Why AI Art is Causing Outrage

some links used:
MUST WATCH (just trust me): • Why Stupid People Thin...
TikTok's Bias: www.ischool.berkeley.edu/news...
/ tiktoks-beautiful-algo...
━SOCIALS━
twitch ➭ / gabistreams
instagram ➭ / itsgabibelle
twitter ➭ / itsgabibelle
tiktok ➭ / itsgabibelle
second channel ➭ / @gabibellexd
━COMMUNITY━
discord server ➭ / discord
patreon ➭ / gabibelle
━MUSIC━
spotify ➭ sptfy.com/gabibelle
music channel ➭ / @gabibelle5918
━BUSINESS━
please email [e-mail]
━CHAPTERS━
00:00 The Rise of AI Art
01:48 Art Bias
03:11 Lensa AI + The Future
07:20 Artists are Upset At AI - Is it Theft
11:23 AI Art is not Photoshop
14:00 Is AI Art "Real" Art?
16:13 The Future is Scawwwyy uwu
tags: #ai #aiart

[@seth2451]

I think the main reason the artists are so against their art being in the database is because you could get the AI to generate art in their style without paying them, whereas before if you wanted art in their unique style you would have to go to the artist. The argument boils down to the potential loss of income from people getting art elsewhere, which seems fair to me.

[@abbyz13]

Exactly. I’ve seen some of my artist friends posting AI art that clearly has half of someone’s watermark still visible too. It’s theft and pushes consumption over quality

[@slonismo]

@@abbyz13 yeah it’s actually a pretty common thing that watermarks will show up in some of your generated images

[@randomcommenter9839]

Exactly!

[@elthereall]

exactly. the AI should have to learn from artists who give consent or have passed away (ie Van Gogh) as well as list all the artists used to teach it. Living, working artists should have a choice in this

[@kitten-whisperer]

If it's just their style, it's fine. They can't copy right a style

[@flatmochi2804]

The difference is that the way humans are inspired by other artists' work is WAAAY different from how an AI sees it. Humans don't need billions of examples of art to start honing their craft, but an AI model is 100% *dependent* on input data *exclusively*. It does not learn through years of practice developing its own style and creative vision, it ONLY learns based on what already exists. It interpolates and extrapolates *based on patterns within other people's work*. If an AI was only shown the total number of images viewed by human artists over their lifeline, they would SUCK. and no matter how much input data it sees, it won't be able to develop its own unique art styles.

[@flatmochi2804]

The AI is very capable. It's a capability that we never thought would exist when we made copyright laws. It makes possible things that should prooobabbbly be illegal if humans did it. And the technology is cool! It's awesome! But at the same time, its introduction will have detrimental effects on the livelihood of the artists who unwillingly trained it. As the AI replaces the need for those human artists, the advancement of new art as a whole will come to a grinding halt.

[@ChocolateShaddixX]

I agree! I love Gabis videos, but I have to disagree to a lot of stuff that was said in this video - especially the parts about theft. I don't know if I would call it "theft", but art pieces have been fed to AIs without permission of artists, which is already really scummy. But even worse - some people train AIs to copy certain styles from artists and post it online so everyone can use it. It's just so wrong. This is not about theft (I steal something that you own), this is stealing a part of an artists identity not just a single image, which is even worse! I don't think that Gabi would like the idea of Music-AIs (and this is the next big thing/problem) if she found out that her music and voice was fed into the algorithm without her consent and someone just says to her "well you probably took inspiration from someone else, so you're not even original to begin with. The AI just did the same" A lot of artist I know are really into tech and loved every technical advancement. Becoming more digital is not the problem - but blurring the lines of copyright (because copyright cases online is even harder to take seriously) - if AI copies/uses the style of a current artist and the person that programmed it sells it - that's a problem! It's just not the same when a artist takes inspiration of an artstyle

[@ShinareAeruil]

Stable Diffusion can actually work with very small data sets. If I remember correctly, they recommended using about 5 source images for each generated image. No clue if the online services actually follow this guideline. This is not to say your generated image is 1/5 made by one person though, due to the large amount of randomness involved.

