needed those things but ai doesn't do any of that. What is the point of living, if we, as humans, don't do anything? Of course there are more arguments about the state of mega corporations controlling lots of media, but that's because there's no competition, that's because no one wants to take risks, and sometimes somewhere someone creates a revolutionary or charming series, movie or book, becoming special because failure is part of humanity and if everything is just as we want, there's no purpose in living.

[@zrackzar8282]

Artists are always the first to get the axe when it comes to corporate greed. The machine is built to consume not create. So when you view the problem from that perspective AI is this magic thing that allows the engine to run for free! You don't need to labour and struggle to create for an ever hungrier audience. You don't need to spend hours and hours slaving over small corrections and adjustments. You are free to just consume! But the part that that misses is the fact that artists like creating, not just consuming. We don't want to live in front of a conveyor belt of "content" till we explode! We want to express ourselves through our art and we want to share in that joy of creation and consumption in harmony! You can't cut out the hard part of the process and expect it to still taste good though. TLDR, I think that in the social structures that we live in today AI is a tool that will do much more harm than good and it is inextricably tied to the removal of humans from the path of the corporate machine. To Jaza directly, I have always appreciated your art and your videos and I will continue to do so. I appreciate your vulnerability in this video. I think that as members of an amoral social system we each have to decide what we can excuse and what we can't. You are trying to survive in this system of KZbin and so you have had to make some hard decisions. I can't blame you for taking shortcuts and using AI. I just wish we didn't live in a world that tells us the only way to have what we want is to cut corners and kill our consciences. The issue is not the tool it's the world that forces you to use it. Personally I think it would be better if we got rid of the tool because you can't make people use it wisely but that is my own perspective. Thanks for reading!!

[@TopengProductions]

13:45 People need to understand there's a huge difference between using copyrighted music in a video or animation, and using AI art. For one when people use copyrighted music in animations, videos, edits, they aren't trying to claim that they made it. It's very clear that someone else made it. In fact it's very often the opposite, with people tagging their videos as being animations of that song or edits with that song. And think of how awesome it must feel for a smaller artist to see their song used for a piece of, what is either functionally or directly fan art. Think of how amazing it must be for a musical artist to see their art that they made get used by someone so passionate about it in a and awesome piece of art. Think of how amazing that is. Think about how, if that video gets popular, how many people are going to get exposed to that music, how many fans that can form. I know for a fact I would not have become such a big fan of lemon demon, or tally hall, or gorillaz, or chapel roan, without people making fan works of theirs. Remixing it and reusing it to express their passion, not only for what they made using the art, but for the original work of the artist itself. Now think of someone who got their art, video, music, what have you, fed into an AI for someone else to use. Unless the person using the AI says so there's sometimes very little way of knowing they didn't even make it, passing off someone else's work as completely their own. Even if the artist does disclose that the "art" was AI, what about the original artist. The person who unwillingly had their art stollen and used. They've been erased from the picture. There's no way for anyone to know that's their artwork in there. Their artwork that was stolen. If an AI "art" image or animation video gets popular that used their art in the training data, how are people supposed to know who the artist, or artists, were who were actually responsible for that even being possible to get made. The people, the actual artistic people responsible for providing the creativity that made the AI imitation good enough to be worth stealing in the first place are unrecognized, forgotten, never seeing the praise that their stolen work should have been able to receive. They effectively become lost media. Even if they find out they're being stolen from there's no real way to stop it. Even if they bring it up, a lot of people will just never care enough to take issue with their unique identity and voice being erased. Even with Shutterstock images, and people using other people's art in youtube videos and memes without credit it is very apparent that they didn't make that art. It's not just taking something someone else made, and claiming it as yours now, it's remix culture. The greatest creative melting pot on the internet. Taking something someone else made and adding something to it, maybe even criticizing it, but a key part of remix culture is that it's upfront. It tells you that it's a remix, that it's made from something someone else made, and if you like it there will be a name in the title, a link in the description, or someone in the comments telling you exactly where you can find it or who made it. With AI everyone is robbed of the positive aspects of remix culture. The adding on, the spreading of artists, the ability for people to see their work in something someone wanted to create something for or with and say, hell yeah I made that, or oh wow, I can't believe an artist made that, I could be creative like that and learn how to make that. All they see is a see of pixels that a computer made. Not the artists responsible for it being possible. And if they want to make something like that, they get to go hey, I can tell a computer to make that.

[@scorchingbread]

Im somone who can understand uses of ai when there's no financial gain, and its not used to harm anyone. Heck even for just using it for an idea before you fully flesh it yourself. Even as an artist ive used ai every now and then just for fun of "oh what would this random mashup look like?" Not because i couldn't draw it, i could, but just because i wondered what a computer's interpretation would be. My problem really comes in when people try to pass something off for money, i cant name the amount of times ive seen ai art at craft festivals now. Like i want to support local artists, not just some shill. That and the fact that people either make fake videos of things, or a video is true but people wont believe it cause ai couldve made it.

[@gehinkun]

You still give money and traffic and incentive to the companies who steal peoples art. Also the enviromental aspect.

[@caoimhedoesstuff9293]

I’m a writer and I’ve used it for brainstorming every now and then. It’s great for names because I can give it a name I like and ask for names with a similar vibe, or describe a character and their background and ask for similar names. However I stopped using it after I realised the environmental impacts. Didn’t feel right to be damaging the planet just to make things a touch easier for me

[@liamduguid]

@@caoimhedoesstuff9293 if you're talking about language models, you can locally run open source models on a laptop and the only environmental damage is using your laptop battery.

[@CorpusGreed]

My main (not only, but main) problen with AI are people who ask it to create something, but then present it as their own hard work. The most obvious one is "AI artist". The hell do you mean _artist?_ You didn't create anything, your friend AI did. All you did wae just giving the idea! It's like asking someone to build you a house, but then calling yourself a "builder" Same goes to quote on quote "writers". It's not YOUR text - AI made it, and you replacing few words still doesn't make YOU a writer. Its hsould be the other way around! And then the oudacitt of people like that to say: "we are basically the same" - heck no! I've spent several years perfecting my skills, buying equipment, tuning up my talents to make a picture inside my head come to life - while YOU simply typed few key-words on your PC 🫵😠

[@XartiXV]

​@@caoimhedoesstuff9293Some organic art tools and the other tech are also environmental threats or have environmental concerns, like acrylic paints or our computers. So, this "ai is an environmental threat." Is largely misguided and over exaggerating, especially when our art tools and other electronics are just as bad or worse than ai.

[@rachelduffy9458]

Good for you Jazza. Keep the conversation going. Talking about uncomfortable topics helps stop people polarising. Nothing is as simple as black and white. And education is the cure to fear

[@parassargard68]

Best comment I have seen so far.

[@vinny-g6s]

I just wish people understood that holding companies accountable and protecting workers doesn't mean taking away the technology or being a luddite.

[@darkfire_ninja]

"Education is the cure to fear" those are some wise words and also facts.

[@penguinsushi8442]

Love this comment and video.

[@noahsylvester1754]

@@vinny-g6s maybe if detractors said things other than "AI is literally evil and we are all going to die if it's allowed to progress" every time they saw a picture of an anime girl with 3 hands and 20 fingers, people would understand that point of view better

[@rogue3398]

When I was in high school, way back before all of this, my commercial art teacher said that, "There is no such thing as cheating in art. There are things that are frowned upon, but you can use whatever means are available to you to achieve the result you're looking for." I think even he would be disgusted with what that argument has turned into. I don't know what to think anymore, honestly.

[@ForOne814]

I mean, that'll just mean that he didn't believe his own words.

[@zanespade5051]

This really makes me wonder if jazza and his team are ok with ai taking Their art to train it.

[@pRahvi0]

If it's their own AI, I suppose they are. That's how it should be generally, to my mind: you train the algorithm with your own art and you own the result too.

[@GrayD_Fox]

@@pRahvi0well that’s not what these “ai artist” or corporations are doing at all

[@pRahvi0]

@@GrayD_Fox Well, then it's corporations and/or "ai artist" taking the art, not AI as a whole.

[@ChillaxeMake]

It's also not taking the art. It's learning from the art similar to how we humans learn from pieces of art; we wouldn't think to go abstract if artists like Piet Mondrian didn't exist.

[@pRahvi0]

@@ChillaxeMake Then how did the first abstract art appear when none existed yet?

[@Popper_Drop]

I had an AI account follow my art account and was honestly a little nervous because it was right after i posted a specific character and their account was based around characters of the same fantasy species. All went by fine until i got a message out of the blue, them saying that they wanted to give me a gift. I told them explicitly that I hope and dont want them to have run my art through AI for the gift, they said they didn't, but... what they sent me was some AI work of my character in almost the same pose as the original image and all the similarities just made me so sick. They deny it but it felt like they lied to my face because I've been looking at AI for years now and picking up tells feels second nature It just felt so dirty - i know it was a "gift" nd they were up front but it felt so slimy and wrong. I ended up blocking them and the plethora of AI accounts that cross share with them out of fear of it happening again

[@Popper_Drop]

In saying that though there's a little project that my friends (3 people - 2 artists 1 writer) and I want to do but the scope of it is SO large that it would take us a year or more to complete with no pay ever because it's just supposed to be a fun little thing for us - inside jokes specifically that no one else would get so it's not like we'd even try profiting so trying to lighten the load with background assets at the very least

[@edwardwestmoreland-caunter6128]

​@Popper_Drop That sounds so creepy and dare I say "defiling"? I'm an artist too, and if someone sent me "artwork" of my own OCs, I imagine it would feel like such an intrusion. Like they'd broken into my house and stolen my clothes, or sent me a video of them playing with my dogs, or something similar, and expected me to be happy about it. I don't want to liken it to anything explicit, as that really is next level, but to use someone else's art or OCs is just so deeply personal, I'm really struggling to think of a suitable analogy

[@edwardwestmoreland-caunter6128]

IMO, your use of AI is fine, because no one's profiting off it and you're not trying to claim it's your own :)

[@dokchampa9324]

Use Glaze and Nightshade, it protects from AI scraping

[@JamieDunbar]

@@edwardwestmoreland-caunter6128 Actually I think your analogy of a video playing with your dogs is almost perfect. Like, my best friend could send me a video of them feeding or playing with my dog in my house and I'd be like..."ah dude, you don't have a key to my house..." Even though they're doing a 'nice thing' that would be incredibly invasive.

