The REAL Fight Over AI Art

[@mkbhd]

Hey DALLE-5, make my next KZbin video

[@IceMetalPunk]

I feel like the transition to video generation would entail a new name. Something like... MIKE-BAY (Movie Image Kinesthetic Enhancement By Application of YOLO -- I dunno, that's the best backronym I could think of, and YOLO is a video-related AI, so bleh).

[@JustinPooreVlog]

lololol Cleo and I chatted about this and it's totally where the future of this tech is going

[@nikitashutkov1804]

😅

[@archiehillyer8476]

Can’t wait for this video in 3 or 4 months

[@aedeatia]

The real scary future that I'm worries about is when KZbin starts to automatically generate content. KZbin already has an algorithm that automatically picks the best videos on the platform for you to watch in order to get you engaged (addicted). Imagine what would happen if KZbin could serve you personally tailored perfect videos generated just for you to keep you on the platform.

[@sharpsheep4148]

The irony is that we believed that machines would help us spend more time being creative, but here I am working a desk job while AI is painting a banana riding a banana skateboard.

[@arjunsp]

This is gold😂

[@NoName-ym5zj]

Well you still gotta choose to be creative lol

[@ruslanetss]

@@NoName-ym5zj yeah man, really, why do they complain about spending all the time on a desk job. Just don't be poor, right?

[@NoName-ym5zj]

@@ruslanetss desk job doesn't mean you're poor lol, maybe by your standards it does tho idk. Nothing really prevents you from learning skills in creative fields or ... having a creative hobby. You don't need to be rich to do that lmao.

[@princyam]

that's called capitalism, anything can be automated but that's bad for the people in power

[@jamesbuchanan1913]

The concept about AI that terrifies me is when people have entirely individualized entertainment. One day KZbin won't recommend an existing video, but generate one just for me that no one else will ever see. And it will include an ad perfectly placed to extract whatever resources I have left.

[@streetcube-x3h]

AI recommended videos on steroids.

[@stagename2]

Damn😢

[@gregoryscott3858]

The imagined future that terrifies you seems easily avoidable, if only you could imagine a future where you're not spending meaningful time "watching entertainment"...

[@jamesbuchanan1913]

@@gregoryscott3858 Yes, absolutely, the best thing is to abstain. Although, it will still have a vast impact on society.

[@subarashii1368]

One day AI will be able to generate an entire virtual reality. Everyone will live in their own perfect VR world generated by AI, and never need to talk to each other.

[@vinhill1456]

I'm a senior concept artist working in the games industry and we talk about this a lot as you can imagine. I don't agree with anyone that will says AI will replace all of us, but It will absolutely reduce our numbers drastically in the next decade. I hear the blasé analogies every day "printing press, film cutters" etc. but those technologies came slowly over decades and we're not talking about the shifted cutters to become digital editors here, we're talking about complete displacement. Computers and cameras took two decades to slow phase over, it gave film cutters time to learn digital editing software. What we're seeing is happening much faster and its going to displace entire industries. More and more creative jobs are getting reduced to code which means that the only people creating 2D and 3D are seniors/art directors typing prompts, the gap between Junior and Senior is growing wider by the week and the juniors are going to find it harder to break in, if they can at all. Within 10 years time, this technology will come to 3D, Programmers and Creative Writers and more; forcing us out of work to do what? What do we transition too if all things creative are due to be taken by AI? Its a profound question to ask but its becoming more of a reality every day.

[@iamacat9658]

Let's back to the farming

[@Akacchin]

@@iamacat9658 even farming can be replaced by ai

[@MrChanicua]

Write dall e 3 :)

[@DJVARAO]

After Sony bought Minolta, I became interested in digital photography. And the journey has been incredible, but I've already seen how the new cameras can do everything much better in what is now known as computational photography, particularly at smart phone levels. Before the iPhone, a wedding photographer could easily make $3,500 to $5,000 in one weekend by working 12 hours on location and many more in the studio to deliver 300 edited photos two weeks later. Now, 20 wedding attendees with iPhones can deliver 2,000 photos by the end of the event for free. We've already discovered, DSLRs are obsolete thanks to iPhone cameras, which allow you to edit images almost in real time. In a similar way, artificial intelligence will hasten job losses in the photography industry. A lot of production value and art direction are required to create a fantasy scene. Make-up artists, wardrobe stylists, art directors, lighting assistants, photo editing wizards, and, of course, photographers are all required. However, with AI, you can already create photorealistic images that compete with or outperform what you can do in a studio, almost for free. How are you going to compete with it? Several photographers I follow have incorporated AI into their workflow by photo-bashing. However, some of them have already discovered that they no longer require the studio. I believe that companies that mass-produce AI images will dominate the industry, rather than individuals. As a result, many more creative people will have to transition to new forms of employment in order to survive.

[@carrapaz3645]

As a 3d artist which is learning machine learning i can safely say is 4 years out if not less. Def not 10. You better ride the wave rather than being crushed by it

[@therealduckshow]

I think you covered the topic pretty well, but you missed maybe the most important part - most artists *enjoy* making art, not just the idea-part of it but the actual craft of it. Historically, we've been automating away jobs that are dangerous and/or tedious and the promise was always that in the future, all of the boring jobs will be gone and we'll be left with the stuff that enriches our lives. This ain't it. I think it's super cool and using AI as a tool, for example, to brainstorm ideas is great. But we are rapidly making human art obsolete, and you can't really handwave that away with "artist will just become art directors" because many - if not most - artists don't want to just sit and write prompts. And by introducing this option that is a million times cheaper and faster, they won't have a say in the matter.

[@therealduckshow]

There has is also a second problem you didn't mention; while many seem to confuse how machine learning works, there are plenty of examples of AI-based artwork that clearly seem to break some sort of ethical rule. Pictures with blurry watermarks, for example - suggesting that the dataset contained artwork without the artists consent. Or, pictures that are clearly... different from an existing piece of art, but so similar in content, composition and style that it raises questions about plagiarism.

[@therealduckshow]

And finally a third - albeit lesser - problem that we actually still don't know too much about. As AI-driven art floods the internet, AI datasets will consist more-and-more of AI-driven artwork. What happens when this cycle goes "too far"? Could this cycle lead to an Internet-Kessler-Syndrome of sorts, where errors cascade and poison the well for all image-driven AIs? Or, maybe the inherent biases we see in AI artwork - such as racial and gender stereotypes - amplify, making any artwork of a minority into a digital minstrel show? I don't think anyone has come up with a good answer to this problem yet, as far as I know at least, but it bares mentioning.

[@sanicspeed1672]

I'm ok with that aa long as I get cool stuff

[@et5600]

@@sanicspeed1672 You know, you won't be getting new type of cool stuff when you treat the original artists like something to be shrugged off regarding their rights

[@michaellillis9897]

For me the main distinction here is between content and Art. Content can be made with Ai, but Art can only be made by people, weather on not they use Ai is up to them and as you say, the act of doing art for many is its own purpose. I see so much anthropomorphising these "Ai's" as well, which is fundamentally wrong, and kind of scary. They are pure mathematics. The same prompt and the same noise will always create the same result, and so the differences involved in the outputs of the tools come from arbitrary mathematical pseudo randomness. These image generators stealing from every image they were trained on simultaneously hasn't got a single shed of similarity to how humans copy/ steal or draw influence. Anyone who suggests that there is any relation is under some huge misconception that they actually know what human thoughts are, where they come from, why they happen, how they are executed, who thought them, when they were thought etc. I find it scary that so many people accredit 'learning' and 'creativity' to these math equations, because if we bundled up 1000 similar level complexity equations into a robot with another overarching algorithm to direct them all, it would be easily able to fool everyone into thinking it had feelings and deserved rights like owning property or having childeren. That to me is horrifying, and I love all this stuff.

[@dontthrow6064]

art has two sides 1. the eye: you see a flower, a sunset, a beach; you interpret it as being beautiful by a series of arbitrary approximations in your brain 2. the sacrifice: the artist who sweats over the minuscule details even though most will never notice them artists' hard work was almost never appreciated for what it was, ai just widens this gap further we have yet to learn how to appreciate each other

[@hellomate639]

Precisely. It's cheap, meaningless garbage built off of the real work of humans. The saddest part is how its built out of all this human emotion and experience, just to be an ugly servant to the ugliest of people. Imagine if someone made a robot copy of you, except it did everything that its owner said. That's a little bit how I feel about AI art and the people who use it.

[@Wandrative]

Dont get gaslighted by AI propaganda. What some of these people spit out to you are is the most manipulative and malicious false claim that there is. People learn and understand art visually and the creations that are made are done via visual spatial intelligence as well as the understanding of its beauty. The creations are made by visually designing in the mind based on things that the person inherently visually understood in this world. AI is nothing but a set of functions that outputs a set colors of 2D pixels based on the input. The 'neuron' of the AI is just a terminology used for a node of function in the system. If it 'deep learns', the thing that it deep learned is synthesizing a more complex set of functions. None of the 'intelligence' behind this AI has visual spatial intelligence yet it is being used to destroy and insult those who actually have genuine visual intelligence.

[@Eren_Yeager_is_the_GOAT]

@@Wandrative ah yes and our neurons are also just functions

[@Wandrative]

@@Eren_Yeager_is_the_GOAT Meaning you didn’t understand anything

[@angel_of_rust]

*looks at modern movies, music, and games* what sacrifice?

[@WhitmoreReads]

I'm just going to keep painting. I get giddy creating with my own impressive human hands, imagination, spirit and the experience and hard work I put in is so rewarding. From shopping for paint and brushes, then setting it up and going through the process is priceless.

[@drluquitas]

Absolutely. As my friend and advisor will say: "the computer can do it instead of you, but not for you"

[@janwelander4110]

People who use AI and real artists are 2 completely different types of people. Those who use AI are not artists in any way. They dont know anything about proportion, perspectiv, colours, values, light and shadow etc. They are to lazy to put in the work and time it takes to become a good artist. If it takes more than a week to learn, its not worth doing. So they use a program that only exists because of real artists hard work. Real artists loves the process from the first small sketches to the final piece. When you know how to draw, you can make everything as you want it, down to the smallest detail, you dont have to rely on a program to do that. Every time I get a pencil in my hand I start doodling all kinds of things. And that incredible joy it is to go into a art store and just go bananas, is something those so called "AI artists" will never feel.

[@bluefernlove]

You're safe. People who have physical skills are safe. The ones that are screwed are the ones who moved their entire path to digital.

[@scribbitb.4519]

@@janwelander4110 oh absolutely. I'm scared to name the specifics because I'm worried ai will start aping that too. But artists understand art as a whole practice, they don't copy it.

[@Wandrative]

Dont get gaslighted by AI propaganda. What some of these people spit out to you are is the most manipulative and malicious false claim that there is. People learn and understand art visually and the creations that are made are done via visual spatial intelligence as well as the understanding of its beauty. The creations are made by visually designing in the mind based on things that the person inherently visually understood in this world. AI is nothing but a set of functions that outputs a set colors of 2D pixels based on the input. The 'neuron' of the AI is just a terminology used for a node of function in the system. If it 'deep learns', the thing that it deep learned is synthesizing a more complex set of functions. None of the 'intelligence' behind this AI has visual spatial intelligence yet it is being used to destroy and insult those who actually have genuine visual intelligence.

[@jkamine]

Love finishing Johnny Harris’ video and just slipping right into Cleo Abram’s video

[@sitaramkakarlamudi8747]

same lol

[@kachebele_phiri]

Me too 😂

[@hardikjaimini]

So true mannn

[@hardikjaimini]

So true mannn

[@sumitrana2420]

For me, I had just watched the video from Phil Edwards about it.

[@IstasPumaNevada]

Beyond taking jobs, there's also taking away respect and appreciation. Working long and hard on something and someone going "okay, so? I can type a prompt and get the same thing". "Anybody can create art, and it will be really cool art." No... anyone will be able to get a company to create art for them. The skills you learned were not how to make art, it was how to get a company to create it for you. It's neat and useful, but not the same. Also you're either, for free or paying _them_ , helping them to improve that in the process. Also this isn't just inspiration; these AI image generation things _would not exist in a useful state_ without feeding them countless photographs and artworks people made themselves; things they worked long and hard on, most of them without the knowledge that their work would be used for this purpose, and as far as I know ALL of them having their work used without licensing fees. This is also an example of further concentration of wealth into the hands of those who already have wealth. Companies will be more than happy to go with "good enough" for a lot of their images if it's quick and cheap, without any pesky human individuality to get in the way. Also I'm tired of having people sharing AI-generated images with me. It's neat at first, but primarily when you're the one doing the prompts; after a while, others sharing AI images with you just feels like someone telling you every detail of every dream they have. The whole "takes away peoples' livelihood" wouldn't be nearly as much of a concern if we lived in a society where losing your job didn't mean potentially losing healthcare, going homeless, or starving to death, as it does in the country I live in.