[@deanchang3388]

This may be true but can you really argue that an AI is “copying” an artist’s work when the AI generates an image that is inspired in the ratio of 1/5000000 by an artist’s work? And even when it is 1/5000000 the artists work it’s not really. This is because it doesn’t actually take pieces of the artists work, it could use pieces entirely differently from the original work.

[@newbachu]

Heck, some of the AI art still has the original artists signatures on the finished pieces. It's definitely theft and not "inspiration".

[@tacosorusrex1784]

Man I just don’t want to lose my career to robots, I have no valuable skills other than art

[@andifishgallery9400]

Me too, let’s cross our fingers that ai somehow won’t steal from us

[@JBuchmann]

@@algmslaaaaaa I believe when AI art is everywhere then people will begin to value hand crafted art much more.

[@TheKingOfToast]

Lmao people have been saying robots were going to take all the jobs for as long as robots have existed. People are still working.

[@phee3D]

@@TheKingOfToast people are still working, not because jobs weren't lost, but because more were created. This is probably what's going to happen with AI. I don't see how artists are going to survive moving forward, especially smaller artists.

[@peacefusion]

get a job working with digital art and you wont have to worry. art isnt just about sketch and painting anymore.

[@georgejones4960]

As an artist myself, i just think we're all really tired of constantly being undermined. Between animation being decimated this year to NFTs, people keep trying to commodify our skill without actually talking to any of us or caring. They only steal our creativity while justifying undercharging and overworking us. This is just another one of those things that will cause our commission prices to go down when things are more expensive than ever.

[@colemacgrath2005]

Maybe get a real job lol

[@georgejones4960]

@@colemacgrath2005 no ❤

[@nyesomboonsup9448]

@@colemacgrath2005 fatherless behaviour

[@TeleportRush]

We can't stop ai art from becoming a thing, nor necessarily should we considering its potential benefits, but we can try to appeal to commission patrons to continue to pay for quality art in spite of its existence. Might work for a while at least. I'm not sure what the long term solutions to this problem actually is unfortunately, which is definitely a major issue that needs to be solved sooner rather than later.

[@EgoistTheMoon]

Ow poor me!

[@AbcDef-dt8jb]

The biggest problem I have with Ai artist is that there are people who steal other people's art, feed them to ai, generate a bunch of art and open up commission using the original artist's name, or even titling the commission as "Artist A's art style art commission", which is scam and theft imo. For example, the artist you used as example in 3:06 Samdoesart, he got his art stolen and fed to ai, and that person opened commission with the title "Samdoesart's artsyle commission". After being called out, they still stubbornly said that they did nothing wrong. While I agree that every human artist also have their art style developed after being inspired by other artists, this behavior is just stealing, they used other people's hard work and name to profit out of it. I've also seen some people using artist's art (from one artist/just using one picture, which means the artstyle is consistence/ the generated results are not that far off from the original) to generate a few pictures, used them as commission examples, masked themselves as artist to do commission, without even mentioning the use of ai. Idk, it just feels wrong, like if you take out the ai part, basically you are tracing the original art, make a few changes, then claim it as yours. (of course I'm talking about when the generated results are not that different from the original) I have no problem with ai art, in fact, I think the development of ai can actually be very helpful to artists' technique and career improvement, but I also think that ai and/or ai users needs to have regulations...though I understands regarding this field there's always grey area so it's very hard. At the same time, I do hope that information about ai, how it works and function etc, can spread further so that artists can feel less anxious about its rising. Edit: Also, I remember seeing quite some examples of people using Ai art to participate in art competitions, which was not specifically opened for ai artist, and even involves money as prizes. With the rising of ai art, event holders also need to be aware and set up clear rules. Without proper regulation, everyone will be taken advantage of, not just the artists.