[@zairvix]

In 2022 I made my last piece of digital art. This was around the time Dalle 2 was just kicking off and ai art started to really blow people away. Digital art had always been the one thing in my life I was actually really talented at creating, a piece would take me 20+ hours to complete sometimes and at the very end of going through that I'd post it and it'd get thousands of impressions and I'm not even a known identity online. The art was good and it didn't matter how many subs or followers I had people saw it and boosted it to insane levels and I never felt more proud of myself because I knew I was good, I couldn't deny or lie to myself because the evidence was staring me in the face. Then I downloaded and used Dalle 2. I described an image I'd come up with in great detail hit a button and... there it was. at about 85 to 90% accuracy to what I'd imagined in seconds I had multiple versions of exactly what was in my head. It was fantastic for a bit and then I realized what this meant. It meant very soon (now today) people would be posting art generated by some improved version of this and all of a sudden anyone with a computer and stable diffusion is an incredible artist who can create hundreds of amazing works every day if they wanted. The novelty, appreciation, and scarcity of talent was now gone. I created one more peice of art. something I put my entire heart into in order to prove myself wrong about this and when I posted it, nobody cared, nobody noticed and I even had a comment asking if it was ai. And so I never made art again. A part of me that gave me purpose had been taken and for what? So some company could offer people with no prior experience or hard work or talent the ability to washout every artist? I hate it. It breaks my heart.

[@Fyrebirdi]

Damn, I felt this comment in my soul. 2022 was also the last time I did a digital illustration

[@edwardwestmoreland-caunter6128]

I'm a naturally emotional guy, and this really choked me up. Because you've hit one of the biggest nails on the head. It's just fricking sad. It's soul-destroying. I hate AI with every fibre of my being because of what it means for us as a species. What's the point of us anymore if we're so replaceable? I work in retail, so I'm used to not being noticed. I have few friends and live in the middle of nowhere, so if I vanished, virtually nobody would notice. My "Value" is entirely based on how useful I am to those around me. But art and writing actually felt like I had SOMETHING that no one else could do. Sure, there are people better than me, but they're not me, and that's what mattered. Now it feels like not even that matters anymore. Today, anyone who says anything about anything is attacked, making it dangerous, harmful or impossible to stand for anything. AI has made it impossible to tell what's real and what isn't, and anything that is real is stolen and twisted before anyone even sees it. We keep electing people to power who will make everyone's lives worse, who will weaponise AI to further their own narrative while real tragedies and atrocities go unnoticed. Unsolvable wars are raging constantly, and all the time, the planet is boiling and will soon be uninhabitable across huge swathes, which will lead to even more war, hatred and persecution. We are literally running headfirst into extinction because it was easier and more profitable than stopping. AI is the embodiment of the contempt people have developed for what it means to be human. It feels like nobody wants meaning, they just want convenience, no matter the cost, and that breaks my heart

[@FriskyKitsune]

I would like to encourage you to keep making art if it really matters to you. You still have a chance. I know it's discouraging trying to find an audience, but if you're good at what you do, or are at least learning and making progress over time you can slowly build up an audience. AI art doesn't look quite like real art, and people are learning to tell the difference after being surrounded by AI art for so long. Even if once in a while one person wonders if your art is AI, that doesn't mean most people think that way. The people who post AI art will get bored eventually since people are not as impressed by AI images anymore. When all of the AI hype dies down, the artists who didn't give up will still be here.

[@kawaiikiwi.1820]

You should totally keep doing art!! Real art is always better because you can tell it’s made with intention rather than aimless lines trying to mimic a goal. I’m sure you’ll do great if you keep at it!! :D

[@FoxbrushDraws]

Keep making art. It doesn't matter if it doesn't become viral. It's real, and it's yours, and it still matters. Your art still matters.

[@funforall9741]

Thank you for the respectful and open conversation Jazza, I'm a multimedia artist as a hobby, i enjoy voice work, music production, and physical and digital art. I had hoped when a.i emerged, that it would replace things like debugging code, or designing prototypes, this would have meant instead of work I'd be free to actually practice the arts that i love. Sadly it feels like instead a.i has been used to "boil" art. Break it down to its most basic components and copy paste the formula with no actual thought behind why we place this here in the foreground, or why we use this color next to this one. a.i doesn't know why artists that are fed to it do what they do, just knows patterns and copies them. And that is the problem, because eventually we might get lost in the sea of patterns and lose the actual art sinking to the bottom. I would prefer if we stick to silica based life forms using pattern recognition to rebuild the economy and increase resources, not take away the things we like to make with those resources. (Sorry for the long winded comment thanks for reading to the end)

[@michaelstevenson5044]

THIS

[@lorisang5696]

Too bad, so sad. Learn a new skill and abandon your art. Because most of the current AIs can generate better art than 90% of artists can. It's good that AI is here. Because the people who aren't artists can use AI generated art to complete their projects without sinking 100s or 1000s of dollars in

[@n.m3677]

​@@lorisang5696 Dude, "your projects" are useless, pointless slops generated by an algorithm. You're literally creating nothing and are totally incapable of, but hey, you're convinced that finally someone is gonna care and think of you as a creative genius. Because we know you are talking about your projects too, aren't we? Please, show to the world your greatness, I can't wait for it. And please, when you will do it, don't be shy, say it loud that is gen-ai generated: texts, pics, images, animations, voices ecc. don't hide it :)

[@lorisang5696]

@n.m3677 I never once claimed to be an artist, little boy. I'm just saying that I'd rather not use art made by an artist who does strokes. AI generated art is better than what 99% of commissioned artists do. I don't go selling my AI generated art to others, stop writing fanfictions lol. I use the art I generate as static images in my videos, or turn them into videos. I also use it to make my channel banner, pfp, and video thumbnails. 10 x better than giving all that money to an artist💀💀

[@lorisang5696]

@n.m3677 don't make me laugh. It ain't slop if it's better than 99% of what artists can do. They charge extravagant prices for the smallest piece of art. And the art looks subpar at best. When I use different prompts to generate different images and mash them up together, it looks better than what any artist can do. Thank god AI is here, because I don't have to pay to artists with overinflated egos, who act like they're victims when their art is criticized. I don't sell the art I make with AI generated pics. I use them mostly as my video thumbnails

[@KingdomVR]

I work for a TV production company and one producer fully used A.I to create a pitch for his new TV show idea. Set design, characters, costume, logo's, locations, everything was A.I generated. None of the artists knew he was doing this until he pitched it! He was so pleased with himself and bragging that he did it all himself with A.I.... This didn't go down well as, the sets were impossible to create, locations were impossible to find in reality etc etc. We said what if we created the initial idea with A.I and made your job redundant? He didn't know what to say, he thought we'd all be amazed and pleased that he did it all?

[@Vidzaes]

I think the bottom line is consent. If someone is not okay with ai training itself using their image/skills no matter the field, the developer should not be able to use their likeness at all. It should even be illegal to do so. On the other hand, if someone does consent, the developer should be able to train their model using the person who consented. I'm far from a lawyer, but I can imagine a world were there is a contract between anyone who's likeness is used for an ai and the developer of said ai every single time an ai trains on someone's work. Maybe they get 60% of all profits made from the ai, maybe they are able to pull the plug at any moment, maybe it's a flat fee. I feel like this solves the main issue people have with ai, as it's no longer stealing, the person has to give permission. What if the art/voice/whatever was created by the person that developed the ai? Then they are choosing to do something with their own work. They are turning something they own, into something they still very much own. In a perfect world, ai would help us a lot more than it would ever hurt us. We do not live in a perfect world however. As long as people offer their ai model to the general public, anyone can make anything, and that's terrifying. I don't think there's anyone one solution that makes everyone happy. Generally speaking, artists are very against it for obvious reasons, and non-artist are either on the fence or for it. Again, generally speaking. Both parties want two different things, one wants fair returns for their work, the other wants to minimize the cost and increase the production. I've mentioned it before, but ai is not only going after art, or voices, or character appearance. Ai is a strong tool and can be used for anything anywhere. Look at kwebbelkop. He made an ai youtube channel that is entirely run by an ai. The ai becomes the whole personality, it replaces the content creator. Granted, the content is awful, but that's also what we said about ai art when it first started appearing. Kwebbelkop also made mentions that he would try to sell the ai to other content creators so they can do the same. It's not farfetched to see a future where there are many many many channels/streamers that are entirely produced/edited/posted/etc. by ai. Is that not just soul sucking to think about though? On the other hand, ai could be very beneficial. Take people with aphantasia for example. Maybe the strive to be an artist, they have a fire that burns so bright inside them to create things and bring happiness to those around them. They could have the best hand eye coordination in the world, and the best knowledge of any art program/tool in the world, but it might just not matter if they can't think of the image they actually want to draw. I'm not claiming that I have it, or that I know what it's like, and there definitely are artists in the world that have aphantasia, such as RubberRoss. This is just an extreme example of where ai would be very helpful. If this hypothetical artist was able to put words down and get a visual idea of what his scene would look like before he even put the pen on the canvas, he could be the best artist in the world, as Beethoven to the pianists or composers. To say I'm on the fence would be an unfair declaration. I think both sides have good points, very good points actually. I'd say that I'm so very much for as I am so very much against it. I'm not claiming to know the answer, but I also know that I hold no power to change others hearts on the matter. The closest I can claim to be affected by it, is that I make pixel art, and I'm trying to become a programmer. I have very little knowledge or experience in either field, and I want to get better. I don't use ai for a plethora of reasons, but one of them being that I don't think it would make me better in either of the fields, and none of them are because I fear what people would think of me. I feel the time for conversations are gone personally. I don't think there's anything that one side can say that will sway the other side. I think the conversation needs to happen at a lawful level, where any party who has anything to gain or lose should be equally present and have an unbiassed jury of people decide what needs to be done and apply it to every level of ai. This is not a conversation I'm willing to have, I have no stakes in the race, nor do I think one side should trump the other. A line needs to be drawn, but it's not a straight line.

[@bitfiddler]

As I have posted several times in this discussion already. Where is the consent given for a human to look at some artist's work and learn from it? It is nonexistent, even though a human can recreate the style of the artist far more accurately than any AI can. There is not an AI made yet that can replicate an artist's style perfectly. Yet there are literally thousands, hell even millions of humans than can replicate other artists style so accurately that you could never tell them apart. The issue is not in the training, but what a human does with the end product. If a human tries to sell the results as an original and claim it was made by the artist in question then it is theft, however if they just sign their own name at the bottom of the canvas, it is now just art.

[@minimal3734]

"the bottom line is consent." I don't think this is going to happen. The purpose of AI is to have a system understand the human world. This can no be limited by excluding parts of the world. There will be no new legislation that would allow this, because it would open the door to deliberately restrict what AI can learn and differentiate it from what humans can learn. There is no incentive to make this distinction and it would be a threat to the further advancement of AI. Publicly available data, be it text, images, audio or video is available for everybody and also for AI, and it will probably stay this way.