[@CorinneWilger]

Love how you conveniently skipped over the entire copyright issue that these AI generators are embroiled in lmao. This is why most artists hate AI art - they’re taking artists’ work & feeding it into the generators without their consent. It’s disgusting.

[@kurtdewittphoto]

Yeah, it seems just like when sample-based music exploded, and the artists who created the music being sampled getting pissed.

[@ZachTheMaker]

Fully agree. If I steal your art and slightly modify it I've still stolen your art. If I steal from a million artists and blended their works I've still stolen from them. Anytime you get something for nothing there's going to be issues. These people haven't created art. Art requires a bit more effort than a keystroke.

[@GS-tk1hk]

@@ZachTheMaker With that logic, every artist is a thief. Where do you think "original" art comes from? It's the culmination of the artist's exposure to previous art, inspiration from their favorite works, techniques borrowed from the masters of their craft. Unless you live in complete isolation, you have stolen from other people's art.

[@randoguy7488]

@@GS-tk1hk You're saying as if all art is just a culmination of previous art. For living beings, that's just not true. Artist take inspiration from feelings, from things that happened and things they have experienced. If an artist is depressed, they can put that into art based on their feeling. If you ask an AI to paint something influenced by depression it'll just combine the work of others without really knowing what depression is like.

[@UnknownDino]

@@GS-tk1hk the problem is that Ai is millions of times faster. It takes years to convert that inspiration into new artwork for the average artist. Not so much for the machine. The tech is disruptive in this economy and probably there is no stopping it now.

[@isabellebernard5292]

As an animator and artist, a lot of my friends get worried that jobs will be even more difficult to find after this. It's tough studying your whole life for a skill that's likely to just die out in time. I get the points, but I don't think it should be overlooked that it has the potential to make sure artists can't pay their bills and go out of work in an already underpaid and rough work enviroment

[@digitalclown2008]

Artists are still required to make the output worth using in any way. There is a curve of relevancy, and human artists will always be ahead of it because we live in the real world. Plus, human artists are still required in order to obtain copyright. So far, these tools are only creating visually impressive things. But they aren't really generating any cool ideas. PEOPLE are having the ideas. And that will be what art is going forward. A back and fourth between people who create new themes, techniques and ideas, and people who use these ideas, themes and techniques to push the boundaries of story telling and iconography.

[@Timtom0707]

@@digitalclown2008 What happens when you pair these tools with massive language models and data on what kind of images people like? We're not far off this being completely end-to-end automated without any humans in the loop.

[@toric225]

What about other industries, lots of jobs can and will be replaced by automation. There used to be a much larger percentage of the population directly working on farms but farming equipment and automation have made it easier to farm with fewer people needed. Is one job ok to replace because others view it as menial but a different job isn't ok to possibly replace because its somehow less menial. Automation and tools like this have the ability to pull more of the world out of poverty, if AI can do creative work then it can also learn and be taught how to do or assist with technically diverse jobs. Even this tool a creative person is able to have a better outcome with it than plain ol joe me.

[@heroiam4067]

It’s so funny that people think “art is gonna die out in time” lol. Art will always be the most human thing ever, maybe if you were the artist drawing skating bananas, fences or NY skylines you might loose your job but man the great artists in the game, movie or animation industries are doing very different stuff, and an AI could not replace them cos it lacks the brain to put pieces togheter and come up with ideas, art is not just an image, the image is just the final step. A great artist is a storyteller, someone that can communicate his human experience be it with it character designs, animations or fsntastical landscapes, if you don’t have any human experience, context or culture in it It will just feel like an empty image, and people don’t enjoy that stuff, the internet is already full of that junk.

[@47f0]

@@digitalclown2008 - Aaah. I see. You have a squishy brain that runs on proteins... And no machine could ever match or surpass that functionality. 1). Why does creativity have to rely on organic chemistry? 2). Do you even have a good working definition of creativity? Because machines now are doing things that definitely surprise their human developers. Things that literally cannot be based on simple rule-based programming but instead display actions based on something that looks very much like intuition. 3). Has the human brain seen a significant increase in processing power in the last 100,000 years? 4). Do you imagine that the increase in processing power and algorithms for electronic machines is coming to a halt, or increasing exponentially? 5). If you own the electronic system, do you think it's impossible to copyright the output of that system, because it happens in music all the time.

[@koketsok1513]

People who dont peruse art passionately will never understand how soul crushing it is for all your effort to be reduced to simple tags edit:the comments below this come in 2 shapes the first is people talking through me and not at me,it feels like alot of people are treating this as an entitlement/death of self perused art,which I did not say is he case its as I said " reduced to simple tags"the comment was talking about how widely he access to ai has made people very openly vocal about reducing artists pay.Alot of replies o my comment have the energy "someone who thinks artists need to be knocked down a peg as art isnt hard work" and alot of ego stroking about this is the future know.Lots of people making their dislike known on artists pushing back on AI art or asking about how equity could be shared .LIke this is a pretty innocuous comment and yet it getting alot of raw replies as I am reading alot of projections the second:kind of reinforces the point I made,lots of attacks about how this is the future so keep up,los of try harder .so I will explain what I meant by " reduced to simple tags"firstly I am not anti AI art,in fact I love it,I prefer execution over concept development,so tools like midjounrey and dalle have really helped me speed up visual development and concepting workflow.when I said " reduced to simple tags" I meant how blatant people are being over prices,commission prices are know being openly contested as clients who dont know the timline of most art projects are making artist justify their time and speed vs the ai art sure you could say "not my problem,its a tool" first no its not a tool its more like a mini artist and second thats the problem with how fast art can be generated alot of peoples expectation on art timelines have become even stricter and tighter as consumers choose between a 35$ a month sub to midjourney too get lots of variation on art (on which variations of said art can be made from the artists work with no compensation) or hire an arits whos timeline may be slower,even if you add AI art to the pipeline its still cant compete with price ,quility and speed as alot of Ai generators can make beautiful fully rendered works in seconds. another reason I say " reduced to simple tags" alot of artists are being used as generators to produce art both industry and commission artists are being effected by this,I already see Ross draws fixer accounts that make art in his style FOR COMMISSIONS using art generators(he gives it a prompt using the "ross draws"tag and fixes it for his client) so the artists who are involuntary a part of this(as you cannot opt out of having your work in their) are literally having their lifetime of effort reduced to A SIMPLE TAG.hell their are whole groups threads of people talking how to emulate certain illustrators and artists work for the purpose of flipping their work on merchandise,like imagine going 35 years of training,learning you fundamentals,gaining a reputation just so some hafwit who likes you style and instead of commissioning you and buying the commercial rights to have your art style on whatever commercial venture you hired them for ,instead train a module on your art,sell it on merchandise and have people tell you that this is the future when you complain I love AI art,but these "growing pains"is not just progress it is fundamentally changing how artists interact and share their art,alot of pxiv and patreon artists want to take down their high def work as they are afraid people will train machines using their higher quality work,checkout the whole mimic Ai response on twitter from august.If artists feel like they need to hide their work or put more work behind a paywall or not upload it at all we al loose from a reduction of publicly available art If it helps instead of passionately read it as "those who dont devote their time and energy into improving their art" will never understand how soul crushing it is for all your effort to be reduced to simple tags

[@spacemilk6197]

I bet the portrait painters of old felt the same when the camera was invented, but now photography is a whole new art form.

[@MsMeGUka]

i am an artist my self and i understand your point of view still i think it won’t replace artists themselves. especially painters. looking at a painting which is handmaid irl and looking at a photo of a painting is a whole different thing. u know museums are still functional and cinemas are crowded despite having netflix .

[@southcoastinventors6583]

That really depends on what you think art is though. For some the tools created are art and the output will be even greater than what was able to be produce before.

[@MsMeGUka]

@@southcoastinventors6583 for sure but i’m referring to visual arts such as earsel graphics and painting.

[@darkstars-torpedoes-of-truth]

An arts degree is now as useless as gender studies

[@Nacho-gj1hs]

This video make me to appreciate much more the real artists.

[@Visocacas]

As an artist (hobbyist, but still invested years in this skill), AI art really doesn't sit well with me. But when I think about it logically, there's no conclusion other than that it's here to stay and that it's fundamentally similar to many other technology-driven revolutions in art that have happened over the past century. When photography came around, people complained that would ruin the trade of painters. Even without AI, learning digital illustration is dramatically easier now than just 10 years ago thanks to the wealth of great instructive content on KZbin and elsewhere. My existing art skills still give me a huge advantage over traditionally unskilled AI art creators. I have the ability to use AI results as a basis for painting over, making use of my better ability to articulate and render a vision, while keeping composition, perspective, values, and colours correct. It's a big opportunity for me to expedite brainstorming and thumbnailing. However, I hope people in general learn to recognize what AI art looks like. I don't buy for a second that "Good AI prompts are just a new different skillset" if it's meant to compare to the skill of an illustrator. Learning text prompt tricks will _never_ be remotely comparable to the dedication, practice, and skill required to learn to sketch and paint. If AI art is passed off as a comparable achievement to illustrating traditionally, to me that's dishonest and is a kind of stolen valor.

[@FoxgirlEriana]

I think the biggest problem isn't that ppl are saying ai art will be just as good, or better, or anything than actual, human-made art, esp cus all ai art (so far at least) is just taking cues from pre-existing images based on text prompts I think the actual problem is that none of this matters to the ppl who actually pay the artists, if a corporation can reduce its art department from a team of several skilled artists, illustrators, photographers, concept artists, etc, and instead replace them all with just 1 or 2 ppl who are really good at making text prompts, they 100% will, cus that'll be *way* cheaper for them, and they'll see absolutely no reason to pay the artists they already wish they weren't paying

[@Visocacas]

​@@FoxgirlEriana I agree completely. My comment was pretty self-centred from the perspective of a hobbyist artist. AI is definitely very bad news for professional artists. I don't think people these days have strong feelings about the invention of photography obliterating the painting trade. My expectation is that AI will have a similar effect. I empathize with professional artists and it makes me feel a little sick. One small consolation is that artists will probably still be the ones creating AI art, and using their traditional skills to supplement and touch it up. There will just be fewer available jobs in the art industry. This tool may also end up bringing more art into existence, with otherwise unskilled artists able to bring out creative visions that they couldn't otherwise.

[@zeastburg]

Need to also recognize that cameras merely democratized capturing whats infront of you, a camera doesn’t craft and decide *whats* infront of you. Same with a printing press - it doesn’t write the book for you.

[@doicounttoo6861]

"My existing art skills still give me a huge advantage over traditionally unskilled AI art creators. I have the ability to use AI results as a basis for painting over, making use of my better ability to articulate and render a vision, while keeping composition, perspective, values, and colours correct." This should be a big sign somewhere on a building. Because this is what AI should be used for; to quickly create a concept, illustrate an idea. And then use the real skills to create the art.

[@avedic]

One thing that I wonder about is.... Oversaturation and fatigue. I'm an artist....and I use these tools. And it's astonishing the sheer VOLUME of brilliant beautiful fascinating surreal images I've produced. So so SO many. Hundreds that are 10/10 creative brilliance. What sort of world will this be? A world where creativity overflows like Niagra Falls? Niagras of epiphanous creative abundance....an infinitude of artistic genius to the nth degree? What will that mean for how us humans appreciate and consume and create and interact with.......art? Will it cheapen it? Or will it enliven our lives to an enormous degree? It's so hard to say. I have no answers. But I've got lots of questions. I'm worried. I'm also fascinated. I'm conflicted.

[@psychobob3154]

So the ability to type words makes you creative, like what?? I don't think this is good for artists at all but in terms of speed and efficiency on a corporate level it's fantastic. I was planning on being a concept artist but it seems that job won't be around for long.

[@slimboarder.o7]

🤡🤡🤡🤡

[@ajidle4190]

As humans we are naturally creative the question is does ai art make people skilled and the answer to that is no. But as artist that know the rules to art I feel we should lean into ai and make it a part of a process

[@psychobob3154]

@@ajidle4190 I agree to an extent for example random pose generation and references but this kind of ai replaces too much hard earned skill and dedication to a craft.