[@ChocolateShaddixX]

This is such a huuuuge topic and goes very deep. I'm a bit disappointed that Gabi glossed over a lot of the problems that artists have with the AI situation. A lot of Artists love Tech. And they love that Tech helps them to work faster. But stealing your identity as an artist like you mentioned is a way bigger problem, than Gabi said in her video. Also I tried AI as well, watch a lot of videos about the topic to stay informed, I like a lot of the results, but I'm already so sick to see it everywhere: Etsy sellers, Pinterest, Instagram are being flooded with the AI stuff and this also silences artists that can't keep up with this pace. Posting multiple AI-pictures a day? No problem. The algorithm of those sites love content, so they push those accounts even more. This is just not possible for artists so yeah it currently just sucks to see it everywhere

[@U.Inferno]

There's also instances of people taking WIP from artists streaming their process, insert it into an AI, have the AI finish the piece, and then upload it before the original artist then attack *them* for theft.

[@riley-1209]

Yea not to mention uploading kim Jung gi’s work to train AI the DAY after he passed away

[@AbcDef-dt8jb]

​@@ChocolateShaddixX I agree, but I also feel like Gabi might not have look deep enough into the artists' sides, or maybe she hadn't fully understood the perspective of artists regarding this topic, which she might be trying to do so by sparking discussion with this video. Opportunistic people and companies are just going to exploit the new tech, like they always do (because, like you've said, all they care about is content and their own benefits) Which worries me as I'm also one of the artists who is trying my best to make ends meet with my passion. I'd argue that the flood of these contents wouldn't silence artists though, because people tend to pay more attention to smthing when its trendy, which means opinions are more likely to get seen, however, plp who don't understand much and don't care enough to learn different perspective would participate in the argument as well, so there's that.

[@AbcDef-dt8jb]

There are people who are the typical "traditionalists", or some may put it as "plp who freak out when camera was first introduced to the world", but people need to understand that not all artists are worried about ai because it's a new technology, most of us are concerned because how it function fundamentally (which is using art that human created w/ or w/o consent) and how its users can harm many's career with no rules. (note that I mentioned its users that harm artists' career, not the ai itself) I saw someone in the comments mentioned that artists are more vocal about this because artists had always been exploited by companies and opportunists. Whether its direct copy and repost of stolen art for clout or profit, or art sold as prints on websites without permission, the problems never end. The "new tech" Nft waves weren't even that long ago, artists' works get stolen and sold as nfts because as far as I know, no enough regulations were created to protect artists. Corporations constantly take advantages of people, people get frustrated when their hardwork is stolen, used without consent, whether or not its for profit, and I think its valid. The main problem is, that a lot of ai's databases contain works without permission. This machine, under either its creator's or its users' command, went to someone's home, took the wheat they grew without permission, then made bread with it for sale. (crediting this analogy to Andantonius on Twitter) This is theft. Ai is merely a tool, and the creators/users who fed ai with stolen art is committing thievery. People who said "if you post something online you risk it getting stolen" is equivalent to saying "if you go out wearing jewelry you risk getting robbed". Who doesn't know this? I think artists knew this better than anyone, we had our works stolen one way or another for so long. There's always risks in something but just because there's a risk, doesn't mean their actions are justified. Also, I don't think it's suitable to compare Ai art's situation with digital art's rising. Digital art is a medium, it's still human using effort and time learning and adjusting it. Edit: I think Ai art could be, if not is, a medium. Some ai also takes time for users to learn and adjust values to achieve desired results. Again, the main problem with ai machine is its data source.

[@QUEERVEEART]

honestly i just wish more people were willing to listen to ARTISTS about this topic. why are artists being demonized for having an opinion on something art related? we are the people it is going to negatively affect the most. the least people could do is stop invalidating our feelings.

[@eatfriesplspls]

EXACTLY!!

[@Livvvin]

Yesss. Like I want to pursue in an art career in the future and the fact that AI art is becoming more popular gives me so much anxiety cause people don’t appreciate artists enough as it is why would they pay real people to make art when they can just use AI and that’s very upsetting

[@borgerchainsaw1016]

it will negatively affect artists and that's why people shouldn't just listen to them its a biased opinion

[@ASHERUISE]

Because it is just about feelings, not ethics. And completely understandable since yeah, it's not fair to artists who practice every day for years and take hours and hours to complete a painting. But at the same time, technology marches on and I don't want to stand in its way.

[@zelohendricks51]

@@ASHERUISE so it's basically "Fuck your work.move aside"

[@RamonIsHim]

I’m majoring in Graphic Design, and this AI stuff is forcing me to reconsider my life choices. Its scary.