[@greystorm9974]

​@@bitfiddlerthe problem is the "training" This word is used as a euforism for "doing statistical model building on tiger people's work" What a human can do perfectly is already called plagerism. Legal and moral precedent is already established. The AI model was build, using someone else's work, without them being compensated. When you copy something and then look at it, you steal the idea, and then you make the labour to copy. Here the labour was stolen. And not only to make obvious copies, that most would want nothing to do with, but to profit of new compositions that does not look like, but is still a product of someone else's labour. Ai did not get inspired. It's a statistical model build on someone else's labour.

[@pRahvi0]

@@greystorm9974 Also, there is a fundamental difference in scale. A human could go into art galleries every day for half their life and spend the other half replicating what they saw, yet they still can only produce so many counterfeits. Algorithms provide the ability to do that and more with a fraction of the effort. So, while the problem existed before, the AI revolution makes it unmanagable.

[@greystorm9974]

@@pRahvi0 i actually disagree The problem is not scale. Ease is not the argument i want to use against AI. Plagerism had been immoral and illegal through hundreds of not thousands of years. By machine or man. Inspiration, where one looks at a picture, then through their own perception, interpretation and experience. If it is not transformative, it's still just plagiarism, by man. A computer cannot perceive, interpret or have experiences. An argument can be made that it IS transformative. BUT it is an outcome of a statistical model build on other people's work. To make your model you used other people's skill and Labour. It's like hiring a consultant without him knowing and never paying. Ai Pics are like predictive text. You start with 50% white dots and 50% black and you change them into similarities that the user then accepts or rejects. (I know artists that train on copying other art 1:1. They never claim it as their own or post it to other people. By using AI and saying its okay, you do)

[@MDeRick]

I used to be more on the fence thinking AI would be good if used as a tool but I have shifted my perspective as of late let me explain some of my points. First of all every time an artist tries to make an argument for AI they include the AI curing diseases and solving other issues argument. I feel like it's obvious we are not talking about those AI and it should be no surprise that the companies developing generative AI for art have no part or interest in these things. It's way more profitable to sell subscriptions for AI slop. The attitude and goal of current AI (the companies behind them) and the way it's presented is in the first place not as a tool. And even if you use it as a tool I feel you yourself are becoming the tool giving in to the corporate need for cheaper and easier to exploit creative work. It's a slippery slope and kind of vain to think YOU would be the one to keep your job just because for now these technologies still need a fair bit of human correcting. The art is completely stolen and even uses the original artists name as a prompt alot of the time. This makes it so google results are filled with AI copies of these artists taking away their digital identity which has become so important for artists these days. There is currently still a very real possibility of changing the landscape of AI art companies and making sure contributions are consensual and compensated. But videos like ergojosh' create an idea that professional artists are not against this current Ai and can be used by the corporations to escape these regulations. While he presented his video as an ethical way to use AI, the companies see it as AI itself is ethical so it should not be regulated This is why alot of us who are now against AI lash out (some way too harsh) against people making arguments for AI. Entertaining the idea of using AI in workflow is just not something I think we can afford right now as we should be united in letting the world know that nobody asked for this type of generative AI in the creative world, while there are so much more useful AI actual functions and tools that I can think of that just aren't being developed right now. Because at the end of the day when you hear Pro AI people talk it is SO clear they are just waiting till the day comes that artists get completely replaced and they don't need us pesky artists anymore. The vile and smug comments I have seen from not just pro AI but actual CEO of these companies is so concerning to me I don't think of using their technology even one bit. But conclusion Yes we can talk about it. I just hope you are careful when considering these things and bring in the right people. I highly encourage you speak to someone like Steven Zapata or Karla Ortiz who have a much better way of putting it than I do

[@Feorlin-o9k]

100% this. You put it way better than I did.

[@TheROOTminus1]

Generative AI as a concept, I can understand. As to how it has come to exist, and the whole industry motions behind it; hell no, burn it with fire!

[@4dragons632]

Unfortunately "changing the landscape of ai art companies" at this time most likely will mean those companies pulling up the ladder behind themselves and continuing to use their already stolen data which will have convenient legal exceptions that apply only to existing data scraped before 2024.

[@Khunai.]

THIS!!! Came to say something very similar myself. When we're talking about AI art we are not talking about AI as a whole. There are many things AI can be useful for especially with science and medicine. What we ARE doing is talking about the fact that EVERY SINGLE AI ENGINE THAT MAKES ART is trained off of art that it DID NOT get permission to train on. It's not the same as an artist looking at other art to learn. Its not like a person who sat and LEARNED these techniques and how to do them and then made their own creation. Its a machine that just takes the artwork pixel for pixel and uses that to make new stuff. It's like people who anthropomorphize their animals too much but now they're doing it to a machine. It is NOT a person learning techniques, its a machine copying and mashing together things its kept in its data banks. I would be TOTALLY supportive if there was an AI art tool that was meant to help artists out with portions of their work, and the artists who's work MADE the AI actually DONATED those art pieces to the AI. It's the fact this has all happened with no permission, no input from artists, and now big companies are using AI as a way to not have to pay real artists money. We didn't get a say on whether our works were used in a machine and now the machine can replicate our art styles and no longer needs us? So then what? Sure JAZZA might be an upstanding guy who would never let AI replace his real artists..... But that's not the case for a MAJORITY of companies that are trying to utilize AI for their art. I FULLY understand that AI tech can be used in your art without your art being entirely AI. But that doesn't mean that's what its getting used for. Freelance artists all over the planet have been impacted by AI. Hell, I stopped taking art commissions and moved onto costuming work for this exact reason. SOOOO many people are no longer willing to pay full price for custom artwork because AI can give them what they want for free. In whatever style they want. How am I even supposed to charge someone a measly $30, much less what the art would ACTUALLY be worth if I wasn't desperately undercutting myself to still make money to pay my bills, when they can get "higher quality" artwork out of a machine for free? Some people still value real art from real artists. But many do not.

[@tahunuva4254]

Funny how people who were so smug about downloading apes gets so shirty about people downloading actual art.

[@Fox_phx]

I do sympathize for the hard working artist especially w the ai that can copy the artist art style perfectly

[@bitfiddler]

Do you sympathize with the hard-working mail man who has lost his job due to the proliferation of e-mail? Or do you still use the e-mail even now knowing it stole millions of jobs in America? What about the hard-working farmers who lost their jobs to the onslaught of automated machines? Do you still eat food produced by machine run farming? And what about handmade furniture? Do you buy cheap furniture made by machines? Or do you stick by the hard-working craftsman that do it all by hand? Any technology that comes around is going to steal someone's job, but in return it also creates new jobs for other people. It is the circle of life, all progress, all life, all of society is based on the ebb and flow of the microcosm of technology and industry. As all the mail men were losing their jobs, millions of jew jobs in the IT sector were created. And as the farmers were losing their jobs, there were new jobs created in factories and for mechanics to maintain the machines. This is all just natural progression of life. Nothing is permanent, life is in a constant state of flux. And evolution will always cause things to change and adapt or die out altogether. But I do not foresee AI ever killing Art, as no other radical change in the art world in the last million years has killed art, I doubt AI will either. The most primitive medium for art was charcoal on cave walls, and yet people still to this day use charcoal to create art, even with all the technology that has come since then. There are still artists, and they still make art, even though it is easier, cheaper, and better than what was around before. The old methods still exist and have not been deleted.

[@akashajones6079]

I wouldn't say perfectly

[@Zye1984]

People being black and white on issues and not listening to each other is the pinnacle of our issues today, in all aspects, not just AI. I applaud you for this video. We do indeed need to have civil conversations and address each issue at hand in a logical manner. People's emotions tend to get in the way of that and hinders progress. We should focus on the bigger issues first, such as corporations using AI when they could have hired someone. Ethics of using AI need to be **firmly** set. I actually had a little convo with ChatGPT about this, albeit more about misinformation, and came up with some interesting conclusions. I'll post the convo in a reply to this message if anyone is interested.

[@BigSources]

this video is amazing. even though i am clearly biased towards one of the sides protrayed here, i do appreciate that you are able to show both sides of the topic so accurately and reasonably. it helps people be more understanding towards other opinions and educates those who are only aware of one side of the story.

[@RyePhoenix]

I do appreciate you finally broaching this topic, I know it can be scary when conversation around the topic often turns very black and white, when in reality it's the grey that is often what's needed but lacking. It's a topic we really should talk about more! To talk about the nuance, and even how AI image generation could be ideally done. Many comments here already talk about a lot of the main points, but I do want to bring up two different aspects that I think are important reasons to consider. 1) Ethics of the Current AI Software - This, for me, is a big sticking point. I don't actually have a problem with the idea of AI image generation, I think it could be a great tool for creatives to use in their process whether it be to help brainstorm, cut out some of the tedious parts of process (i.e. generate some buildings in the background of this thumbnail, remove a person from a the background of a photo, etc.), or any part of the creative process. However, I can't bring myself to use a software that was trained off the backs of unwilling artists for profit. That's what bothers me. That all these image generation models are trained not as a way to advance our toolset and improve what we can do, but as a way for the companies who make them to make a profit. If there was an image generation model that was only trained off those who volunteered their work for its training, and as an open source tool where images generated were not able to be used for profit (or at the very least, the contributers to the model were compensated), I think that could work. But that's not what we have right now, and until a model can come along that can do that I don't there can be an "ethical" way to use these models. 2) The "Can't Afford It" Clause - When you talked about using AI in your backgrounds, you mentioned how it's because you wouldn't be able to afford having someone create those backgrounds. It's understandable that the project doesn't have the budget to hire an enviornment artist, financial constraints are an unfortunate reality. It's not reasonable to tell people that "you have to fork up the money or don't do it at all". However, something people tend to forget is open source and free use work. These are photos, illustrations, creations, etc that people have put out with the express permission of letting them be used in other's works - a lot of them with only requiring crediting of their work, not even financial payment. You can see this same concept applied in a different field with open source software. It's a huge benefit to people and often people aren't given enough credit for all the free license work that's put out there. It may not be exactly what you're imagining, or maybe it's a piece that's been used plenty of times, but when working without hiring someone to do that work, that's a reality you face. The rise of the internet has given so many more people access to tools and resources that they wouldn't otherwise have, and often that is so unfortunately overlooked. When we allow ourselves to profit off the suffering of those in our own community, we're making the community worse for those to come. For me, these are two of the biggest reasons I'm against the usage of current AI models (outside of even bigger reasons like energy consumption that have been covered heavily).

[@lolpower2174]

Completely agree with you! :)

[@jasmin9035]

Absolutely agree with every part of what you wrote! 1) Exactly my stance, thank you for writing what I found difficult to put into words. 2) Hadn't even thought about that aspect, which just further proves that you're absolutely right!

[@absolstoryoffiction6615]

In short... Copyright and Budget. No one has $50k+ to hire a decent artist for things like VTubing as one example. While Corporations did violate USA Copyright for their AI Data Bases. That much is extremely clear and self evidence. Job Security is... Meaningless... As if artists are the only ones even before AI was a thing. While, yes, VA protection (Actors) toward AI is heavily needed. Contract Law must be better in higher ethics than how it is now. (It's fine if companies use AI Art Software... Just do it legally, under the laws. Not outside or beyond the laws.)