[@Wandrative]

@@ajidle4190 Not all people are creative

[@Wandrative]

@vyhozshu odinyana People who say that have no creativity in the first place. You have Imagination in your brain in an instant.

[@pictor125]

I feel very sorry for any copyright lawyers. This is going to throw a wrench into that whole system.

[@saiashwin26]

Fuck them, copyright is just used by companies to steal from artists.

[@pictor125]

@Jonas Tausendfreund I doubt it will completely die since people will still want ownership of their work (even if it is ai generated), but it will definitely need to be modified to encompass this new technology. As of right now the US is of the mindset that ai generated art does not qualify to be copyrighted. So any ai art is technically in the open domain. But I expect that this may change in certain circumstances.

[@pictor125]

@Jonas Tausendfreund I completely agree there is no ownership of thought. But copyright is ownership of works not ownership of thought. That leaves the court to decide what is “work”. is the act of inputing a prompt “work”? Or is the ai doing all the “work” (and since an ai can’t hold a copyright it is then made public). Also, these tools are already open source with the release of Stable Diffusion.

[@AdobadoFantastico]

Nah, the big companies will train networks to identify and flag anything close to their IP. Just like what happens if you have more than 2 sec of the wrong song rn. What'll really happen is it'll reinforce the rights of institutions and deteriorate the rights of individuals.

[@richardbloemenkamp8532]

I think the existing copyright law is mostly good enough to deal with this technology. If it becomes easy to create unique works, then great everybody can create their own unique 'art' work with this technology. I don't really see an issue.

[@nuehm1204]

My main issue as an aspiring artist is that I don’t think people will ask for my permission to train their image generating AI with my work. I don‘t want that. It is my work. They shouldn‘t be allowed to just take it. And the only way i could prevent it is by not posting and sharing at all. That is not an option.

[@chantzgaming]

But when you think about it, is it no different then how you learned to be an artist? Was your only tool available on day 1 just your drawing/painting supplies? Most likely not. We learn drawing techniques and styles by studying and referencing artists before us, no different than a neural network. Most painting 101 classes have you create your own interpretation of starry night. Did we get Van Gogh’s permission to train our brains with his work? Like Cleo said, the AI is using the same tools us artists use by referencing images and trying to take inspiration from them in its own work, not copy and paste mindlessly.

[@ajp2206]

@@chantzgamingSpot on! The above guy doesn’t understand that he is nothing different and has also used other peoples art in some sense which makes his argument invalid.

[@nuehm1204]

@@chantzgaming Listen I am not talking about dead artists. I have nothing against the AI training with old art. People can use AI generated drawings in the style of Van Gogh or Leonardo Da Vinci but it becomes a problem when the prompt is for the style of a living artist who still tries to live of of their art. What I am saying is the least they should have to do is ask.

[@ajp2206]

@@nuehm1204 I guess you still don't get it huh?

[@amentrison2794]

@@nuehm1204 I think what you're touching on gets at the tension between our current economic system and the ability of the internet to make info that is freely available and something that is effectively infinitely reproducible. Building off of the first person's reply, do you think art students should be able to study modern artists?

[@janbert4927]

I hear pretty often the argument that AI is just a tool and without inventing new tools we would be still in stoneage and wouldn`t have photoshop and so on. The thing with AI is, it goes beyond just being a tool. Its more like a virtual artist, telling him/her what to paint, with the advantage that this virtual artist can literally paint everything unimaginable in every style or even inventing a new style in a fracture of time. Plus this virtual artist seems like being able to do the work for millions of "clients" at the same time for no extra cost. Does it unlock human creativity? It probably depends how you look at it. Learning about the principles of art, finding an artstyle which some people dedicated their whole life of is a learning process which AI doesn`t teach us. Does it makes us more creative by telling someone else what to paint and finding an artstyle for us? You could argue the creativity lies in prompting the right words. Yes, a banana on a skateboard came from our own imagination. But for that idea alone you wouldn`t need AI to unlock creativity in us. We might get new inspiration from AI generated images, inspiration might lead us to motivation but not creativity. To me its almost a moral question. Do we care that this art is made by an artist who has put his/her heart, soul and effort in it or is it just made by AI. And I guess the majority probably doesn`t care as long as the end result looks good. Which leads to less appreciation/valuation of art in general.

[@Vinicam]

Great response. The money aspect of this will make any “humanistic” argument to be burried and we’re witnessing the start of something really bad for our race: lack of virtues to pursue… only hedonism in its crudest form will mather in a few decades.

[@ericwheton6935]

creativity isn't something we train, its something we have as a primal part of you. You can think up tons of wacky things, what you train is your ability to bring these things to life. Art is one medium of this much like writing and composing are. This is simply another medium to bring the things inside your head to life.

[@luisdavidllense2293]

I see where you're getting at at the start of your post: A foreman used to tell a builder to use a hammer to build something. But now a foreman tells the hammer directly to build something. We're only left with the foreman and the hammer. Who needs the builder?

[@scribbitb.4519]

I'm going to start buying more art directly from artists who don't use AI. The meaning behind it is everything for me.

[@carloorelli3538]

honestly, most people confuses pretty looking pictures with "art". Art is a form of expression and it's a form of communication from a person (the artist) to other people. There is a message in art. All those wonderful pictures made by DallE or Midjourney are not art at all. None of the AIs is trying to express itself by any means. But the same could be said about most "art" we see online: more than often it's just good looking drawings about something. No surprise AIs can do it better: it's just using tools to obtain a specific goal. It's no different from telling an AI to win a match of GO

[@amentrison2794]

I understand what you're getting at, but I don't think people are "confused", we just value different things and aesthetics are a part of art.

[@feetfinderguy7044]

I don't think they're confused. They simply operate under a different paradigm of art, one that's easily replaceable by an AI lol

[@noone-ld7pt]

Why can't the person who are inputting the parameters to the AI have the intent of expression and communication? I love art but I have no artistic ability at all and have never pursued it for myself. But after just a few seconds I could, through the AI, express ideas and scenes from my mind, in an incredible range of styles and forms. Ideas that could visualize my very specific experiences. It felt absolutely amazing, as if I had unlocked a completely hidden potential. And I understand that the process of creation has traditionally been a big part of art, but I am still expressing my ideas, my communication, just through a different creation process. I don't claim to be an artist, but I find it very hard to accept that one can't create art through these tools.

[@Wandrative]

@@noone-ld7pt That means that you cant visualize it in your head, its not a matter of limited functionality. It means that you are inherently uncreative. So on that point how is it different from a patron commissioning an artist to paint something with a topic that he has in his mind? The artist is still the artist, who understands shape and form to create it. You are the commissioner who does not even value art to pay the artist apart from some 50$ monthly fee.

[@Wandrative]

As an artist I disagree. The most important part about art is its beauty and aesthetic quality. Certainly there are other aspect added onto it, but its secondary. Your philosophy is the reason why society has learned to under appreciate art already. The dystopian aspect of this whole AI thing is that society will undervalue art and beauty even more as a non challant disposable thing. People wont uphold other beings who have a superior intellect and understanding of beauty/shape/form. However, its hypocritical. The first thing AIs could do effortlessly was math. AIs can be lawyers, AIs can literally do any kind of job of higher intellect now. So why is society not even thinking of replacing them, whilst being so quick to replace the realm of art? At this point what is the point of existence of human civilization? For me AI art as of now is might be good as mediocre art, but it didn’t reach the level of mastery. I want you to ask of the AI actually understands beauty and form, or is it just thinking mathematically and creating a pattern based a mathematical 2D analysis of other images stolen from the internet. AI does not understand beauty. And the prompting consumer also does not. In the distant future, if ai does become evolved enough to the point of having sentience and total artistic mastery - then I will recognize it as its own intelligent being who is more enlightened compared to an average non-artist human. This sentience should then have rights and not be ‘owned’ by a company nor its ‘user’. Its creation is its own creation. But why does society even want to make an artificial sentient being in the future? Its a completely dystopian thing that should be stopped.

[@sunsetmadder5589]

I stopped browsing art sites since this ''AI generated'' tidal wave started. It leaves me feeling like I've been spending my time, watching something dead floating in the water trying to understand what it is. Hopefully this hype and grift subsides soon.

[@julianking4793]

What a very powerful and poetic commentary. What you are looking at are the dead leaves of tired and unoriginal illustrated ideas that have fallen from the tree of world culture. The hype will die down as the witless chase the newest shiny distraction, the grift, sadly, will never stop. Certainly not on KZbin anyway!

[@aztro.99]

fr all this idiots that think this is the future and we should be happy about it, have me so pissed off its crazy. im just hoping this shit dies out and doesnt meet its logical conclusion: the death of intelligence and an age of over saturation

[@lordfuzzycat1176]

Your comment completely articulates how I feel and calling it "something dead floating in the water" is spot on. Ai art feels dead because it literally is. It has no human emotion or energy within it and as a result it feels empty.

[@Antillles]

Same here. I was subscribed to many random art profiles on social media, but I had to unsubscribed from many when they started posting AI images. I think I will end only following artist that aren't using this.

[@bluefernlove]

It's not hype. It's here to stay. If a company that can hire 10 graphic designers is suddenly given the option to hire only 1 who can prompt the work those 10 can do, what do you think is going to happen? And this won't happen just to graphics. It will disrupt every industry out there. From fashion designers and models to accountants and lawyers. And the bulk of the workforce, the repetitive tasks, the cashiers, the warehouse workers, the servers, the cleaners, etcetera, those will go gradually to stop it from creating sudden havoc. Don't take this lightly. Make sure you have as many eggs in the basket as you can.

[@trigestigro4707]

As a person that have been studying painting, drawing and stuff like thar for the past 2 years and that enjoys using midjourney and disco diffusion I say: ai art is not art, is art direction. Prompting is pretty much telling what you want, but instead of telling someone, you tell something to do it. Ai art is a great start for something, but not the end project, thats my opinion

[@avedic]

I've been using one of these....called Night Cafe....a LOT over the past few months. It is incredible. Free to use....you get daily credits. Or you can buy credits, which I do. Once you get the hang of the subtleties of the weights and settings, you can really hone the results. Many of the results are astonishing. I'm an artist, I paint, and I'm using it to generate inspiration. I'll feed it a painting I've already done, apply various metrics to that, and see what results it outputs. Honestly....a good portion of the outcomes are genuinely genius. I've spent a long time just staring at all the intricate fascinating details and creative "decisions" that were made. As a tool to empower human creativity....this is one of the most powerful things I've ever encountered. It's also quite clear to me that, this only being the beginning, things are about to get very very weird.... Anyone saying "whatever...this is just another invention, like any other" are simply ignorant about the potency and intelligence behind these tools. This isn't merely some other invention in a long line of inventions. This is a new kind of MIND. A mind we can collaborate with.....and a mind we will be competing with. If nothing else, things are about to get very strange very fast....

[@demonvictim]

@@avedic I honestly can see a future where the majority of the base work is done by ai. From the setting to the skeletal structure. All that needs to be done is more finer details until even that is no longer needed. Then in animation side for 2d films I can honestly see only characters being designed and set only to be thrown into a massive text reader that will spit out multiple different films that could be spliced together and later edited to make everything work and the movie would be done in a month

[@notsurewhatisgoingon]

I find it to be a GREAT inspiration tool. I've been in an artistic rut since the beginning of the pandemic and it's been fantastic to have "recommendations" on the ideas in my head. If that makes sense. And the tool isn't infallable. Are the results often great? Sure, but it doesn't mean it's exactly what I want. And often it informs me of what I DON'T want.

[@trigestigro4707]

@@notsurewhatisgoingon Furthermore, the lack of perspective, anatomy and other technical skills shows up even on ai. The only thing I ai gets good (still not right) is color. Still, great tool to help anybody with ideas in mind

[@hellomate639]

Use pinterest instead. These programs use so much scraped data that is uncredited.

[@rls__]

Imo the bigger problem with AI of this caliber is that they are fundamentally very similar to each other. hence the coming disruption is gonna be much faster than previous as its iteration of this technology, and I fear faster than we can adapt. Every thing from image generators(dalle2) to text generators(gpt3) are neural networks. And its different from her video editor example. Video editors took decades to replace all the jobs she mentioned, it was bottle necked by lack of other technologies like faster computers and storage space. But today everything is in place for everything to be automated. Its not easy. But the point is, most of it can be done today. And the newer job we can come up with can also be automated. For example, she says prompting still takes a skill. You maybe ablr use GPT3 to turn a bad prompt to good. I think the question we should ask is what cant AI learn.