[@lostgarbage4055]

And i am majoring computer science while another AI already almost took my job as a programmer. But programming is bad, right? It deserves to be forgotten and people put out of jobs, after all it's not art!

[@nobody-nk8pd]

@@lostgarbage4055 absolutely not. While I think that so many people being perfectly fine with automating culture is especially concerning, the problem with automation potentially leaving huge amount of people out of work is GIGANTIC. Like, what the hell will society look if the majority of people is out of job or competing for some low pay jobs that are not automated only because paying people is cheaper than maintaining robots? Side note, I guess automation is coming for intellectual and creative jobs first exactly because it does not require complicated hardware. Maybe if we're lucky people will have some sort of ubi, most likely tiny, but even with ubi most people will be miserable. And the owners of ais will be extremely rich. Also, there is currently so much bla bla about how self driving is going to prevent deaths in car accidents but I am sure tech giants are only developing this tech because it will provide an opportunity to fire lots of drivers and maximize profit. I'll probably sound like a luddute right now, but while technologies undoubtedly have a huge positive impact on our lives (especially modern medicine, it used to be an absolute horror), they also can cause HUGE problems in society. And unfortunately I have no answers, because I neither believe in socialism that works nor in capitalism that is ethical. (that's how I see it, sorry if I wrote some nonsense here, I am not an economist)

[@Huhu0137]

@@lostgarbage4055 I have learned both programming and art, I think AI is beautiful, but at the same time, people can use it to do terrible things. For example: Cyberbullying an artist by hosting a contest to copy his very own art style without his consent... Al and art are both amazing, it's the people that I disdain.

[@Kanoog]

As a graphic designer myself since 2009, AI can't do Graphic Design that well.... YET but I agree with you. It's just a matter of time.

[@foxesofautumn]

Yeah, I can’t think of a single way AI has improved art. Its offerings are soulless and it’s not like artists were struggling for ideas before it turned up. The only “problem” it solves is the need to either skill up or pay and artist if you want art.

[@CullanSanders]

I’m an amateur artist and in my career, I’ve found that there’s an unspoken etiquette among artists. Tracing is fine but you don’t post it. You trace to learn. If you’re struggling with a pose or perspective, you can trace something to figure out how to do it yourself, but you don’t claim it’s yours. If you do post it, you cite your source, just like a bibliography for a book report. AI has learned from artists and is now profiting from other people’s art, claiming it to be original. It specifically erases the watermarks of the art it has stolen. The problem is that AI is only good at reference. It can’t think critically. If you give it an abstract concept like “really scary thing” it can’t invent something new, it can only reference other scary things. The same thing would happen if an alien race landed on Earth and you asked AI to draw it. It couldn’t because it doesn’t have that alien in its database to reference. AI art is basically just a personalized google images. It’s fine if you want to goof around with it, but I don’t think you should give it any more credit than it deserves. It’s not amazing art, it’s referencing amazing art and mashing it all together. Stop and think, “how much would it cost to pay an artist to do this for me with much more tact and specificity?” I dunno, just some things to keep in mind. It’s not just “artists are butthurt about losing jobs”, it’s the ethics of literally stealing intellectual property for profit. It’s no better than NFT bros stealing art and claiming it’s going to the moon. Don’t be an NFT bro.

[@Midnightlunar10]

THIS. Like yeah, sucks that I’m loosing future commissions when I open them to robots, but there’s also many unspoken codes among internet artists the bots don’t understand. Imagine a bot taking just a little too much Inspiration from bigger artists like LavenderTowne. People would understand because the style would be recognizable. However, they don’t care because they either have never paid for art or admired it or because they can’t draw a stick figure. They don’t know what it’s like to see a possible future career choice go down the drain in an economy that’s crashing and burning. Minimum wage workers and backbones of society are seemingly upset about AI voices working drive-thrus or basically mimicking a voice actor. They’d be upset if they watched big companies get rid of real human artists who get paid big bucks for bots if THEY were artists and understood the artists literal online etiquette. It’s already difficult to become a truly well-known and successful artist and make money off of it. But hey, maybe it’ll work in our favor if people start valuing humans work for more.