[@michaelstevenson5044]

Agreed!

[@Gladissims]

I would agree with you, if not for the fact that generative AI is so incredibly energy and resource intensive. I read somewhere that generating between 10 and 13 answers in chat GPT takes about 500 ml of water. Take a moment to consider that. 500 ml. For 13 answers. That's insane. Now imagine millions, if not billions of people engaging with this technology every hour of every day. It's such a waste of resources for work humans can do just fine on their own! So no, generative AI should not be free, and from an environmental standpoint, it should not be used at all. We need to stop prioritizing capital over the environment and human wellbeing.

[@awesomeized1432]

I think it’s a worthwhile exercise to consider where AI could ethically be used in the artistic process. The absolute bare minimum is that artists should be able to exclude their works from training databases. The industry never should have gotten this far in the first place working on the backs of artists stolen labor. I think that ai is certainly a useful tool for gathering and consolidating reference material. Generating poses, fashion, color palettes, etc. if a style is imitated, indicate that style. An ethical example prompt might be something like: “I want to do a character illustration in the style of Jazza. Show me illustrations by Jazza and describe what makes his style unique.” And output would be an assortment of images Jazza would approve to appear in databases, and it would do an analysis on his use of color, line weight, etc.. that way actually artists can use it for study in a way that we already do, it’s just speeding up the process. I think there’s also lots of improvement to be done in AI assisted tools in drawing programs. Being able to prompt specific actions rather than search through a library of auto actions might be useful. Ex. “Put a chromatic aberration filter on my ‘Line Art’ layer.” Or “apply a gradient to soften the color transition in the selected area.” Things that the programs can already do, if you really know how to use them, but might be made simpler and faster with AI integration.

[@darkfire_ninja]

Hello jazza, I have a suggestion for how to be more transparent when you use AI. I think the way you use AI is fine, but when you do use AI, then you should show or say that you used AI. Maybe adding a water mark to the AI generated images that say they are AI generated or something.

[@catgirlcataclysm]

honestly that's a great idea

[@sadiesnail]

But why though? In his case most of the AI uses were for conceptualizing, and then were later replaced with custom art. We artists don't have to put a watermark on our work or disclose when we used the stamp brush to draw the grass, or copy/paste for complex repetitive designs. If it's just being used as a tool I don't think a label is necessary and would just cause people to dismiss the artwork in the current mindset. The only time someone should disclosing their art is AI art, is when it is majority AI art. Like if someone grabbed an AI image and just recolored the eyes, yea that is AI art. But not when it's used as a small part of the creative process, and especially not if it isn't even included in the finished product. Otherwise we will have to start listing every stock photo, 3d model, stamp brush, etc. that we commonly use in the digital art process.

[@khv12345]

@@sadiesnail stamps, brushes, 3d models, etc are made by artists for artists, and copy and pasting your own art is still your own art just reused. ai is trained off other people's work without them even knowing which is why its important to say if its ai or not

[@micryt.]

@@khv12345 What if I used work of other artists as references for my art? What if I used them in the concept art first? Do I also have to tag all of them? If that's true than, oh boy, a shit ton on art should be labelled.

[@darkfire_ninja]

@@sadiesnail Good point, but most people dont really care if you use a stamp, brush, or 3d model, etc. But AI art is very controversial, so, in my opinion, people should say if they are using AI art until AI is less controversial.

[@thebigshep]

18:30 "You can no more call yourself an artist if the work you're producing is built on a foundation of AI than you could call yourself an artist with the skill level of someone whose work you're tracing. It is simply not your work or skill being used." Saying that after trying to justify using AI as a conceptual foundation for your card game is genuinely baffling.

[@pRahvi0]

If the blacksmith uses factory-produced steel bar instead of one he smelted himself from ore, he can still be called a blacksmith. If he only operates the machine that shapes those bars into the final form, it's questionable. If he has no more than a vague control over what the machine does, I don't think he can anymore. The line is blurry but it exists somewhere between the extremes. Perhaps we need a new terminology to differentiate between the stages.

[@thebigshep]

@pRahvi0 you're talking about raw materials. That's not an equivalent to what I'm talking about. That would be more akin to saying that an artist who doesn't mix their own pigments is still an artist. Which is of course the case. The problem with these comparisons is that there really isn't an equivalent to AI in terms of stealing thousands of people's work and rearranging them in a way that seems new but isn't. It's not the same thing as inspiration. An artist can forget the details of every lesson they ever had that taught them how to draw, and they'll still be able to draw. An AI cannot function without a dataset, and right now those datasets are compiled from the work of others with neither compensation nor consent. Often without their knowledge at all.

[@tttttttttttttttp12]

​@@thebigshep Exactly.

[@pRahvi0]

@@thebigshep Painter's raw materials are pigments but artist uses ideas, not just paint. So, in a sense, artist's "raw materials" are ideas, most of which come from other people - either directly or via algorithms trained on other peoples' works. The question is essentially: how much does one have to influence the idea for it to become their own, akin to how much does the metal worker have to influence the product for it to be made by them instead of the machine? A whole another question is whether or not the algorithms are supposed to use even copyrighted art as care-free as they now do, but that's not a question about the user's artistry.

[@goodvibes8036]

I have read a lot of comments here about how we should use AI as a tool. I’m just going to be totally honest and not try to be "neutral." AI is not a tool. Of all the tools I’ve used in my life-whether it’s a tuner for my guitar, a drilling machine for building, a mixer for baking, or the auto-fill and lasso tools when I’m painting-they all share one thing in common: they are tools. Yes, they make my life easier, but as a human, I still have to operate them; they don’t do everything by themselves. What I mean is that it’s very dangerous to blur the lines. Where do we blur the lines? I feel like this is exactly the same as imagining a future where a chef in a kitchen has AI humanoid robots to make all the food and serve the guests, or a carpenter uses robots to build an entire house without ever laying a finger on it. What if they just say, “It’s a tool and not a replacement”? I ask you this: how can something that does everything be a tool? Yes, we can all talk about "how to be ethical about the use of AI" and how people should use it as respectfully as possible. Look, we live in a cold, corporate, capitalistic society where money is everything! In this cold world full of money-hungry people-which we all are because we can’t live without it-people are going to take full advantage of AI if they can do minimal work and make money from it. I’m tired of people trying to be "neutral." Giant corporations don’t care about your armchair philosophies on ethics and morality when it comes to AI-they only care about money. And no, AI is not the same as the revolution of the camera or the car. The camera and the car don’t do everything. But AI is literally being marketed as something that can do everything, and that’s what it’s being designed to do.

[@creativebeanart]

But, to use your words, it "doesn't do everything", therefore it's a tool. The machine/computer/app still has to be operated by a human and secondly, it's not intelligent (yet!). It's just a black box of linear equations that's massively complicated and no-one quite understands how it does what it does, and it's capable of many complex tasks, but it's not intelligent in the same way as humans and does not have any of the emotions. Ergo, it's still a tool....for now.

[@Kanoog]

It's 100% a Tool - Hello Professional Artist here, graduated on multiple scholarships through my degree back in 2008. Using references has always and will ALWAYS be a important part of the creative process. Having the ability to generate a more specific concepts is incredible and pumping out so many ideas at once is even better. You don't know what the definition of a "tool" when it comes to the creative process. If the INTERNET is a tool to gain inspiration how is AI any different?

[@tttttttttttttttp12]

​@@creativebeanart if all you had to do to use a hammer was press a button that says "hammer these nails" and then it hammered all of the nails by itself, it wouldn't be a tool. At least, not the same kind of tool a normal hammer is, because the definition of the word "tool" can be stretched quite a bit.

[@tttttttttttttttp12]

​@@Kanoog Generating references or using it for inspiration are one of the few ways AI can actually be used as a tool by artists. However, what every greedy company is going to use AI for, and what the original commenter was referring to, is just using the AI as an end result instead of using it as a base concept or as a reference. In this manner, generative AI is objectively not a tool. This isn't even mentioning the literal mountain of stolen artwork used to train these AI models, or the insane amounts of energy it costs to maintain.

[@KareSeriouslyKaren]

I'm an academic realist. I've been painting for about 45 years. My work is not quite photorealistic. But enough so that I am often asked if my paintings are photos. I've used the free, basic AI. Mostly just to see what the hype was about. I realized that creating prompts for an exacting image was going to cost money and consume time. Meh. I'd rather be in my studio. I don't have a budget or a deadline to prompt me to work faster or cheaper. But, using general prompts like: Golden Hour, landscape, morning, field, etc. without training on a specific artist's work, brought up some images that I would consider interesting sketches. Like using a photograph as a reference.They were generalized landscape formatted by a machine algorithm. They were pretty bland and composed in an almost weirdly geometric way. And that's the part I actually found the most interesting. The imposition of geometry on the composition, precisely because my prompts were so vague. So I took images of landscapes I'd actually photographed and used them as a reference alongside the AI to come up with a third thing. Which I painted. They are always labeled as sketches. Explorations. Not fully considered work. I think, as a studio painter, A.I. will probably never make it's way into my finished work. But for one off sketches, they help bump me out of the mental visual rut I sometimes find myself in.

[@UnrealRealism]

AI can replace entire teams. When we transitioned from Practical/Traditional art, The transition still allowed individuals to learn digital art creation. When we moved from Practical videography to CGI it actually created more jobs for studios at almost a 1:1 initially to a 5:1 today. When Coke makes a commercial beside producers, Special FX artists, Actors, Directors, Sound people and entire sound studios etc. With AI you need a Producer (maybe) Director (maybe) and 1-2 AI Engineers. Coca Cola has made an entire commercial utilizing AI. Snoop Dog made a music video using AI. AI has already (factually) replaced 1000's + jobs in just a few creations alone. There will always be traditionalists, and it's okay to move forward with Tech, but it would be ignorant to assume/say that AI won't affect people in a negative way. AI is a tool that can be used and should be utilized. Use it to get ideas or help you when you're stuck. For communication or to bounce ideas off of. Use AI when you want to discuss the brilliance of space and learn more. But it is in my humble opinion that multi-billion dollar companies saving money by using AI is harmful and bad especially for those in Art (Music, Drawing, etc) Also, Now many assumes everything is AI (there are still "tells" when AI is used but not everyone uses those tells). Has not happened to me yet because I usually work with Photorealism in 3D art (on my KZbin) (and while I do composite and art in PS when inspired (on my IG) it isn't common) . I have seen fantastic art tarnished being called "AI" despite the Artists amazing work and hard work. I have seen AI go viral despite no work being involved. I have seen AI go viral from someone who has never done art in their life. It doesn't seem "right"

[@raxi9619]

I started using AI image generation to create art for my D&D games. I got pretty good at it- but eventually the lack of fine control and my frustration with the technical aspects of Stable Diffusion got to me. Now I am learning how to draw, and I use AI to get drawing ideas instead.