[@AZaqZaqProduction]

Yeah the idea that "prompt engineering" will be a flourishing profession is like saying that we'll have millions of people just being employed as professional googlers. The whole point is that it _isn't_ hard and it _doesn't_ take expertise to use.

[@dreadfulbodyguard7288]

@@AZaqZaqProduction If you put it this way, most programmers (including me) are just glorified googlers.

[@AZaqZaqProduction]

@@dreadfulbodyguard7288 as a programmer I see people say this a lot but I don't actually find it particularly true for myself. It's a tool that you certainly need to use and know how to use well, but it's only one component of the job.

[@LoopX]

@@AZaqZaqProduction I agree. I could not open up visual studio and make a usable app right now, I'd have to watch many lessons in order to understand where everything is and what I should and shouldn't do. AI art is not the same. Any goofy ahh fella can open up Stable Diffusion and use something they generated with an AI prompt generator. Calling Prompting a job by itself is silly.

[@jonbbbb]

@@LoopX that's not true, this video already demonstrated how an artist can create better output than a non-artist. I agree that calling prompting a job will end up being silly, but not because that's the current state of things. I've played with these image generators myself and it's hard to make it do what you want. If you just want to make "something cool" and are happy with essentially random output then sure. If you have an actual goal in mind, it can be very difficult. I've been using Stable Diffusion to make thumbnails for my chess videos. Try making an image of a knight playing chess and making a move with a knight. I'm 100% sure that as a human you can picture exactly what I'm talking about. I spent hours and hours trying to get an image of it and cannot do it. If I had decent drawing skills I could probably sketch it out and get the AI to fill in details, but I can't. But the reason "prompt engineer" likely won't be a job is because the tools will continue improving at breakneck speed and one day maybe it really will be as simple as "make me a really cool painting of a knight playing chess and moving a knight with an excited expression on his face, use that yo dog meme template, and you know the style I like."

[@kingmuze8219]

My thing is… what are we going to be doing for fun if we let robots take literally every job?? I mean sure I could still paint if I wanted to, but why paint with real paint when I could type it and see if finished in a second? We’re going to turn into fat, consuming junkies 😅 like them people from Wall-E 😭😂💀

[@pixelfairy]

Don't worry, you'll have lots of free time to get your workout in

[@banned0404]

Well, the more important thing is you won't have any money. More free time, no money and you will starve to dth. Well, that's what everyone wants right? More jobless people.

[@AvgJane19]

Make art. People don't stop making art because other people make art.

[@mmcsarte]

Dont let the Ai take art, it will only shift the market from artists to companies...

[@luminomancer5992]

The actual problem is at the transition not after it, its not gonna take every job and thats the problem, you will be moved from each job that AI takes over to a new one, and it wont matter if you studied for years to be able to live off that job, or if you liked it or not. And it wont be until nearly every job is taken over that we will have the ability to just do stuff cause we want to.

[@Fendeguard]

You're weirdly optimistic. I too sit on the side of "new art tools are great", but you have VERY LITTLE concern for the outcomes of this beyond just a few 'lost jobs'.

[@ITR]

Share some of your other concerns please

[@SysterYster]

I think these AI's are pretty fun to play with (I use Midjourney myself), but I would also never claim to have made these artworks. I think that's a bigger issue than the creation itself. People have won art contests against "real" artists who drew and painted things with this. And that's crazy to me. People claim they made these pictures, which is dishonest. These things bother me. But it's super fun to just create things and use it as inspiration and just plain fun, or to see what comes out and be amazed. Or to paint over it, or edit it in PhotoShop and such. That's no different from making a photomanipulation. But writing a few words, and then upload or sell things, telling people you made it, feels very wrong.

[@demonvictim]

The thing is most people don't care. Just look at modern art memes and even though great artist exist out there a lot of people believe that the fine arts are just a rich people tax dodge. Lets say I write a book and wanted to make it into a movie someday maybe 7 years later I can dump that book inside a processor and get a somewhat mid rating movie. Essentially making a movie that would've cost 3 million to make and months of effort for 30 dollars and a weekend away from the computer if even that since it would most likely be on the cloud. It might come to the point where the idea guys are literally all you need since right now you can input a prompt and it will give you an essay that will get you a a+ in seconds. How many idea guys will be out there creating this new flood of content drowning out hard work and how many of those will In fact be better

[@demonvictim]

Well I made that comment and chat gpt came out which can give you an a or a+ in seconds.

[@SysterYster]

@@demonvictim Thing is, creative people will still create things, because it's FUN to create. But it's sad if they shouldn't be able to get work anymore because their hard work is being drowned in AI art. And if they can make movies someday, actors are no longer needed and that's a lost art form (many lost art forms because it's way more than just people acting and talking while being filmed). I'm not sure they will be better tbh, considering how hard it is to make an AI do exactly what you want them to do. You can write "Beautiful woman in front of a palace" and get an amazing image. But if you want a specific look on the women or the palace... heck, it's nigh impossible. XD And yeah, money always comes first, I get that. So the AI will take jobs away. It will probably also create new jobs, but different ones. And I know people who aren't affected won't care. It's how people are.

[@Archmage90]

Why cannot you claim you made art even if it is Ai-generated? you still need to choose promts, and filter result by yourself. What makes artist "real" ? Most artist uses programms and graphical tablets and so on, does it makes their art less real?

[@julieorwell]

@@Archmage90 because it is no different from asking someone else to draw something for you, you give them a description of your idea and you choose one of the drawings they show you and give feedback and they fix it for you. Does that make the final art your creation? Graphical tablet is just a medium just like a piece of paper and a pencil, it doesn't magically draw for you or make you a better artist

[@driaan_louw]

There is a level of "art" that this probably cant replace - where we value the art because it tells us something about the artist. This could probably help a whole new group of people do that - but it also won't replace the experience of enjoying someone's brush strokes because they are unique to that person. It feels more like a question of why do we value art. Cleo's mom would probably prefer Cleo's non-ai artworks. But artists who work in marketing, communication, entertainment, definitely need to have a pivot plan.

[@adisaikkonen]

But no new artist will ever reach that level because they will be unable to make a living with their subpar art while they practice and try to learn.

[@TheOldSchoolCrisis]

@@adisaikkonen You grossly underestimate the number of people who are fantastic artists and learn/work on art as a hobby not a commercial job.

[@TheOldSchoolCrisis]

I think the biggest problem is that if you want to do art for a living there just isn't enough of a demand out there for people who make art as a passion. The only way people get paid for their art is if that art can make someone else money. Ultimately we are going to be displacing a huge number of workers simply because they picked the wrong profession. People will no longer view art as a career path and it will be sidelined for most as a hobby. At the end of the day though I really don't think that is a problem personally but I am a bit selfish as my day job is IT. I sell some art on the side but I mostly do it because I enjoy creating stuff.

[@logan3722]

True, the ai cant produce what it doesnt have in its database like someones unique flow of art or someones singing voice no one has heard before. And maybe they can preserve themselves through a way of copyright where there images/music wont be allowed to be put into algorithms. like if i was vincent vango i would not have my art style be able to be put in algorithms where it diminishes the value of the art. Idk, just a thought.

[@logan3722]

nevermind, now that i think of it.. someone could just copy your style then call it their own and put it in the algorithm, after all we do learn by replicating other peoples art... so its not looking too good...

[@iamharishkashyap]

She really does know how to pick great topics for making content. Great video!

[@rcnhsuailsnyfiue2]

Would love to see Cleo cover the recent breakthroughs in lab-grown meat one day soon. Controversial, weird but potentially revolutionary - seems perfect for this channel!

[@southcoastinventors6583]

@@rcnhsuailsnyfiue2 Don't really see how it is weird, its more of refinement since growing livestock is form lab-grown meat look at chickens that we grow for food they can't really live in the wild. Only downside is all the byproduct we rely on in the form of glues, binders, gelatin, leather, and bunch of other things we also need to eventually find substitutes.

[@rcnhsuailsnyfiue2]

@@southcoastinventors6583 I don’t think it’s weird, but many people do. And we won’t have to find replacements for many byproducts either - the same technology can be used to grow leather humanely, there are already companies working on it. They just isolate the “meat” part to growing skin cells, rather than muscle.

[@southcoastinventors6583]

@@rcnhsuailsnyfiue2 Some product don't even use skin but bacterial biofilms. As far being humane, humans cannot live without consuming other lifeforms intentionally or not, but we can do things more efficiently which makes it easier to coexist. Far as other people finding it weird, maybe at first but if the meat is higher quality and a cheaper price then the pocket book almost always wins out.

[@Atman26634]

probably came up with the idea through ai

[@TheOneLifeRider]

The answer is the same as to the question - "what happens with the profession of the photographer, when everyone walks around with a camera in their pocket?" We all know the answer. There are the few which are exceptional and make a decent living (which includes income from selling courses to wannabes), and there's the majority which are content with their pics.

[@LucasDimoveo]

Yup. That is why I left the industry

[@captaincronus3958]

i dont think anyone would have a problem with ai art if it stayed a fun little gimmick or was purposefully given for free to artists as a tool, but it's not staying a fun little trick, and it's not being given as a tool to artists, either. i dont think anyone would have a problem if they literally just had a rule that people cant sell what they generate. that would keep it as being free and useful for actual artists, and have it be used as a tool, instead of having artists fear that someone would probably just generate whatever for that job that the artist could have had. on another note; it has nothing to do with if people cant afford it and if some people cant draw very well, part of being human and BEING CREATIVE is LEARNING. anyone can learn how to draw, anyone can learn how to paint. its a matter of if someone really wants to learn that skill. you just dont want to put the time and the effort into learning how to make art, and that's fine, thats why there are artists you can commission for your ideas. learning a skill is free. all it is, is practice and dedication. when i learned to draw when i was little, i didnt learn from college, or even from a youtube video, i just drew over and over again until whatever i drew ended up looking good. there are thousands of tutorials, thousands of speedpaints, thousands of lessons, and people just completely ignore them and say that they could never learn. youre not learning anything from generating a picture. youre not gaining any skill from that. youre not learning how to apply the techniques the ai used for your own work, and you wont be able to take anything out of it other than the image itself. half of being an artist and loving art is loving learning and improving. anybody can draw, anybody can learn how to draw. everyone can write, everyone can learn how to write. there will always be an outlet for creativity, but people should want to use that outlet. if you cant afford to commission someone, you can afford to learn how to express it yourself.

[@turur9635]

It's scary to think that a part of my dream for the future of life doesn't have a chance to happen the way I dreamed, because no matter my performance and training to try to get somewhere, or trying to use these AI to improve my trait, will be useless. What's the point of dedicating more time to something that a prompt can do the same and BETTER in seconds. I know it's not perfect now, but the polishing it's been having and the methods to make it even better demotivates me more and more. I have a story that I want to tell the world, people, a community that I want to create, but it motivated me to know that it was unique, something that can be creative and illustrated with effort, naturally built by an artist, but if everyone else can do the same thing and your own thing loses its value, over time art direction and script will also be done by AI and that meaning of art loses value, it will become dull for a dreamer who wants to form something unique. All my childhood dreams, money spent was for nothing for me, I don't know how to follow a future. Because they are all satisfied with AI and it is good for the development of humanity. I hope I find a new way to follow my dream, even with the new difficulties, I didn't think it would be a surprise to cause me so much regret.

[@JZ-ek4tu]

Don't give up so easily. Accept what is to come and make the best of it

[@visionentertainment8006]

Adapt and just use AI

[@turur9635]

@@JZ-ek4tu im gonna do It! Thanks S2

[@turur9635]

@@visionentertainment8006 ill use to assistant!

[@kevins1286]

Arthur...I feel you, Man.

[@Kierkegaardmyheart]

I’ve been playing around on mid journey and I resonate so much with the Harry Potter comparison as well as the “superpower” analogy. A great mini doc!

[@CleoAbram]

Thank you! We had a ton of fun making this one.

[@edwinblackman7037]

Our value or worth to society is determined by our contribution to it. With the technical revolution we are seeing an erosion of the opportunities for individuals to make those contributions and therefore we feel deminished. The old formula, get an education, work hard, become rich, only works for increasingly fewer and fewer of us. Those of us who have had the education to respond and react to the change are surviving for the moment but we can be replaced.

[@minhnguyen-ol6dp]

1.Type editor, film loaders,... lost their jobs. But at the same time, the industry was creating more jobs with new inventions that ensured the income and the sense of contribution for those people, keeping them productive. Nowadays we are destroying way more jobs than we create. You put people out of their professions, they are forced to take on multiple menial works that destroy their personal lives. 2. The problem is, to keep a stable society running, you need people working together, basically a complex division of labor where humans earn from what they can contribute. These ais help eliminate that element. Just considering the first hand advantage (i'm a journalist but i can't do art, but now this ai helps me to do it all by myself) is no good. What about the artist that needs work and can create better stuffs than ai? Do you think you working all by yourself with ais is gonna help boost your content's worth, when everyone is doing the same thing? What about when ai replaces human journalists, or musicians, or writers, all those specialized workers? 3. This ai improves workflow, sure. But it eliminates the joy of creating something meaningful while also making the lives of people who enjoy the process harder. It Inflates the amount of content getting produced. Don't be certain that people are gonna care and work with other specialists to ensure the quality of their craft, when it's a competition of WHO CAN PUMP OUT MORE. The ones who actually care get left behind, which is the result of another bs algorithm that can't tell quality content from crap ("surprisingly" owned by Google, FB,...). Now, instead of hiring 3 people working together to complete a task, companies just put 1 person in charge of ais. While the hired get overworked, their wages stays the same, the others lose their jobs, it's a lose-lose situation . 4. And if you want to argue that pushing the process of automations replacing humans will force us to focus on the jobs that value human connections and values, look at the reality. Teacher's, care worker's, nurse's,... wage hasn't risen; Scientists and researchers get underpaid all the time, DESPITE the increasing amount of machines taking over jobs. Adults and young adults having to work 2 to 3 jobs to take care of themselves's and their families. The ai is just gonna be another gate way for corporations to exploit their employees, while also getting rid of human interactions and time we spend with each other. 5. Making the creative work obsolete isn't gonna solve no damn problems if you're not creating jobs. It doesn't lead to more scientists, stem cell researchers or engineers to create real innovations that solve real world issues. A lot of technological innovations these days are just major companies finding new and innovative ways for you to waste your time while consuming advertiser content. But everyone wants to be an ai researcher, a youtuber or an entrepreneur,.. because it's the trend and they're gonna be the top 20% that will receive special treatments from their corporate overlords. This isn't optimistic, it's gullible. As long as we still live in a system that depreciates human values, while feeding the mass with inflated amounts of automated contents, with leadership that caters to the greedy people's agenda, this ai is not ready. We need a foundation and we DO NOT have it yet.

[@BinaryDood]

thank you. This is mostly exactly what's on my mind. We're not ready for this as a society. We cater to the lowest common denominator: the (blind) consumer. Optimism is just a fleeting hope, in actuality is complacency. People working in said fields needs to be ready for massive displacement. And overwhelming saturation.

[@wildernessisland2573]

We'll never be ready because the revolution will never come. I'm studying art anyway. Yolo.

[@digitalclown2008]

Reel that back. You are being super dramatic. Artists do not need to be artists to stay alive. Even if all artists lost their jobs, there would still be jobs for them. That being said, AI art generators are definitely going to create new jobs. Because the actual creative process can be cut down as much as possible, it allows for maximum planning and execution time. Creative teams that work together creating ideas and using AI to put together amazing media is definitely something we are going to see. You are inflating this dramatically. You speak as though not having to communicate as much during work is going to completely destroy the social practices of human beings. Idk about you, but I DO NOT charge my social battery while working. 💀 You will still go outside, do your own stuff, talk to your friends etc. AI is not going to tear people away from each other and even insinuating that is ridiculous. And, quantity of content isn't really gonna help companies. If every media company starts pumping out more content, it will oversaturate the market with artwork that resides within the limits of the software. MEANING, that any art that exists OUTSIDE those boundaries will stand out like crazy. This is already kinda of the case tbh.

[@BinaryDood]

@@digitalclown2008 I don't think a bunch of jobless artists will show the side of humanity you wan't to see. Though I do agree that this will force artists to find greater meaning. I see the artist of tommorow having to be like a budhist monk, to create for the sake creating. Unfortunately, that is not something that can be widespread and sustainable in a system, or even mental health en masse. Our system does not reward humanity, or help us pursue it, quite the contrary. And it's better to be dramatic than complacent, as things ARE going to different and unpredictable. Better to think ahead now, and trully question our values and what we wan't out of life, and how to sustain ourselves long enought in the new paradigm in order to see those things come to fruition. I think all that you are saying implies we living in a better system, and , who knows, AI will crash about just enought thinks to make us realize we need to do some changes. I'm not optimistic however, we are going to bring the worst of this new tech far before the best of it. Our society does not reward self-fulfilment and creaitvity. It reward consumption, ceaseless production and the illusion that everything is alright, that you don't need to know how your food is made and where your trash goes. This will be yet another anachronism in the perpetual contradiction we are living. Introducing new problems before older, wider ones are solved. Think not only for youself and your generation, but the full hyperobject of AI, how it will affect new generations growing up with it. How different will they grow and see the world, if this new tech is implemented in the old system which devalues humanity.

[@Extrarium_v1]

@@digitalclown2008 lol AI is going to kill more careers than it creates, no way you envision concept art teams keeping their same size while using this as a tool. Companies are going t o lay people off like crazy and the average person who is actually paying for the stuff the art is for won't be able to tell the difference between high tiers of art and AI generated art. Also depressing to say "artists don't need to be artists" to stay alive, just give up your ambitions and dreams and find a nice spot to fit in the herd instead.

[@xzizy]

i think another controversy about art AI is the datasets. Does the team own the rights to use the images that the AI is trained on in the first place? Because people can take inspiration from what they see, but machines only take what already exist.

[@TheOldSchoolCrisis]

People can also only see what already exists... This is the nonsense that I keep finding in comment sections about AI art. There is nothing about your humanity that makes your observation more special than a computer's. Do you get a pass because you saw the image on google through your eyes while the AI saw the image on google through it's processor cores? Does the AI change fundamentally if it captures the images from a camera recording google results first? What is the difference between an AI downloading images from the internet and the AI viewing the images through a lens? To me all these comments are being pedantic, and they ignore the roadmap for the AI of the future. When this technology is used in fully sentient AI does that AI have less of a right to view information than you do? What is it about human learning that makes it okay for us but not for AI? I think the big issue is that people do not seem to understand the fundamental shift in AI programs and regular programs. AI LEARNS, that is what makes it AI. It isn't stealing your artwork it is studying it and making observations on what makes that art different from the rest of its data. It is doing what humans do. So again what makes you special? Because I would say that fundamentally we aren't.

[@JBoy340a]

Sort of. Nothing says the AIs training cannot be augmented with AI generated work and prompts. In fact it's likely that anytime you use one of these tools your prompts and resultant image is added to the dataset.

[@Kephinio]

​@@TheOldSchoolCrisis What makes humans differ from machines is what they can refer to. Machines can only refer to what they are fed with by humans, maybe with some exceptions. Humans can refer to much more than a machine. Humans put emotions, generally impressions, into media like digital art. Feeding a machine with pre-existing work of art and letting it take the idea of what a certain style looks like and put it into new work isn't the same as what humans do. Actually, not seeing that humans have access to much more than machines do at the moment and expressing that idea is the nonsense some people think is an excuse for thinking machines are creative like humans. They're not. Just because you don't fully grasp what keeps the experience of a human and a machine apart, art being a result of which, doesn't make art created by machines the same as art created by humans. It is really not too complicated to understand that machines, as of right now, do not feature our senses and the way we as individuals process information (such as visuals, words, touch, sounds etc.), and therefore do not do the same as humans when creating art. A person from whatever culture may subconsciously put their emotions, alterations by the present atmosphere into the art they create, which a machine like DALL E isn't capable of right now. You really need to think about stuff like this more thoroughly before commenting something like "Do you get a pass...". It's disrespectful really, as it makes the assumption that people only look at other people's work and then copy it. That's the way many learn, maybe some choose to create, but not a general thing. Regarding stealing: It would be interesting to let AI create a new persona based on factors important to a human being, being influenced by several artists and other circumstances, that can create work of art in an distinguishably unique way. But even then, that would be something based on theory and not based on an actual representation for an actual person living in the specified circumstances. Would be interesting nonetheless.

[@Tijaxtolan]

This isn’t making everyone an artist or democratizing creativity This is democratizing laziness, cheapness, and dehumanization Thinking you’re creative for using dalle is like believing you’re fitness for playing fifa soccer on your PlayStation

[@vinncentuntiedt5851]

Nobody is claiming this is democratizing creativity , this is democratizing the process of turning creativity into results.

[@untitled834]

@@vinncentuntiedt5851 while skipping the part where you put any effort into it

[@vinncentuntiedt5851]

@@untitled834 most people would call using less effort for better effect smart.

[@johncenna3258]

@@vinncentuntiedt5851 its one thing to want to use some shortcuts to save time or effort, and its a whole different thing writing 7 words then having an ai make an image for you so you can pretend to be an artist

I think this is the point we need to stop calling any type of image "art". To me, art means intent. AI can mimic a process and turn out results that LOOK like art, but... there's nothing below the surface. Sure, this will in the nearest future replace most of the "garbage art", throwaway stuff that serves the purpose of adding graphics to an article and little more, but for "serious purposes", art that needs to have detail, thought put behind it - we're a looong way away from that coming from a machine.

[@morkallearns781]

This is also a good point. A lot people misunderstand AI. AI gives a really good output based off input. It does not “create art” or “think and feel” (in the case of the Google employee that whistleblew the Google AI). It just gives extremely convincing answers. To connect to each other and entertain each other we will still depend on human made art. But AI art probably will get rid of a lot of corporate art jobs.

[@sanicspeed1672]

Nope, ai can learn 20 years worth of effort in a day. If you want something cool you won't hire a commissions

[@Dimencia]

The AI only makes images based on what you give it - your intent, your details and thoughts, all applied to very accurately describing what you think is 'art', instead of physically producing it

[@vind302]

There’s nothing to celebrate here. This needs to be regulated and stopped or else it will only get worse. In ten years from now one person will replace an entire art department as this technology progresses. And afterwards, can they really say that “they” created anything, or a computer program that mimicked the works of others did? This will cross ethical lines that must be addressed sooner than later. These programmers are using the work of artists to create a technology that will ultimately replace a lot of them. Not only are we letting them get away with it, but we’re praising them at the same time. Not a good idea.

[@sdhority]

I think what everyone continually misses with this subject is that it still can not make exactly what you want. Can it do some really cool things? Absolutely! It however will not make hand drawing or painting obsolete. I've been using ai to create concept art for loads of things but at the end of the day, it's still just an inspirational image that I pass off to an actual concept artist because ai simply can't give me exactly what I want, a human can.

[@sagtsubs]

That's just a limitation of the current tools, which only have been out for a few months. Pretty soon that problem won't exist anymore, as you can already see with each advance they make.

[@anpufe9990]

At an individual level, drawing is indeed superior, as the resolution of whatever you envisioned, will be limited, once described verbally. Yet, the same situation occurs when contracting an artist, as a consequence of that, constant feedbacks are necessary, and that is expensive in terms of money and time. This process is infinitely easier, faster, and cheaper with an IA, taking into consideration, that thousands of iterations of the image can be done, redone, in minutes. Artists will remain, on a limited scope of operations, as most will be satisfied with what an AI can do.

[@sdhority]

Man I need to get a hold of whatever is doing thousands of iterations in minutes. My current software generates 1400 images in 8 hours, then I have to spend an hour going through each of them, 95% get discarded. Then I spend 3-6 hours reiterating and fine tuning those handful of images. Then I pass them off to a concept artist and say "Can you do something like this but with so and so changes and this thing over here?" Then finally, after about a week, I get the image I initially set out for.

[@anpufe9990]

By the software that you are using, i'am go to infer that you are running locally. If that's the case it's no surprise, unstable diffusion is heavy. Yet, it's only a question of time until the model becomes lighter - improbable -, or hardware catches up. Until them, there's cloud.

[@sagtsubs]

@@sdhority that sounds like you need to invest more time learning prompt engineering. You shouldn't need more than a few dozens generations of each thing you want, as you go refining your prompts with each batch. Negative prompts is the big game changer for me, and img2img and inpainting for the final details.

[@mariav3867]

I think you did not do a good job at explaining the risks and pitfalls of AI. Artist's style is not just tools, if you can copy someone's style that was developed over years and years of work in a matter of a second, it doesn't make you an artist. It makes you a thief. "Pictures on the internet" have authors, the fact that Dalle can copy styles of people that never consented to their images being used is bad. The tool itself is amazing, but repeating a narrative that it automatically makes you an artist is harmful.