[@JohnJohn-yl4ko]

How's your progress?

[@seraphimus_seeks]

Wow, rarely hear about such stories. Often I see former artists using ai/transfering to ai, because they dislike the time spent for a single drawing. But such stories as yours give me hope in human interest in creation, willingness to go through the process of arr

[@GalaxColor]

Hey, using AI for ideas is still not good. However, your story is inspiring

[@fulicious2991]

Saw another small youtuber with the same journey! They similarly got frustrated and ended up learning how to draw instead, even though it's difficult

[@theMifyoo]

Yeah, I do agree getting exactly what you want, ai is not there yet. I sometimes get asked to generate images of characters for our D&D games because I am our local AI expert. The problem is that it really can't handle too much specificity. At the moment It depends on how specific your expectations are for what you generate whether you can be satisfied. Also I often get better results by trying to circle around the subject to get pieces that can then be photo bashed together into something. Like often it is more constructive to instead of approaching it with how do I get one prompt to give me the results I desire but instead how can this idea be broken down into pieces that are more digestible and how well those pieces can be reassembled. Also tons of shopping around for lora's and hope that the lora works well and plays well.

[@CGingerbreadman]

I've been doing various forms of graphic design for 13 years, and don't like AI art for the same reasons you list. I do, however, love it for my own reasons as well. I created a logo for a company I worked for by sketching out different ideas I had. I built the best ones out in Illustrator, and then I was able to run them through MidJourney. The results were not great, but there were some ideas in there on how to improve what I had done. I was able to quickly come up with several ideas this way to present to my boss, and we landed on one that we eventually started implementing. Something I had created fully myself, just with AI as something to bounce ideas off of.

[@SikoticVinyl]

First off, I want to thank Jazza for creating this space for discussion. I was an early adopter of AI art, and my excitement came from a very personal place - I've been writing and roleplaying characters with friends since 2012, always struggling to bring them to life visually. Traditional art commissions were often out of reach financially, and even when I could afford them, the process was anxiety-inducing. Without reference art, trying to describe a character in words often led to results that didn't match my vision. My social anxiety would kick in, and I'd just pay and stay quiet rather than request changes. AI art changed this for me. I could finally visualize my characters exactly as I imagined them. Interestingly, this hasn't replaced traditional commissions for me-having AI-generated references has actually made the commission process much smoother and more rewarding. Being able to provide clear visual references has given me more confidence in working with artists and getting exactly what I want. I should mention that I draw-not to the same level as a professional artist, but I would consider myself an artist and creative outside of AI influence. When I share anything AI-related, I always label it as such and make it clear it's not for profit, yet I still get attacked. Even when I share artwork I created years before AI art came out, people tell me, "You're not an artist, that's just AI." Yes, I use AI, and sometimes all I do is prompt to bring something about-but I am an artist. I do draw, I enjoy doodling and exploring creatively, but I can't draw the things I want to the level I want. I believe some of this struggle stems from my aphantasia, which is why AI helps me so much. I understand the controversy around AI, but I'm frustrated by how it's become this black-and-white debate of right versus wrong. The reality is far more nuanced. I absolutely agree that training AI on artists' work without permission isn't okay. I'm excited to see developments like Glaze and Nightshade that help artists protect their work-as they should! But I have to ask: why is creative work becoming the main battleground? AI is processing far more than just art and music-it's analyzing our social media, learning our behaviors, essentially capturing the essence of who we are as people. That's a much bigger conversation we need to have. That's why I took the time to educate myself about how AI works. The fear-mongering about AI simply "copy-pasting" art concerned me, so I delved into its learning processes and training methods. I should be graduating with my certificate in AI development in about a week! While I maintain that non-consensual training data is wrong, it's also inaccurate to claim AI isn't transformative in how it learns and creates. The AI is pandoras box now open -there's no going back. Simply boycotting or hating on it won't change that reality. What we need is open dialogue between all sides to figure out how to move forward together. There are incredible possibilities for this technology, even within creative spaces, but the current "cancel culture" response to any productive discussion is stifling progress. We need to move beyond simple for-or-against positions and work together to shape how this technology develops. That's why I want to build it, use it, talk about it, discuss it, and everything in between. It's genuinely scary to speak up, but we need to-we desperately need to talk about this technology!

[@f5tornado831]

The problem is that AI just doesn't work at all in a capitalist society. If we develop AI further, our society will have to completely change, or it will just collapse. It also doesn't just affect artists. Everyone will lose any sort of purpose because of AI. Art isn't just paint on a canvas, any passion someone has is art. Sports is art, games are art, math is art, and all these things can and most likely will be replaced with AI, leaving nothing left for us to do. We might just be a stepping stone for a higher being. AI obviously can do great things, but at the cost of human purpose itself.

[@genericgoon7784]

I shifted my carrier from a sells man to Graphic Designer. I had to learn from the basics while still manage a way to keep my lights up. And then suddenly I saw a picture (a mule that I made in illustrator) it was submitted as a ai drawing to some other stock site and seeing that it actually broke my heart a bit. The ai didn't even change the color or anything. I am no Van Gogh, but still the mule is a part of my expression. It wouldn't hurt me this much if someone was inspired by it and tried to draw it themselves but I don't think it was anything like that. It sounds a bit stupid but I do believe that someone with less hours are just using my art (which I have no problem) but I don't think they are respecting my efforts.

[@teesh6003]

That isn’t AI. Someone just stole your image and sold it to the stock site, or they stole it themselves and used “AI” as a defense. You wouldn’t be able to tell “it was my exact image, no colors changed” if it was ACTUALLY ran through a generative AI tool or if your image WAS truly used in the data of a generative model. I’m sorry if you don’t think AI is transformative, but it is, and the only way you could believe an AI actually spit out a 1:1 of your image is if you still believed it wasn’t.

[@genericgoon7784]

​@@teesh6003you're probably right. Tbh, I don't know what's going on.

[@TimeKitt]

AI can definitely be told to generate an extremely similar image. Even keeping the composition and redrawing it can overcome some auto detection for plagiarism. As is even if they just took your art directly, submitting it as AI art means no questions asked why they don't have a built up portfolio or it looks very similar to other works. Do be sure the culture around using AI art also makes traditional digital art theft easier. It's like the difference of stealing art yourself or going to your local art thief and asking them to do it for you.

[@jeremymcmahon9546]

@@TimeKitt I assume then you will be OK with AI art when it is trained on art by artists paid for it. I assume you won't use cancer cures made by AI with "stolen" data. The culture around AI art is surely problematic, what with artists casually flinging around the word theft, soon everyone can happily be called a thief. Glad Jazza got the nuanced discussion he was after (oh, that's right, he's a thief, no need to be respectful of him), the culture around AI art makes it easier for us to shut down thieves like him. It's like intimidating someone yourself or going to your local mafia to intimidate them. Problem is, once you've shut down all the grey shirts, and the next in line for AI displacement do it too, and the next....then only the elite will be able to discuss AI and they will get what they want, which I very much doubt is what you, I or Jazza want. Or you can try to take a nuanced approach, help guide discussion about artists rights, use of data, economic displacement, human meaning, weighing up AI pros and cons, and hopefully then we can all be that bit safer from AI.

[@ColinL-dp7pq]

ai art proved the existance of the human soul by showing us what art looks like without a soul

[@sheaharris8189]

I’m scared with it being used by corporations and also name-less, face-less companies simply profiting off of engagement farming on social media with the same AI art used over and over with slight changes, or being used to catfish people in purchasing products that don’t even exist. As others have shared its the lack of transparency and safe limitations need to be put in place so I don’t feel like everything being put out there could be a lie

[@shinniehildebrand]

This is the most reasonable take on AI art I have seen so far. We need more of this kind of level-headed take on AI, not just Art, but in general.

[@despacitoking237]

@shinniehildebrand I heard better takes, but coming from someone that i think is big in the art community is unexpected

[@lordstarscreamy329]

to be fair, the loud majority of AI art supporters are also usually the most unreasonable ones

[@BradmyrEdits]

I'm not pro AI art, but I don't see anyway to stop it. Unlike NFT, if AI art continues to be useful, there would be a market for it . Artists and non-artists would be using it because it's fast and disposable.

[@lordstarscreamy329]

​@@BradmyrEdits I don't think either, that you can stop AI art at this point, if anything it should be regulated, setting clear rules what can and can't be done imo

[@naraku971]

@@lordstarscreamy329 Agreed, and more ethical models would be nice too, I know that Lionsgate is working on one, and they are using their own movies to train their model.

[@na_th_an3409]

im doing concept art/comic art at uni atm and started the course september 30th. already theres been brief mentions that as AI evolves it will affect us in our future careers its such a hard thing to think about because AI being used for concepts means talented artists are losing opportunities to get paid, get their first commissions on larger projects, gain experience on these projects, and build interesting and well-rounded portfolios etc etc. artists deserve chances to collaborate and improve their skills and work towards an end goal of a project and be recognised for their work. not to mention the problem with AI learning from people’s work without permission or straight up copying it and the lack of credit and numerous other issues. however, you dont need to pay an artist the money they deserve when using AI. so many projects will have been cancelled, changed, rushed out, and never even started because of budget issues or lack of materials themselves and AI gives people a chance for a starting point which is cheaper and faster compared to hiring an artist/artists or have to do extra work yourself and therefore spend extra money in the process i personally dislike AI art in general because of how its affecting so many artists negatively and there’s no rules or regulations to it as of current. i can see its potential as a tool to create though and that it makes art easier for some tldr: its making art more accessible while stealing credit, money, and opportunity from people who have worked for years on their skills

[@abandoned__]

excellent comment !! i stand with you

[@findawes824]

Incredible video. Accurately represented not only your own position, but the positions of others in a way that was very thoughtful. This sort of morally exploratory content is exactly what is needed at the moment.

[@dongeonmaster8547]

I love how this video started with no preamble. I also appreciated the black and white contrast eventually leading to the, what I'll call the voice of reason, the Jazza Gray 🩶 So many times people feel like they have to draw a hard line down the middle and pick a side when the reality is most issues have fuzzy undulating lines if there are lines at all. Most things exist in the shades of gray. Great video. I hope it inspires people to have emotionally neutral dialogue about AI and every other topic that interests them to appreciate the many facets and opposing ideas and to seek truth not victory when having these discussions.

[@Andy-up5fc]

The entire "we didn't have the budget" defense of AI art kind of falls flat in the face of the main issue people have with it, that it steals from other creators. The reason you can afford to do all this with the AI art is very simple: You're not paying the artists. Yeah, obviously that's going to be cheaper.