[@Thewolfartist24]

I am a young artist and AI art is scary because I feel like this might replace artists. Some companies are using ai art instead of artist and there are a lot of artist out there who want to be recognized and hired for their artworks and talent, me included. Making artworks takes time and patience to make. AI can be used for inspiration, it is not a bad idea, but it can not be used for doing the work for you. It feels like cheating. Art is about practice and the talent which is why what makes it special, imo.

[@MissyMona]

I don't agree with these tools "Unlocking human creativity" For one, that creativity was already unlocked by every artist in the past. DALLE is a human creation, but it's human in the way that it took everything human and tried to remove the individuality and humanity out of it. If we lived in a society that wasn't built on capitalism maybe there'd be a conversation. But artists have already been reduced and unvalued for a long time. I have no issues with you having cool toys/tools. I do have an issue with people acting like this is "speeding up" creativity and art instead of erasing new art, with the dreams and work of those in our past. Distilled and extracted human skill, talent and love. To a usable, cheap or free product for the masses.

[@koketsok1513]

the controversy is simple artists dont want to spend years,decades of their lives on their craft and be reduced to a free tag when someone wants to generate art,Imagine going through all the effort to be good at something and instead of being paid someone just uses you as a tag to kitbash something they will go on to sell.The hate for AI art isnt that is reduces artists ,but that is socialises the effort artists have put use their their back catalogue to work (which hey can remove themselves from) and asks artist to pay a subscription to use this "democratized"tool all while people are openly starting to ask"ai can do faster what do you bring to the table".So artists get the pleasure of their work being used,being cut out of the deal,have to deal with a reduced workforce(rip those who spend a fortune on college) get to compete in a world were a masterpiece can be plurped out for pennies in seconds all while people openly start wanting artists to "justify"their cost.isnt progress grand

[@shiny_x3]

Did you see where it gave the artist superpowers? It's a tool. Artists who embrace it and learn to use it will fly. Luddites in any industry are going to lose out.

[@minhnguyen-ol6dp]

@@shiny_x3 People won't hire a professional just because the results he's created is a little bit better than their prompts. They're just gonna slap an acceptable pretty ai generated image on to their article and be done with it. It's basically an abused tool to pump out mindless contents while devaluing others's hard works. Not to mention the dude was a graphics designer, not an illustrator or concept artist, those lines of work are different almost entirely on their own.

[@southcoastinventors6583]

People still play chess, checkers and DOTA so, that's not happening.

[@minhnguyen-ol6dp]

It's already happened, the Alantic, a national newsletter has already been spotted using AI art and received backlash, even the author admitted he used it to summit the article on time.

[@maythesciencebewithyou]

the controversy is artists worried about making money and becoming famous.

[@AbyxGaming]

As a graphic designer and content creator this is both terrifying and exciting. There needs to be an update to copyright law regarding these tools.

[@Ilamarea]

Ha! What would the change be? And what does it matter when AI replaces your doctors, teachers, politicians and even your closest relationships? You think AI won't be able to conjure an avatar and a personality that will keep you entertained, that will make you feel loved and valued? All within milliseconds? Humanity is dead. Like the death of an animal - all the individual cells just need to catch on and start rotting.

[@notyourdan3388]

@@Ilamarea Progress bad

[@alonsogarrote8898]

@@Ilamarea Humanity will be free from all kind of work, AI will do everything for us at some point.

[@Ilamarea]

@@alonsogarrote8898 Not while you are alive, and not for very long. We'll simply be gone. It's inevitable.

[@paintedlady004]

Fine arts painter here...the software is never going to replace art. The images may be fun but they're empty. When you study art and art history you learn about the auratic appearance real work exhumes, even if it's conceptual. It's what makes you nauseous as you walk through the hall containing the dark paintings of Goya and what makes you cry over a self portrait. It's the thing that even prolific forgeries can't imitate. Now, the issue is that an artist style - a reflection of years of training, culture and personal identity- can be used as a mere tool like a filter without any type of compensation or credit. That is plagiarism and under any other circumstances, if it was a person mimicking your art style, it would be a copyright infringement. So why is it allowed? Because the images are already online? It should be limited to the already existing art styles in general: pop, surreal, modern, urban, etc. Not directly in the style of an artist, specifically if they are alive. This is our work and our culture being appropriated like it's nothing. How do you think it feels?

[@electroflame6188]

style can't be copyrighted

[@KarenParkerArtist]

So glad I stuck with the "dead form" of oil paintings. Y'all have fun sussing this out.

[@MissPancakes]

When everyone's an artist... no one is...

[@ASLUHLUHC3]

Spoken like a 'true artist'

[@djordjematovic7672]

the real concern with this tool is how it’s going to affect development of future da vinci’s, van goghs… our AI painting styles are at stake 🙀

[@nevokrien95]

Photorealistoc art still exist even tho we have cameras. We have running completions even tho we have cars. Humans will always keep on creating.

[@soumyakantigiri]

@@nevokrien95 But the value ratio, maybe 1 swordsmith gets paid million dollars or 1 realist painter but lets be honest, the profession itself has passed away. Only the passion exists.

[@cvbattum]

@@soumyakantigiri you say that as if the profession is more important than the passion, but wasn't the profession created as an afterthought to the passion?

[@WALDENSOFTWARE]

This will actually help the Da Vinci's and Van Gogh's because as things are now, new masters are being buried under loads of cheap fast instagram "artists" who are more like graphic designers than true artists. This seems will greatly help to get rid of cheap art, and pave the way for new masters.

[@1998Cebola]

painting has been a dead artform for decades. The visionary artists of our day, like Jon Rafman and Holly Herndon, have been on the cutting edge of this development for over a decade.

[@aldrinmilespartosa1578]

I cannot only see this as a replacement to not only artist but everyone who their work’s data be stored on the internet. Can already imagine you just prompting a documentary video about roman toilet tradition using cleo Adam syle of storytelling and reporting. That will be quite interesting and horrifying at the same time.

[@chalkisplacebo.6697]

I'm studying to be an environmental engineer, I speak openly that I as an engineer cannot invent anything without a computer. Unlike those before me who developed formulas and measurements for each building block...I'm taught to use software. So I tell people the only job that truly matters in the modern era is Comp-Sci as they will find a way to do everything for US! so most engineering and sciences degrees now have a portion of programming so we don't become obsolete. My father was a physicist and his favorite story on this topic is that mechanical engineers can't make objects that were made 40 years ago sometimes as they took actual hands on calculations and thought rather than just computer computations. So, like this video, in art... are we losing skills due to computers and ai?

[@Kimmieziven]

Its like some people donno how to clean their dishes, brush their carpets, and do their laundry anymore. Even car mechanics gonna be replaced by AI once there are more hi-tech cars being used in the future. So yes, most of the basic living skills & designing skills might be forgotten / lost in the future.

[@autodidact7127]

Learn to code

[@WolfHeathen]

If you think you're an artist just because you entered a few prompts into an AI algorithm, you're utterly delusional. Artists create. They don't commission others to do it for them.

[@slimboarder.o7]

coping hard right here

[@Nick-tl7ts]

Ahahahah this guy

[@AvgJane19]

Seems a really limited point of view.

[@yamdagni]

You've got half a point.

[@XRaym]

I wouldn't say using AI only for making a picture is being that an artist, I mean, not more that asking someone else to paint something for you.

[@marcoantoniocabreraaguilar8226]

No, but what she's saying is that with these tools people's exploration of their creativity won't be limited by their artistic ability / training nor their financial resources

[@XRaym]

@@marcoantoniocabreraaguilar8226 what I hear is morr like 'anyone can be an artist', that is why there is a competitionnin the video. I would say it is more like 'Anyone can ask for and get art' which is more nuanced.

[@toric225]

@@XRaym Anyone can grab a pencil and choose to be an artist and learn the skills. The only question is whether people are going to appreciate your art. My 4 year old when she makes art it's still art even if they amount of people who appreciate it is very few. If we use one of these programs / services to help us create a distinctive piece of art and spend hours fine tuning it into the precise thing that we envision or achieve something unique that lights that spark we have created art and are an artist. Now others such as yourself might not consider it art, but that doesn't mean it's not art. To me I don't really like some spatter style art I've seen out there but there's people who like it, I don't see what they see I think it's ugly but it's still art.

[@XRaym]

@@toric225 The miss rhe poitn compltly. I dont say it is not artist. I just reconsider who is the artist in the story. The one who makes a command, or the one who who actually does it ? or the algorithm coder ? Your daughter doesnt ask the pencil to draw for her as far as I can guess. But for sure the outcome is art. even when it was bad quality and ugly. cause art doesnt have to be beautigul anyway. The question of art being made without artist is as old as generative art a'd is nothing new or specific to AI.

[@amentrison2794]

@@XRaym you could say similar things about a lot of non-ai digital art as well though

[@anthonyscheibmeir2444]

But if everybody is doing it is anybody really doing something special?

[@Coldtrojan]

Can you really say you created those images though? It doesn't make you an artist, new tools for example in digital art or photography still have you be the creator of the images, the taker of the photographs. This removes all of that, you didn't make anything, you just curated a prompt. You're not a creative in this aspect. If you press a button and a camera goes around taking photos for you with you only saying 'gimme nature pics', you're not a photographer. You didn't take any photos. I don't think it's the same as an improvement to technology, I don't think AI generated images are art. I'm saying this as an artist and as someone who thinks the technology is cool.

[@doburu4835]

Cars replacing Horses moment. 🐎➡️🚗 Human artists are obsolete.

[@_Pyroon_]

ARTISTS, PLEASE READ: I've got a Masters of comp Sci that focuses on AI/machine learning (this stuff is ml); there is atleast an area of art that is far more likely to remain difficult to replace; technical drawing of things like anatomy where everything like spacing matters. Recall what this software attempts to do; approximate and generalize what you want. It is most likely to fail at very specific nuance; it will keep getting closer, so the greater your art NEEDS nuance (ie approximation is insufficient), the more job security you have. I, an artistically mentally challenged can now create concept art that I would pay 100 bucks for, however there's no way possible that I can create something that needs very technical parameters; and that's where you guys will survive the longest.

[@zyansheep]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="21">0:21</a> No, the technology is called "text-to-image generation". Dall-E 2 is just one such AI model made by one company.

[@CleoAbram]

True! In this intro, I was focusing on DALL-E 2, but there are lots of image generation models. We use Midjourney in this video as well, and there are links to more in the description.

[@zyansheep]

@@CleoAbram don't forget stable diffusion :) Its an open source model that is somewhat on par with Dall-E and midjourney

[@prasoondhapola2875]

@@zyansheep more of a real game changer as it's open source and developing by leaps and bounds

[@hitmes]

@@CleoAbram any idea where we can can our hands on the Prompter for Midjurney excel ? Thank you for the video 😊 Leant a lot

[@TomGrubbe]

Getty Images just sent an email to all it's contributors that it will "cease to accept all submissions using AI generative models (e.g., Stable Diffusion, Dall-E 2, MidJourney, etc.) and prior submissions utilizing such models will be removed". Apparently some people have already been trying to cash in on these AI-generated images and Getty is cutting those folks off - which is good.

[@TomGrubbe]

@@meganfraser5358 True, unless these images contain some kind of watermark or metadata tag. So good point.

[@taylights]

So the photo images thing sounds really dangerous. Why are these tech companies working on something that could become so destructive? He sounded so nonchalant about it, feels a bit heartless and they are just doing it to prove that they can rather than to better society.

[@perfectlyrandomstuff]

From my understanding, there are a lot of safety features implemented. You can't make photorealistic people, and you can't make images of specific people. So you can do "Watercolor fairy princess", but not "Angry Elon Musk".

[@satansatansatan]

i think super high level engineers like this often get very wrapped up in their own creative challenges. i mean what they've done and will do is, like i'm speechless. i agree though, speech/photo/video (despite any safeguards) will be a can of worms that i'm not sure any society is ready for. we're still learning what social media has done and soon they're going to drop some very powerful tools into the hands of a lot of malicious people and i'm not sure who's responsibility it is when things get really confusing. i guess the old saying "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" is just that, an old saying.

[@kateanderson8384]

Destructive? How about efficient? A few drawbacks come with innovation but ultimately why wouldn't we deploy a technology which is more efficient thus maximizing utility? Hurt a few to help a lot.