[@catboybananabread]

and honestly theres already plenty industries to take care of this same issue! there's stock image sites who's intended purpose is being used in the very same way they're using ai art for.

[@StuartHetzler]

Yeah, kinda wild to just gloss over that

[@spooky-30000]

No database is ever going to be ethical either because they will always include works used without consent so using AI is labor theft from start to finish.

[@Actar_Raikit]

You'd rather a project not exist at all than have it exist thanks (in part) to AI? For Jazza, at least, using AI has allowed him to funnel his money into paying a proper artist - one who wouldn't have had that opportunity if it weren't for AI to begin with as the project wouldn't have existed or gotten off the ground.

[@Andy-up5fc]

@@Actar_Raikit I'd rather the AI didn't exist if it required unpaid labor to make it work. If that means other people are not able to use their unpaid work, then so be it. My issue with generative AI is almost entirely down to the unethical ways they were developed.

[@majiwarusentosen]

( disclaimer: I am very young, and I may be stupid. I’m not in college yet, won’t be for several years. ) Personally, and as an artist, Ai disgusts and angers me. I have spent my *entire* life drawing, practicing drawing, and I’m not perfect but I’m definitely not horrible either, but I put *so much of me* on my work. I put everything into my art, everything. There is no emotion in artificial intelligence. There is no soul, no love, no *nothing* put into ai ‘art’. I have used it before, it is something I must say. But I’ve learned since than, I’ve learned that I just need to draw myself, because there is nothing more beautiful than human art. Even if the art is bad, or messy, or half finished, or ‘ugly’ it’s still human art. Someone still put time and love into it. People just need to learn to draw, because no one starts out drawing perfectly. Things take time to learn, so learn them. Art is not easy, it has never been easy. So learn it.

[@VaregianEisselor]

Beautifully said.

[@jeremymcmahon9546]

You should be proud of having such passion and faith in something you love to do. It will be particularly helpful in coming years if more people could find things they love like you have. So why does AI art personally, and as an artist, disgust and anger you? How does it take away from your passion and love of art? That seems to me like when some people think that other people getting married takes away from their marriage. Cycling isn't easy either, and I admire cyclists. My dad is not young, but is very fit and strong and cycles nearly every day for most of his life. I drive and walk, but because I do things differently or use a machine to do something, he doesn't get angry or disgusted. I am not trying to upset you, I think you spoke very well, I love your passion for art. I just don't understand your anger and disgust. It is easy to get swept up in anger when people you know are angry, but someone who wants to have a soulless AI designed pug drawing sent to their kid as a meme doesn't do anything to lessen the humanness of your art.

Creativity has always been democratised. It just took effort.

[@Moctop]

Isn't it mainly ideas that are creative, not the technical know-how? I mean there is some overlap there, but kids are creative but can't draw for shit. The technical execution isn't the creative bit...again, some overlap here as when drawing an idea can evolve during the process.

[@cutiepup7591]

THANK YOU, I hate it when people use this excuse. Like, do you think I was born able to draw? No! It took work and effort, and I got better, and I'm still improving!

[@RADkate]

"when everyone is super, no one will be" lmao

@@cutiepup7591 Exactly this.

[@pRahvi0]

@@Moctop A good point. Maybe I'd rephrase: Creativity has always been democratised. It just took effort _to express it._ Or to express it neatly, at the very least.

[@pRahvi0]

I love this video. I hate that you had to spend quater of the video just basically telling "please, can we have a civilized discussion about this thing instead of just yelling" - but I love the way you did that. The (literally) black and white arguments being (literally) pushed aside by the (literal) grey area was such a great concept and also very well done. And honestly, that ending was both sad and hilarious at the same time. I also love that the someone calls for sober discussion in the first place and also contributes to it. I'm very much in agreement that the so called "AI" (which basically means certain recently developed language models and their applicatios) is such a new thing that it's impossible to have a definitive answer to whether it's good or bad. Probably both, to some extent. And I might argue that's the same with a lot if not all new technology. Heck, I'd argue even the Internet is so new we still haven't figured it out enough to be both safe and fair with it. Personally, I don't like any kind of change, thaks to my neuro-divergence. I can very much relate to the pain in adjusting to new things, be that anything from the seasonal cycle to the raise and fall of entire industries. And there are always those who try (and succeed) benefitting from the change at the expense of others. But I also acnowledge the vast possibilities that come with new technologies - some are bad, some are good. There are arguments, even somewhat valid ones, that agriculture was already a mistake. But there's not really going back or preventing technology from being developed, especially when it's literally non-physical in many ways. So, whether we want it or not, it's going to be a thing. We can only try set guidelines so that the benefits would surpass the problems and be distributed at least somewhat fairly. And for that, we really need to be able to talk about it. From all angles. TL;DR: a great opening for discussion and also as funny as probably possible for such a heavy subject.

[@pRahvi0]

In a way, the algorithms remind me of photography but for imaginary things. On one hand, it made producing pirctures almost effortless in the end. On the other hand, it means we now have more pictures than we know what to do with. Paintings are still made by hand, though, albeit to lesser extent than once. Even of things that could be photographed.

[@TheBaskach]

For me personally, I kind of wish AI would make the boring crap for us, leaving us to do creative things. I know it's not the same ballpark, but I wish it would do my dishes and laundry, leaving me time to do creative things I enjoy...not do the creative things, leaving me time to do all the daily routine...basically, I am not thrilled about the direction the mainstream research of AI is going, I think is my point. Also, I am sick and tired of 95% of my facebook (yes, I am a boomer, who is still on facebook) being AI crap with bot comments...but I guess that's just a dying platform...

[@MaakaSakuranbo]

What is boring is specific to each person. Some artist would find drawing backgrounds incredibly boring and is excited about drawing character. Another artist loves to draw backgrounds. I like doing dishes, gives me some mental rest as I can listen to some audiobook and tune out or so.

[@localkate]

Hey don't feel too bad about still being on facebook. I'm forced into keeping my account just for marketplace, and I still get tricked sometimes by those ads they make that look like real listings lol. But yes. I also wish it would do my dishes and fold my laundry. Instead, I've taken up work as a housekeeper doing both those things, and the robot does my art. Worst robot apocalypse ever.

[@gman1515]

11:00 jazza, please just hire a concept artist for these projects. What youre describing is a job that is super important to many people's careers, and you're replacing that job with AI to save money.

[@Cherub1m7]

Get realistic, we don’t live in the world where you can just do things for pure passion anymore. He needs to be able to afford his company and pay his employees.

[@gman1515]

@Cherub1m7 if you can't afford to run a company without resorting to theft, then you shouldn't be running the company. AI does not work without theft, therefore he is using stolen art.

[@noonecz5201]

Please go back to using ice cooled refrigerators, Using ice blocks instead of electrical is very important for the careers of ice miners, and you are replacing that job with electricity to save money.

[@noonecz5201]

@gman1515 First of all, there are many bigger companies using theft to even run. Someone using AI to make concepts to later draw by hand is not even comparable, so instead of bothering someone like Jazza go talk to Google about them stealing your personal data. Second of all, AI can very well be made without stealing. It is sad that most big companies steal art to make their models, but it is possible to make AI which learns only from the art of artists, that agreed to their art being used. So no. Simply using ai doesn't mean he stole since.

[@gman1515]

@@noonecz5201 the difference is refrigerators don't run off of stealing ice from ice miners and using that to cool stuff off. AI makes images by stealing millions of pieces of art.

[@Totally_Fox]

There are several parts to really break down and discuss, and I think that's important for this type of discussion. For one, the use of AI in the process for early stages still has no 'real' upside. Storyboarding, concepting, and iterations all lead to a final product that feels complete. Saying "This would have never happened without the use of AI" is a rose-tinted take. There are countless ways to reduce time spent on projects, and many ways to improve workflow. I understand the issues of a budget and time, but these limits are what allow unique and beautiful works to be made. If you have everything AI offers, there's no limiting factor and the gap for mistakes, level of detail, and overall 'completeness' grows significantly. I know I'll never have the time for all my ideas, my mind is busy. But sitting on these ideas allows such a refinement that working with AI would never allow. Not every idea has to be made, and quality will forever be better than quantity. Something that will always harm artists, no matter how you approach it, is using AI as an artist. It shows that it's okay with some of us, and that we can be coerced into that line of thinking. It adds to that side of the argument whether it was intended or not. I can appreciate taking a small dive into both sides to first-hand see what it's like, but you need to also understand the repercussions of continuing to use it past that. I truly and fully agree that the absolute flood of AI 'art' on art media sites, search results, etc. is particularly 'gross' feeling. Uninspired, quick to post, instantly-gratified work that has no meaning to it. Sure, they can look pretty. But there's nothing to gain from it. In a community of content creation where time is a HUGE factor in how much stuff is created, it becomes increasingly hard for actual artists/creators to be at the forefront when generated content can so easily overtake its place when browsing. Not even specifically for art, but for images as well. You could always use the Google "Search before specified time" feature, but that immediately limits you to a static, unchanging gallery. It's incredibly harmful for creative visions and breeds copies of work. Less akin to inspired work, and more-so like a game of telephone that just gets worse. Something that makes it REALLY hard to truly discuss is that people just living day-to-day average lives that have no stake in it will just use it cause it's "new and exciting" all the while the minority being the artists that are actually harmed by it don't get as big an overall voice. The average person will see a content creator, or a business, or a friend use AI and just think it's okay. The whole topic of AI needs to be an educated topic rather than a buzzword. Behind the veil of pretty, instantly generated images is a library of scraped work from individual creators who have spent decades perfecting their craft. Only to be told "Oh but it could never take your job" or "Relax, it'll be a tool for you!" when people are actively being laid-off and positions are being removed due to the avid use of AI to replace concept artists, storyboard artists, writers, designers, etc. Not even mentioned yet, how this will affect us long-term. Imagine how the number of artists will dwindle down if AI becomes normalized. How absolutely degrading that would be to society and media. It's already a career path frowned upon and full of intense roadblocks, and AI just puts massive barriers in front of those growing up wanting to learn. Why bother learning when this app makes what I want instantly? Why bother trying when I'm not as good as this machine? It's the aspect of a growing creator/artist comparing themselves to other artists, but to an exponential degree. Additionally, the topic of video/voice generation will ALSO harm actors. The studio 'technically' owns their voice lines and recorded scenes, so they could just endlessly put them in feature films or shows without shelling out a single check to the original actor. Even if royalties were an option in that case, there's no royalty to give if said actor has passed away, allowing more money to be saved and more content to be dumped out to a feeding bin for the masses. AI isn't going to give me more time to work on the things I want to do. It's going to take away the process of learning and developing as an artist while giving bigger corporations another way to save money. It isn't needed in the process, generation itself is incredibly inefficient in terms of the energy it consumes, and nearly every model of AI generation is built off of theft.

[@Skyryme]

Wow this was a perfectly expressed comment. I totally agree with all of it. The downsides are a lot more than the upsides which barely feel like an upside to begin with. I understand what Jazza wants to discuss about and honestly discussing it is a lot better than attacking each other but I understand everyone's fear of it cause I'm sure terrified of it. To the point I don't post at all in other social medias anymore

[@Totally_Fox]

@@Skyryme Thank you! ^^ And yea, the fear is absolutely justified, but constant attacking isn't very progressive. I totally understand the distaste to posting on social media anymore too- Having your own work scraped for things like this is awful. I personally still do post cause I'd like to grow more, and I don't wanna lose my voice in a time like this. Also checked out some of your art. Hella cute work

[@jeremymcmahon9546]

@@Totally_Fox I'm as scared as anyone by AI, but ignoring the upsides, and pleading for the special case of artists, will not further the nuanced discussion Jazza mentions, and this is why he did the video. The main harm I can see you are discussing is artists economic futures. I agree, AI is likely to take many economic opportunities from artists, I agree that is rough for them, and I agree it will reduce the number of artists (short term), which is bad for the world. But artists who are mostly just caught up with fighting being superseded by machines are going to be superseded by machines. And then so are most the rest of us. Too many people want the great upsides of AI, and corporations want the great wealth, that artists jobs won't concern many others. Then truck driver's jobs won't concern many, then dentists jobs etc. There may be push back. There may be collective push back, legal push back, and these paths are more likely to delay AI than just being upset, and accusing other people of being unethical. But in the end, when AI gets good, most human economic activity will be replaced. Your attitude about not wanting to lose your voice, but not wanting to constantly attack, is very uplifting. But I think your focus needs to be on making AI beneficial, getting to those upsides, not worrying about individual job sectors (which is hard when yours is one of the first in the firing line). Almost all jobs will be affected. I actually think in the future, artists will be a much better respected job, that provides a lot of meaning to the artist and to others, when it and most other jobs are largely separated from current notions of economic value. But this only happens if we get people talking about AI, in a balanced way, discussing short term losses and how to overcome them, discussing long term benefits and how they should be shared with everyone, and discussing how to avoid the worst, catastrophic pitfalls of AI.

[@ScribbleBeats]

The problem really boils down to what Jazza is saying here, people aren’t just going to use it to supplement the creative process. It’s a race to the bottom for tech bros trying to figure out how to make as much money as possible with as little work as possible. Not to mention because ai art and music is so new there are little to no regulations or laws concerning it. I don’t think where ai stands now that it’s replacing real artists and musicians, because it just isn’t good enough… yet. I don’t have a solution and I don’t have an opinion on what to do about it, all I know is that it’s being abused and because people like Jazza and Ergojosh are artists, they have a moral obligation to use the technology in responsible and helpful ways. “Get rich quick” bros and non-creatives are not going to have that same restraint because they don’t respect the art process or have any idea what goes into becoming a great artist.

[@Teathling]

Hi artist here, I don't see the purpose of using Ai to do a storyboard, you're basically neutering your creativity by getting recycled slop, I'm sorry to be rude, but I don't think we should excuse stealing when it's convenient and it's "not the main focus", it's good that you're talking about it, but it doesn't make it okay. your christmas special wouldn't have happened without Ai? I think that's untrue, when I don't have the time to do things I just used stock assets, some Ai is trained on stock assets, you search for a bunch of photos and do it yourself, sure it isn't pretty, but it has a lot more personality than what I saw on that screen, and morally at least you're just using free images online, not stuff that isn't yours. and if you truly can't make something, and you don't have the budget, and you don't want to try doing it yourself or don't have the time, then please just don't use Ai, just don't, not only are you supporting a tool that robs artists that have fed the exact thing stealing their livelihoods away from them, but you're advertising it to others making it seem okay and I think that's a little irresponsible. While I say all this, I do not make you out to be a villain, everything isn't black and white, and you creating a better conversation while upholding what you believe could have been a mistake is admirable, and I appreciate that transparency, so please do not be silenced.

[@tnt-boom]

Every single AI image and video should be forced to have a nearly unremovable unignorable massive watermark that doesnt make it useless but does make it impossible to mistake for real work. If a photo has a giant "AI" across the middle, you cant pass it off as real. Also would make real art less likely to be mistaken for real.

[@hatmanza]

Thank you. It's refreshing to see a video like this. It is refreshing to see a 'grey area' video like this, especially from someone who would understandably be in a position where only one option seems right. However, it is important to get the bigger picture. I rarely comment on KZbin videos, but I feel this is an important conversation that needs to happen, and I would LOVE to see an in-depth video like you described if it were at all possible and viable to do. Personally, I am in a similar space. Like any technology or invention, it depends on how it is used. There are many potential benefits to developing AI, as well as many downsides. I fully stand behind artists and creators fighting AI to save their livelihoods and reputations. This does not mean that I think AI is bad. Taking AI art as an example, I often wish I could put images or ideas I have in my head down on paper, but sadly I have very little skill or talent when it comes to visual arts. So for me to potentially be able to "create" what I have in my mind is very exciting. However, that by no means makes me an artist. The potential applications for AI are fantastic, scary, but fantastic...if used correctly. Something to bear in mind is that naturally AI has to learn, so maybe this can be a temporary stumbling block until AI has learned enough that it no longer needs to interfere with things like art. The problem of course is the issue with rights etc.

[@infinitivez]

It's not grey. We just need ethical companies or creators like Jazza, to make their own models. That ask people to pitch in, and don't assume permission.

[@shieldmaidensnusnu]

this is not a grey area video, but " Ima youtuber and I profit from this tech while having no damn clue what working class artist have to deal with gugugaga"

[@PredatorH2O]

​@@shieldmaidensnusnu-🤡

[@thebob5240]

​@@shieldmaidensnusnu Great job in proving the 'uneducated youtubers' point that people like you take things so extremely that you end up only making th8ngs worse.

[@thebob5240]

Great thoughts I'm with you all the way.

[@JamesGurney]

Thanks, Jazza, for setting up a healthy forum on this topic. I think it often helps to consider what kind of "end state" we want to live in. I want to live in a world where artists feel comfortable sharing their process, whatever it is. Each of us has to work out how to deal with all these digital technologies, and it will be different for each person. We're all trying to figure out what it means to be an artist in this crazy world.

[@jacktaylor3636]

AI should be used to actually help people that need really help. It should be used to scan images and make notes of details that regular humans might miss. It shouldn't be a tool to do the job, it should be a tool to assist in the job

[@JaybyrdePlays]

Thank you Jazza, my gray opinion stands pretty much where yours does too, and its a breath of fresh air to hear someone talk about AI without being super emotional about it. I've been watching you since I was a kid and you've been a huge part of my art journey. I really hope you are able to make your deep dive video, I wanna hear what you have to say in that.

[@ShininDays]

I don’t mind AI being used as a tool to help you quickly get your ideas across that you could then produce with your own art. But lately, it’s been too easy to use AI to make art that it's become a growing issue. For exemple I’ve had people take the work I created for them and use AI to alter it and reproduce similar things with it, instead of coming back to me. It’s frustrating because not only did they not return to get a commission form me when they wanted something else, but they also used my original art and used AI to change it, even though I came up with everything from scratch. On top of that, I've seen people using AI to create art and getting hired to do it for others that didn't know what was ai at a cheaper price when they had no art skills. Wich means 3 things : 1 - That It’s easier than ever to skip hiring an artist and just use AI instead. Let's be honest, alot of people (not everyone) don’t care whether the art was made by an artist or a machine. 2 - Anyone can take a drawing you’ve made, especially if you posted it online, and train AI on it to reproduce similar art without your consent. There’s nothing to protect your art anymore. It’s one thing for someone to learn your style and put in real effort and time and even then they usually pick up different things from multiple artists and don’t copy you exactly. But even if it was the case with AI, someone can just use your art to recreate it instantly in a couple of seconds with a prompt, without any work or skill and redo as many times as they want. 3 - It’s now so easy for people with zero art skills to create AI art, and they’re starting to flood the market.

[@jones1618]

The fear of AI "stealing" someone's art is mostly a myth. Sure, you can ask an AI art generator to create a Mona Lisa with Miley Cyrus' face but that's because the image training data likely includes 1) Thousands of images of the Mona Lisa, variations as a cartoon, sketch, photograph, impressionist art, pixel art, etc. plus 2) Hundreds of parodies and caricatures of the Mona Lisa and 3) Scores of pictures of Miley Cyrus. For less famous and frequently sampled artists and subjects .... not so much. I've seen numerous tests online trying to reproduce styles and compositions from artists with only a few dozen published works and the resemblance of the results isn't that close. It's closer if the artist, say a fantasy artist, uses cliche subjects in generic compositions in a generic style. Suddenly, a lot of those kinds of artists feel "copied." Besides, if someone is namechecking an artist in AI prompts it is a sure sign they in demand and likely won't be replaced by AI knockoffs.

[@andrewevenson2657]

First of all, I think I agree with all of your opinions on AI, and I commend you for expressing those opinions in our current AI climate. One of the things I noticed, being in the middle with AI, is most KZbinrs and youtube viewers are so anti AI, that I sound like I’m super pro AI to them. Being in the middle usually means being hated by both sides. Here are some important things I like to talk about in AI. 1. Our current model of AI will never be capable of supporting AGI. This AI tech we have right now has a hard limit in its capabilities. What that information means is up to you. 2. The environmental impact from AI is likely a negligible factor. People brought that up when NFTs and crypto were popular. I did the research and the math, and found that crypto and NFTs combined contributed a fraction of a fraction of a percent to global carbon emissions. Even if AI takes up 10 times as much energy, that is negligible. Climate change isn’t an issue of using too much energy, it’s an issue of using coal and oil to produce that energy. Scapegoating things that are not the problem actively makes the problem worse because people try to fix the wrong thing. That’s what Cocacola did with plastic bottles. They scapegoated us making it seem like our lack of recycling is why plastic is a problem, and they are still doing that today, and now microplastics are part of our food triangle. 3. This is just an opinion, but AI still kinda sucks right now, and I get annoyed that every single company is trying to implement AI into whatever they do, even though AI is widely disliked Thor from piratesoftware always makes great inspirational youtube shorts, and he has one on AI. If you don’t learn a skill because you are afraid AI will replace it, and it doesn’t, you lose. If it does replace the skill, you still lose cause you didn’t learn. If you learn the skill and it’s not replaced, you win. If you learn the skill and it is replaced, you still win because you learned and grew as a person and that will help you adapt to changes. He words it better but that’s the general idea.