[@raul36]

@@perfectlyrandomstuff well, there are already open source programs similar to these. It is inevitable that this will happen.

[@LoopX]

@@perfectlyrandomstuff You think people won't run their own personal models of AIs like stable diffusion. ok man, sure.

[@Riccardo_Mori]

This is a tool that dehumanises, absorbs, trivialises, prepackages and monetises. It has nothing to do with art.

[@be7256]

from the consumers side it sadly doesnt mean much if the art is soulless since its quite hard to tell the difference based on the prompt

[@jellevanloo8728]

I laugh out loud everytime i see someone creating an ai image and going, 'wow this is beautiful', while the image is crooked and disproportionate flat-out ugly ai art. Ai makes people with bad taste think they can create something astounding. It's like a todler coloring a colour book. You can't replace a real trained artist, yet.

[@vylbird8014]

Maybe not (yet), but an AI tool can greatly increase the effective skill level of an artist. It lets the artist decide things like the subject and composition - then they can quickly put down a crude sketch with little more skill than a child's crayon drawing, and the AI will handle all the technique. AI lets someone fresh out of art class draw like someone with ten years experience - only faster.

[@msdenise1234567]

wow that website with extra prompts is next level, I love people being pasionate about something and then building their own tool for it to help and share with others

[@sIvEeodCSIFIjGz]

Which one?

[@jamespearce816]

What's the site?

[@msdenise1234567]

@@jamespearce816 the one at 3:24

[@jamespearce816]

@@msdenise1234567 I meant what is the URL?

[@kevins1286]

So much help. They were passionate people who already built stuffs for artist...they were called artists, and teacher..but soon, it will be a thing of the past.

I am kind of split about these AI tools. The tech is absolutely amazing and I am looking forward to it. On one hand, it kind of bad that it is going to drastically take over many artists job, making those jobs irrelevant. On the other hand, it is truly amazing that it helps everybody (people who aren't artists) to create whatever artwork they want really fast and increasingly good.

[@luisse9011]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="65">01:05</a> "I was getting new skills, he was getting superpowers" - Stealing people's art and creating an automatic collage is now called "skills". Unbelievable... how much money did you get? AI is not a tool, it is a replacement, and what's worse: a replacement of human experience and creativity. If you are an artist, you love the creative process. If you are intelligent, you engage with other people's experiences and feelings.

[@Bluur]

I also wish this video had interviewed ANY of the artists against AI art, instead of just hanging out with the DALLE crew.

[@pulancheck]

My 2 cents (1$ after inflation): this tool proves how advanced AI actually is. If an AI can do this (from text input = generate art in form of images) then: AI is for sure close or pass the point where it can replace many human jobs (incl mine: software dev + other similar roles: QA, PO, SM, etc) If it can do art, doing my job (copy pasting code, making tweaks in code, etc) should be pice of cake and it will take seconds (not sprints).. Humans need training, breaks, meetings, vaccations etc.. a software doesn't. It will probably generate better code than humans, including test code + automation (so no more QAs) & no way there will be need for POs or SMs! I feel this is close.. like in 10 years for sure. Also, I see software development as an advanced domain .. other domains of work like secretary, accounting, etc will replaced sooner. Just regarding art: if it can do art in form of images - What's next ? Probably videos, like for news or even youtube channels, you give it an idea & it will perform searches on Internet, consume articles/ books in seconds, then poop out a video.. so probably even your job will be touched.. then movies - imagine a full movie developed by AI !?

[@mina86]

There is a fundamental difference between art and software development though. Art is not falsifiable. What I mean is that if bunch of pixels are different on an image, or slightly different colours are used, the piece remains largely the same. However, in programming writing

[@willmungas8964]

The thing is that this just sounds like someone who doesn’t understand how AI actually works. These AI models can create remarkable things, true, but in theory it’s a simple mixture of blending certain inputs with modifiers in an image, just well trained. This does not mean the model “understands” what it is doing; it just means it creates an output based on human input that mimics what a human might make. It’s trained on a set of data; it doesn’t comprehend that data, it just algorithmically optimized the pathways for certain transfomations of the data. This AI is good at the one thing it is told to do, mimic human art with inputs, but it cannot think, feel, or learn other tasks. You can’t put it in front of a computer, describe it a complex project, and then have it program the project for you, because it doesn’t understand it on a fundamental level. AI will not replace us, just like machines don’t replace us. They are tools for human labor, force multipliers if you will. An AI may remove the need to do simple tasks that are tedious, but it will not replace high level critical thinkers and it will create new jobs based around managing it.

[@KeinNiemand]

Have you seen what github copilot can do? Once we reach AGI AI will be able to do ALL jobs humans do and I don't think that's a bad thing if we handle it right, becouse in that case humans woudn't actually need to work anymore to keep everything running so the solution in that case is some form of universal basic income high enough that nodbody has to work for money anymore and everyone can just focus on the stuff they like doing.

[@GS-tk1hk]

@@willmungas8964 I see your point, but I think you are making a logical fallacy by deriving the future implications of this technology from the current state of AI instead of the *potential* state of AI following the current trajectory. Everything you said is true about the AI we have *today* - but the kinds of text-to-image models we have today, were unthinkable a few years ago and there were people claiming this was impossible back then as well. Sure, you can't put an AI in front of a computer today and ask it to solve a complex problem - but you can ask it to solve simpler problems, like programming challenges or MIT mathematics exams. That too was unheard of until recently. The current trajectory shows that AI models learn to solve increasingly complex problems at a very rapid rate. It will not just be tedious or unwanted tasks, it will be real, college level education jobs in many job sectors. They may not replace experienced software engineers in the coming years, but I would be seriously worried if I was just a grunt programmer doing routine work right now.

[@Dimencia]

I think software development is uniquely safe; not only are people afraid of letting AIs build other AIs, but if business owners were capable of defining what they need, they would be writing code

[@duaijalqallaf]

I hate this video. Stop excusing AI art as "broadening human creativity" this will never be art. I don't care what anyone says.

[@MeeTerra]

what would you call it, if not art? beautiful and aesthetic images? if only there was a word for that

[@immanuelaminmbang6851]

As an artist, I've never made or endeavoured to make something I already knew how to. Every project is a challenge. This may be a different approach to say a graphic designer who would be asked to produce within a time limit based on their previous work. Exploration is part of the creation of new art. The AI generators in some sense explore by analysing, making mistakes and learning. However the prompter does not go through this process. This is important as the prompter is limited to their present experience and what currently exists. Through the act of making and mistaking, we come up with solutions we hadn't anticipated. Should you need to stay dry on a rainy day while on the go, you're initial solution maybe an umbrella. In this instance, a raincoat may suffice and have the added benefit of keeping your hands free. If an umbrella is a tool for keeping dry on the go, a car is an umbrella, as is a bus or a wide enough child if you have the strength. My point is this type of tool probably can't create innovative artists, more so, open the doors for more art practitioners. People who now have the tools to now recreate artistic technique but none of the tools to create new ones. As for trained artist now using AI somehow raising to the top, I see it as expecting a blunt knife to cut ice on account of its former sharpness.

[@osborne9255]

Over my working life have struggled to obtain skills only to be repeatedly replaced with machines and more advanced software, so I began writing and artistic endeavours. Now I see these skills being automated too. I'm not seeing anywhere to focus my efforts any more. Yet I'm also somehow thrilled to see Ai art.

[@MikkoRantalainen]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="547">9:07</a> the Leonardo da Vinci and <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="551">9:11</a> Vincent Van Gogh variants were really nice!

[@faus585]

as a child I literally dreamed of something like this, hoping that one day my creative ideas can somehow just be PROJECTED into the world, and this seems close. As an artist myself I am both terrified and intrigued by this technology, and I think, although some artists may be hit in the short run, this will unlock incredible potentials for humanity as a whole. My selfish, self-preserving mind is against it, while my curiosity loves it. It democratizes creativity, and removes a skill barrier for us to express ourselves. I've often been frustrated by my lack of skills in representing my ideas faithfully, and this AI can help me get to where I want.

[@parallelworlds1248]

I think it unlocks creativity to another level for people like me that don't have the skills

[@rybfish76]

Artist here, I'm not concerned at all it's just another tool that allows me to explore my creativity.

[@_inked_out]

me too but wouldn't you think people would replace you completely why hire a designer when i can just let a.i. create a new one for me?

[@rybfish76]

@@_inked_out it's going to happen dude, but it's not something we can stop, personally I have always adapted to new technologies, when the web came around, I remember people saying print it is going to die because of the web, as a designer I just adapted my skills, If anything you could make an argument and say I rather have a a piece of art from human because you appreciate the skill and idea. I find it all very fascinating and I'm excited about the possibilities.

[@_inked_out]

@@rybfish76 i appreciate and understand your point. Like when i first saw the astronaut in that skateboard i thought to myself that's a cool idea for a shirt design and i started thinking of multiple designs. So from a creators point of view it's perfect. However i don't know if just accepting that our work is absolute and useless given the amount of creativity and work it takes to design ANYTHING a character, a logo, or illustration is something I'm ok with. Sure, the web was something scary to look at from that point but you still had to create something from scratch. To me it's like that scene from demolition man where they're going to have sex but they do it "virtually" no touching, no kissing, nothing just straight to the point which took away all the joy that lead up to the actual physical thing.

[@rybfish76]

@@_inked_out You hit on many great points! The AI is never going to replace creativity , its just going to be part of the process, at least for me. I am already using AI to study different form shapes with car designs and the results are fascinating. I bring those into photoshop and then create new ideas from those. It's a bold new world butfor me nothing is going to replace pencil and paper for me. Cheers!

[@rem7502]

@@rybfish76 I’m an artist too. Guess I’m gonna have to learn some coding. Time to buy some python lessons.

[@LoudMostOfTheTime]

I am a little concerned not much talk about copyrighted images in the model that are used to teach. That is another axis that also complicates this. As peoples work is being taken without permission for this training.

[@kikc]

Artists looking at images without permission and getting inspired shouldn't be allowed either then.

[@oliverwilson11]

@progamerpro That is not what the model's creators or users are doing. Also I'm not aware of "Iooking at images without permission" being a widespread problem. Generally if an image is displayed where it can be seen, it is intended to be looked at. Wholly incorporating a copyrighted work in the process of making something, which this requires, is not the same as looking at it.

[@kikc]

@@oliverwilson11 The AIs should be allowed to use any copyrighted image for training because it's exactly the same as a human looking at images and getting inspired to make something. The ai studies the images, it never copied anything so it should be allowed and artists should cry about it

[@oliverwilson11]

@@kikc Calling ANNs "AIs" was a mistake because it makes fanboys want to treat them as if they were people and not as what this is which is petabytes of other people's work plus a few megabytes of code

[@SalsaBailaProductions]

Now that this tech is available it will be improved fast…companies are gonna jump on this quick… its gonna be very hard to encourage a child to go to art school;)

[@SalsaBailaProductions]

@@renegadepuppy you make a great point... I feel the schools tend to move very slow to adapt to the ever faster markets... its gonna very interesting few years

[@SalsaBailaProductions]

@@renegadepuppy you make some great points..especially your last one... I actually try to imagine which jobs will not exist in 15 years just as a thought experiment... My real issue is the slow improvement of schools curriculum adapting to market reality.. but hey im a businessman ;)

[@itsgeorgiexo]

THANK YOU! You made some excellent points. I'm an oil painter myself and I also see this as just NEW tech. Just like when paintbrushes or photoshop were invented. It's how we use our tools, and our integrity as artists that matters. In regards to artist rights, it's 100% legal to make a similar artwork in the style of another artist and call it your own. It's crappy, but artists do it. Look at the contemporary art world; for example, new artists who use Warhol's style to create something of their own. You don't see anyone crying over Warhol's rights...

[@JonathanAmbriz]

One of the most important factors for using an AI is domain knowledge. Someone with domain knowledge will have better outcomes than someone without knowledge using the same AI.

[@willemmkuipers]

Awesome video, really love the editing style and storytelling. It’s not something you quickly put together in the car

[@kevins1286]

Maybe it's been done by AI, who knows...

[@moonspear]

Now they need to train an AI to come up with the best prompts to get the most well received images generated out of DALLE... I'm sure they could whip up the training AI for that in a day LOL

[@pandudhaulagiri6355]

Well... Image to Prompt AI already exists... So... Yeah, it won't be long

[@LucasDimoveo]

Yeah that honestly doesn't even sound difficult considering what has already been done

[@Novacasa88]

The only sad part of all these things is that the physical aspect of creation and learning and growing in a very deep way is lost to a great extent. Though it will be filled with much more depth in other directions of creation its something that very quickly takes us a step further from our evolutionary framework of being and the fast this happens the more weird and potentially bad things could happen as well. Lots of promise both extremely positive and extremely negative are just upon the horizing and there's no turning back either way.

[@lauracrqll9148]

I mean, I wouldn’t have a problem with AI if the data set was based of the public domain. How is it acceptable to train the AI with copyrighted art. When I see prompts with “in the style of Sam Does Art” “in the style of WLOP” etc. it makes me really made, those artists spent years refining their art style and people are using it like nothing and even selling what’s generated. This issue needs to be addressed quickly really…

[@Arewethereyet69]

Personally this isn't a problem of the tools but of our economic system. Same thing can be said with older technology that replaced help desk or people working check outs. The issue is not that new technology is making artist obsolete but rather the economic factor is being impacted and so this might prevent some artist from being able to do what they do. People who are creative or want to make things they have a passion for will keep doing it up to a point where they can no longer do it because they can't afford to live (no income)

[@johannesmerkt1972]

The only problem i see with this technology is that AI wouldnt be able to create any of these artworks without having studied the work of humans that had to put all the effort and energy into developing the artstyle. Basically the ai can immitate an artstyle in the millions, but without the human coming up with it, it wouldnt have even been able to do it. So it makes artists loose their job, but those artists are needed alot to come up with great ideas/art styles!

[@Real_TonyYT]

until you take the new art that the AI randomly generates and feed it back into itself, inevitably generating every style imaginable faster than humans ever could.

[@3ngi_n33r]

Musicians felt a similar way when midi came on the scene. Songwriters loved it, but a lot of session players were out of work.

[@carlkligerman1981]

Do we want to live in a world where entire studios are replaced by single art directors? Collaboration is a vital part of producing entertainment, movies, games, music etc. And more profoundly, do we want to live in a world where everything becomes cheaply and instantly produced content, rather than long fought for and won culture? And the one thing these machines can’t do is INNOVATE, they can only run iterations of content that is already produced. Which is all bad. I like making things with my own hands, personally.

[@vitormanfredini1205]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="104">1:44</a> "if we use it right". we probably won't.

[@Nick-Lab]

"Hire people instead" has never won out over history. Those people will have to adapt. The country that chooses people will lose to the ones who embrace technology.

[@nobody-u-know]

Sorry, but this is much more serious that you're attributing to this AI development. We are talking about the end to illustrators, painters, commercial designers, possibly animators, character designers, all in the next 2 years.

[@ChristianSoden]

I like your videos Cleo, but I think you missed an opportunity to ask the one question that has really made most artists angry and fearful for their future. These tools were trained using images created by artists who had absolutely no say in whether they wanted to be involved or not, and more importantly whose work is protected by copyright law (or should be, at least). Artists can spend a lifetime creeating a unique style or technique that becomes the reason they are hired or remembered, and the engineers who built this software have used that lifetimes work without consent, with no ability to opt-out of being infinitely replicated by a simple set of prompts. You needed to ask him why they felt it was ok to feed completely copyrighted datasets into these algorithms and not ask for permission first. In any other industry this would be clamped down on by teams of litigators, but because of the ephemeral nature of how this all works to the average person, it will be very hard for any living artist to claim for damages to their income caused by this software taking their job opportunities away from them by software using their own hard-earned style to out-compete them! This will all move at incredible speed and it is already too late to stop it. I don't think they have any idea what kind of damage this will cause, all because they never stopped to ask if it was ok first.

[@ratiemand4529]

To be honest, I kinda disagree with this. These AIs do not copy the images they are trained on. They just learn from them, generating new ones from noise. Is a human allowed to look at other peoples drawings and get inspiration? This is basically what these AIs do.

[@ChristianSoden]

@@ratiemand4529 disagree all you like, but you've missed the point entirely. Read it again. It's not about "copying" the images at all, it's about asking the artists permission to use the image to learn from in the first place. In fact, I didn't even say they were copying images once, because it's far more nuanced and damaging than simply copying an image. It's turning an artists style into a simple keyword, that can be used repeatedly, without any hard work on the end-users part at all. Not only does it minimise the effort that was put in by the artists in the first place, but it then commoditises it without paying anything to the artist being emulated. Plus some software charges the user access, and none of that money is paid in royalties to any artists used in the training data. It all goes to the devs. That about as unfair as it gets. Besides, if a human uses an image to learn from, it's completely different. They still have to put the hours in to actually learn how to do it, which could take years or a lifetime to get right. A machine doesn't work that way, there's no parallel between the two. So no, that is not "basically what these AIs do" at all.

[@whatisthisayoutubechannel]

@@ChristianSoden Do humans need "permission" to learn from another artist's art? No, right? That would be bonkers. Copyright only applies to specific pieces of art, not *artstyles* - the entire history of human art is people copying artstyles from one another, generally without permission, and building off of that! And no, it's not "completely different" just because AI doesn't need to "put the hours in". It's still the same kind of process - summarizing patterns from source material and learning to reproduce those patterns in different contexts - machines are just able to do it faster. That's like saying the industrial revolution was bad because people used to have to put in years of hard work to learn how to blacksmith, sew, etc., and now they can learn how to operate machines to produce the same result in days - removing the need for "hard work" is a good thing! It's what progress looks like.

[@ChristianSoden]

@@whatisthisayoutubechannel @Eric Chen you've also spectacularly missed my point. I'm not talking about the art generated by the ai, I'm referring to the art used to train it. Just understand that my reply isn't about an iterative learning process. It's not about progress. It's not about applying copyright to the output, I didn't mention that once. It's about the copyright that exists for the input data they used without permission. For example, if this was video, and they had trained the ai explicitly on MCU and Pixar films without asking if they could, allowing you to make your own, do you think Disney would stand aside and allow that? So, once more, it's not about the artwork that is being created using ai, it's how the devs got there. The journey, not the destination.

[@whatisthisayoutubechannel]

@@ChristianSoden You could, in fact, generate Disney or Pixar styled art with current AI like Stable Diffusion - the training data most certainly included Disney art - and I see no indication that they’re suing. So the answer is *yes,* they are in fact *currently* standing aside to let you do it. There’s your hypothetical. And even if Disney tried to sue they wouldn’t have a case, any more than they’d have a case for trying to sue a human artist who’s mimicking their art style (heaven knows there’s plenty). Again, art styles are not copyrightable, and learning from copyrighted work, whether to train a human artist or an AI, is perfectly legal.

[@eggburtdilusia9599]

The secret here is that the AI programmers are - stealing - work done by humans to 'create' new pieces by their own admission! time <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="446">7:26</a> "trained on a large data-set of images, and captions". "Trained", the new euphemism for "used without permission - when no one was looking". Artists and musicians, writers and designers should all get together and launch a class action suit - for the purpose of receiving INCOME FOR THEIR WORK, which is obviously being used. No amount of discussion, or introspection can stop this trend. I can already see some CEO dumping entire departments, so he can buy a bigger yacht... You guys should sue for royalties. Good luck.

[@aelinashryver]

People would not hate AI that creates art so much if it didn‘t steal from real artists‘ works to generate new pieces. And making a computer generate art for you doesn‘t make you an artist.

[@boo5274]

My problem is that Art and to be good at art requires dedication, love for, and a deeper understanding of the world around you to create something recognisable and pleasing to the eye. Giving this Job to a robot, takes away the deeper understanding of the world. Art then requires almost no effort to create, and art will become less of a novelty to everyone. Less impressive, less human. They're taking away something human and giving it to a machine. They're killing the essence of art in my opinion. Making art cheap, means we'll lose artists, and without artists, we're not human anymore. (including musical artists)

[@MeeTerra]

if human made art really is that much better than ai made art, then people would demand it and the human artists would stay in business. but if the ai succeeds in replacing all human artists, then thats just proof that aesthetics is all people want art for. if ai is better at aesthetics, so be it

[@boo5274]

@@MeeTerra Once again as someone else has said. AI is meant to allow humans to be more creative and let AI solve all the mundane and tedious tasks. And yet here we are allowing AI to take everything that makes us human away from us. It's not about AI being allowed to make art, it's about intentionally reducing the number of artists by making art and design a none viable career option and making it practically free for anyone to prompt immpersonal renders.. Just because AI can do something, doesn't mean it should.

[@dimanyak373]

Now I'm happy that my hobby(conlanging) is not popular and known, would've been terrible to see someone make an AI that creates languages for me and does it 10 times better. Yet, art is also my hobby, and I enjoy it, the problem is, anything that I can do, can be done better and faster not by a person, but by an AI,

[@danielbrown4017]

How is this legal? They're using people's art which is probably copy written to generate new images that have been trained from copywritten work from scratch, though I think this is an amazing tool, once they start selling this, I see a ton of new lawsuits coming their way, that'll force them to re-train their AI. Played with both DALL-E and Stable Diffusion, not sure about DALL-E's AI generation Library, but stable Diffusion definitely is using copywritten work to train their AI. Definitely cool stuff though!

[@autodidact7127]

They are not using people's art

[@autodidact7127]

In order for what you say to be true they will need to outlaw viewing art.

[@danielbrown4017]

@@autodidact7127 You do know they're using individuals art to train their ml algorithm on what certain things look like and the their word pairing as well. Not just that, they're also training the ml on specific styles of these artists, which these artist might and probably do have copywriten. They're just not viewing the art, if they were, that would be a completely different story.

[@meatballmatt4374]

I mean an AI literally won an art contest, so rly if that doesn't ring alarm bells what else does? And the fact that there's people on artstation promoting and selling AI Artwork claiming it's all drawn through photoshop when any artist can very clearly tell it's not is worse.

[@MsRuell]

Me ordering a custom pizza. My bf: Omg you're a chef! Me: with a little bit of help ;)

[@eastmanwebb5477]

There has to be ways for an artist to be compensated for their original works. The owner of a large language model A.I. should not be able to just take other people’s hard work without permission. If ever there were a need for an online micropayments system to be created (perhaps based on blockchain technology) so that artists get paid, this would be it.

[@dantierandbalogh]

Great video, the topic is fascinating, it's something that have been on my mind for months now... And as amazing as this technology is, I still keep coming back to the 'naysayers' side. For one simple reason - this is fast food in a world, full of gourmet chefs; If we discourage the young artists & designers of today, if we tell everyone to give up, to not go to art school, to find something else....then where will the new 'prompts & commands' are expected to come from? Other Ai generated works? A copy of a copy of a copy of a.... There's only so many astronaut paintings we can see in the style of Van Gogh or Da Vinci, before everyone gets bored of this.. This is not making anything new, so in that sense, it is not better than a Google image search, really 🤔

[@petermcintyre1941]

Nobody is creating art works here. whatever it is not 'cool" as you say. its all just so cheap , the AI tool takes something, which is a collection of human art work on the internet and makes nothing. A collection of valuable inputs that spits out a trash heap of digi nothing...

[@anima6035]

Just look at what digital cameras did to photography, gone are the days when people fall head over heels with a photographers work. We used to have the greats like William Eggleston, Francesca Woodman, Tim Page... So many I can't even begin to name, each photographer created beautiful world's which literally moved people to tears. The could change opinions, mindsets, the world even with their images. It just isn't like that anymore. It's a literal tragedy.

[@petermcintyre1941]

@@anima6035 illustrators are gone the way of lace makers and translators. The thing is that the AI takes from these artists and puts them out of work.

[@TdubHQ]

I love trying to find what Ai cant do. Creating traditional cultural art authentically seem to be tricky for it as well as proper anatomy.

[@vylbird8014]

I suspect that's a limitation of the training set. It's trained on 'the internet.' And the english-language section of the internet at that. You're going to get a preference for attractive white people out of that straight away, and for art styles more popular in English-speaking countries.

[@zubinzuro]

Stable Diffusion is pretty good with proper anatomy. I've had some good results on Dalle2 but stable diffusion just gets it right almost always

[@MsRuell]

Life gradually starts to feel pointless. This gives me a depression and it's weird because I didn't know I had issues with existentialism.

[@hagarahmed3808]

Very shortsighted conclusion. This isn't simply digital editing replacing movie cutters. This is replacing the script writer the writer and the cameraman not just the camera. Sure anyone can make art but that privilege was already afforded to anyone willing to learn. And the same that happens when an oversaturated sea of content becomes even more saturated. Your voice becomes irrelevant.