[@SarahKaleyyyyy]

There’s nothing to argue or talk about because the end game is that Ai will take away jobs from creative people and eventually most skilled roles. That’s all there is to it. It doesn’t matter if you’re pro or against. There isn’t any fence to sit on when you can’t pay bills because Ai isn’t just taking away creative jobs, it’ll take away any jobs you might apply to after you’re let go as well. What’s going to be the argument then? Glad you got some nice backgrounds though.

[@jeremymcmahon9546]

Sure, this is true, but the nuanced discussion needs less sarcasm about backgrounds, and more discussion of your point, "What's going to be the argument then?". That has to be for us to decide, as communities, and nations. If we leave it to just tech companies, if we are so scared or fatalistic that we don't engage, or push others from engaging, it could be awful for everyone (except the rich in their bunkers, I guess, but even bunkers won't save them from AI gone wrong). I don't know if we can have the wonderful, post scarcity world Jazza hopes we can, but surely we should try?

[@ocarinacat4690]

It’s nice to hear a calm discussion about AI that presents both sides of the conversation. One thing I’d like to hear about in a possible future video would be the fact that young/beginner artists are being discouraged by AI, feeling like AI makes better art than them and feeling there is no hope for a future in the art industry for them

[@jeremymcmahon9546]

Good points. It is not just artists, my work has been with young people and many are discouraged or worried about various declining job opportunities in the future (and they should be). I would say, their hope is that being an artist and being in the "art industry" are two separate things. If we can get AI right, there won't really be many industries left, but there will be plenty of artists.

[@Thagmar]

It's nice to see a nuanced take on gen AI.

[@liam_iam]

I agree that nuance is good, but saying "there are good points on both sides" is an easy way to give the illusion that you're being nuanced without actually being it. In my opinion he didn't go into enough depth with counterarguments, for example the issue of large-scale nonconsensual use of artists' work. His overall point - "discourse around AI is stifled because people are too opinionated to have a rational conversation" - all-too-conveniently shifts the blame onto people who are negatively affected by AI and are rightfully emotional about it, while avoiding taking any personal responsibility.

[@jeremymcmahon9546]

@@liam_iam Do you think discourse is not stifled by those people? We can agree that artists are going to face rough times (and then so will most the rest of us), we can agree artists are entitled to have feelings about this and to express them, without agreeing that artist voices should try to shut down all debate. What personal responsibility is being avoided? How about the personal responsibility to engage in productive discourse so that AI is not the sole domain of tech elites, so we all get a say in how it is used, so it is safer and fairer for everyone? If you think making points for both sides, including a side you don't agree with, is just an "illusion" of being nuanced, you are trying to stifle conversation. He did discuss the use of artists work, but I agree it is worthy of further discussion, and is tricky. But it is also a bit of a crutch argument, I don't see many artists enthusiastic for an Ai trained on consensual, paid work, coming and taking their jobs. Unfortunately, AI art is the start of a much broader discussion, and that will leave artists feeling their own important discussions aren't being heard (like when people respond to Black Lives Matter with All Lives Matter, while technically true, it shuts down the important experiences someone wanted to share). Jazza is appealing for artists to be part of the moderate voice we need for AI to be safe for us all, and artists are resisting this (because they are rightfully scared). But everyone else will resist this too, when AI comes for them, we shouldn't expect artists to be superhumanly impartial, but hopefully artists can contribute positively with some experience and insight, when AI does threaten the rest of us.

[@Doomsdaymanx]

Thanks Jazza for sharing your thoughts! I feel like the problem with AI is that it exagerates existing problems our current day society has. Less local communities and more online socialization: Now you have to question if anything you see, hear, or read was an AI or a human. Later stage captialism crushing the working class: Now AI can reduce your bargain power further. Creativity and curiosity not being fostered and valued enough: AI continues to push the premise that you "don't need those things" because you can just magic everything you need with technology. I'm a software engineer, trained as a classical mechanical/electrical/information engineer. I am deeply passionate about how technology can help solve problems. Help is the key word there though. We desperately still need creative people to use those tools to actually solve the problems. The story about the Christmas special I found particularly sad, because its a classic example of our socio-economic systems failing us. I'm sure Jazza wanted nothing nore than to have all that art created by a person. I'm sure there are artists out there who would have been excited to give their time and energy to that project. It could have happened. Yet we built a world where that artist has to use that time and energy to make money or they suffer, and Jazza only can give others so much money or him and his family suffer. So in the end the whole world was a less creative place.

[@cheebaleeb]

The only thing about using gen ai images as placeholders or in the 'initial concept phase' is that you are still using it. still pulling from the library of stolen work, still contributing to the environmental cost, and still helping that technology progress. Personally, I firmly believe generative ai has no good, useful purpose and I will forever stand by that. It also just feels like saying 'oh I only use AI for these few small things that aren't major or even really seen outside of personal spaces' is such a dangerous line to toe because people will always ALWAYS find a way to push that line further. Like, can you not use royalty free things for placeholders? Or photobash to get quick ideas across/create concepts? Like what do those sorts of things not cover that make you need to use gen ai? Like I'm sure there are things, like backgrounds for your tabletop channel, you could quite possibly just ask an artists permission to use their work with credit and it would be fine. I understand my zero tolerance stance for it is very harsh, but at this current point in time, it feels like I have no other choice. You talk about how you believe ai in the hands of manipulative or opportunistic people can be damaging, and I wholly agree with you there. The thing is, those people will always exist as long as we live an a capitalist society. There will always be the people trying to make money off the backs of other people who have done the work, and then never share any of it with those same people they ripped off. At the bare minimum, we needed regulations on all of this MONTHS ago. There needs to be protections put in place for the artists being stolen from, and there needs to be consequences for the people that are doing the theft. I could see use of AI (not generative) to help in gathering specific types of reference materials all together to help the concept process go along, like a more powerful google basically. I've also seen great things coming from other lines of work like the medical field purely because the tech can comb through information lightspeeds faster than any human could even dream. But as things stand right now with gen ai, in my mind the negative impact astronomically outweighs the good and it's not something I can support in any good faith. Like before gen ai we already had rampant art theft, but now its just so much worse and it's so disheartening.

[@lucyhalut4028]

Love the intro! Absolute genius, no matter what side people are on you bring them together and really challenge their thinking. We need more people who talk in the grey, its the only way that we will move forward... its the only way we can change things. Great work! Keep it up. :D

[@LeoLau-jw7ji]

lol your like the only person talking about the

[@derahex6215]

It may be very ironic to frame it this way but this is the kind of situation when even trying to be "gray" about it is disingenuous to the overwhelming amount of hurt the advent of this technology has caused. When technologies that in the past have caused people to lose jobs as a result of work being done more efficiently, the effect was very immediately tangible. For the advanced algorithms, we have nothing yet to show for it other than being a *toy* that steals and reuses data and enables so, so many scams. The comparative of using algorithmic images to using stolen stock images doesn't ring very true to me as stock images are owned by very large conglomerates whence the original photographer/artist has already been paid for their product; in an algorithmic image, the machine is stealing from artists of every level. Those who are most vulnerable are more exploited. As for using algorithms as "dressing": I've seen this argument before of creators utilizing this tech in tandem with their own craft because otherwise they couldn't have finished a product. I find that just because one can does not mean one should. It's sad, but ethically, I believe that if you can't complete a project unless you steal from other artists, then the project simply wasn't meant to be. It's the same slippery slope principle that creates situations like this hypothetical: A company needs to choose between losing vasts amounts of money or using an unethically-sourced product to help meet the bottom line "just this once" ... this eventually leads to the company regularly using the product to keep the numbers going. You mentioned the environmental hazards during the intro but don't seem to have raised it later. The impact of it is very real and continued use of it means there won't be anything **left** for the long term. 10 gallons of water per image to cool the servers is a lot of water that could have gone elsewhere. Lastly, and I apologize if I'm making an incorrect assumption, but you seem to have painted yourself as someone who has always been well off in life, having access to the razor's edge of tech as soon as it's available. Most people aren't so lucky and thus have a longer and more arduous fight against the kind of exploitation advanced algorithms bring upon them. In a word, I'm saying that there's angles to this that your privilege might blind you to.

[@BenevolentRose]

This is absolutely an important conversation to have. Until now, I have only been surrounded by those negatively affected by AI and it’s certainly causing harm to the community. But on the other hand, being someone who was taught a lot about history, I know that AI won’t be going away. And it COULD be a very useful tool. It DOES provide a way to improve art and make it accessible for those who do not have a huge budget. AI will not be going away. But like all inventions, there is a way to use the knowledge and technology to improve and elevate art while minimizing its damage. It’s exploded because not only is it like a ‘fun new toy,’ but because money is the ultimate gateway in our society, and greedy corporations will do anything to save a dollar. So… What can we do to make it so AI can provide an avenue for poor creators to do what they never could before while limiting the constant overflow of AI art avalanching artists from being able to pursue their passion and be recognized for their creativity? It’s a conversation that needs to be had. And it’s not going to happen if we let fear of AI keep us in the dark, or let excitement for AI blind us to the harm it causes.

[@BelIa42]

Thank you so much for this honest video. You gave this topic some needed room for both sides and your in-between. Thank you! I'd love to see the bigger video you want to make. So fingers crossed that you can actually make it.

[@OmriDaxia]

I wish the conversation around AI was more about how it could empower people to reach higher potential and assist rather than create wholesale. If I had an AI assistant that was aware of all I've written and all of my notes for my fiction that could remind me of things I've established to avoid plot holes, or tell me what color I said some character's eyes were, that would help a ton and harm no one. And I think there's hundreds of similar uses across all artforms and tasks that AI could help with to reduce the grunt work that no one wants to do. Like for example, filling in line art with base colors is a tedious task that AI could help with that would speed up art workflows. But the problem is that AI isn't being developed to assist right now. It's being developed to replace, and not only does that do harm to a lot of people, but it just produces bad results generally speaking.

[@pampamtamtam4001]

I like this thought. On one hand I think tedium is a part of the art making process to a certain degree and adds to the value of your artwork, but I could also see AI as something much more valuable in that sense than what it is now. I see many people state that AI is great for brainstorming and sketching, but I personally feel that is also an aspect of art making that is valuable to practice but is lost with the use of AI.

[@OmriDaxia]

@@pampamtamtam4001 Yeah, I'd agree that tedium can be a big part of art and add to the piece, but I also think that sometimes those things aren't the point of a given piece of art. And I'd probably argue the same for brainstorming and sketching to a lesser extent. Like if I'm trying to do a character concept, I'll often splat out like 20 silhouettes almost at random, just to see if any overall shapes start to grab my attention, and I could see that step being done by AI without losing too much of the artistic process. Sometimes just having a large number of rough options to start from can help to get the creativity flowing in a similar way to how writing prompts often work.

[@pampamtamtam4001]

@@OmriDaxia Okay gotcha. Writing prompts is a good comparison