[@EmmaKearney0119]

But like she says, it’s not AI mashing different things together or removing water marks or what not, it’s not taking actual original art pieces, it’s more like if you scroll through one particular artists instagram for inspiration because you like their style and want to draw something in their style, but the drawing you make isn’t a direct copy of one of the pieces they made

[@CullanSanders]

@@EmmaKearney0119 There are reports of artists who have found their work directly ripped by AI in one way or another. Whole signatures and watermarks being exactly replicated. Limbs or faces at exact angles with identical lighting from specific works of art. It isn't creating anything, its google images and auto fill mashed together. Its closer to magazine collage than drawing from reference. AI scrapes the internet for images, saves them in a database, and pulls them when needed, mashing it all together. The creators of AI art generators have added that layer of separation of "it breaks down images and averages out the pixels" in an attempt to distinguish theft from creation to cover their asses legally.

[@EmmaKearney0119]

@@CullanSanders oh wow that’s wild I didn’t know all that, I’m surprised it’s even legal

[@CullanSanders]

@@EmmaKearney0119 its in the courts. There's an artist collective that's suing for IP theft. That same collective is creating an anti-AI software that will corrupt the AI when it scrapes data by telling it, for example, that cats are dogs

[@Gumbyloomy]

If we automate art, one of the most human experiences, then what’s the point of creating? I think that’s what artists like me are worried about.

[@Gumbyloomy]

That and the blatant automated art theft from thousands of artists.

[@zyerkos]

yes! people forget that ai have to be trained first to be able to generate images. theyre always trained on the works of countless artists who most likely did not consent to their art being used for that, on top of the people who post ai-generated art and claim it as their own work, leaving out the part where all they did was feed an ai a prompt.

[@maxonite]

Automated art will never beat real art. It’s the fact that a person made it that makes it interesting and beautiful in the first place

[@NeonNijahn]

The same reason there is more than one artist now. Any one of the other artists who exist may be able to create art "better" than the others, but that doesn't stop new artists from creating because every individual has their own voice, identity, motivation and sense of purpose as creators.

[@abbyz13]

i agree and i think a lot of the fear comes from the commodification. we need to put food on our tables, the corporations that produce apps don’t. for people living in areas where selling art is already a challenge, this is just another unnecessary barrier…people can get basically what they want, not as original, but cheaper…it makes me feel gross as a classically trained artist. we are dying out.

[@localmoonkid]

I think a huge difference between people using inspiration from pop culture or notable artists in their work vs a bot taking images and keeping it stored is that human artists still apply their own experiences and perceptions into their work naturally. An AI can only go based on the information it's fed. Unfortunately, many of the artists who have had their work stolen by AI generators do not get royalties or recognition which isn't fair either. Additionally, a much larger issue is that this can steal jobs and opportunities from real people.

[@adrianmenzel1532]

the way that AI generates the images is by just geneating what is basically random noise and then being graded on how closely this noise resembles the picture you wanted to get from that prompt. You do that x times and then take the best few and randomly change a few values in their "brain box" and test them again. The actual pictures in these databases never get stored the model that you eventually use to do the txt to image or image to image work. You could also say that the own experiences that people have (and I'm sorry about this getting very philosophical) are just the art they've looked at/experienced in the past. Be it actual pictures, shows/movies, the classes they have attended (arguably intellectual property of the uni/professor). The places they've been (which in urban settings also contain mostly architectual design that "belongs" to somebody). You say that an AI can only go based on the information it's fed, but it's kind of the same for us humans as well, isn't it? And I think the wealth of images that the latest stable diffusion checkpoint has "seen" is about as much data as I have seen throughout my natural life.

[@tarettime9392]

Exactly one of the artists she showed, samdoesart had a run in with someone that was using ai to generate art that looked like his then doing commission. He was literally advertising it as being based on him. Putting an artists work into an ai generator then generating art that looks exactly like theirs because it was trained on their art without their permission the using it to take away from them is super unethical

[@darkthaumaturge587]

This is literally the same argument as "If a person goes to an art museum and is inspired to take up painting after the experience, then every painting that new artist looked at was STOLEN by the artist and the original artists deserve some royalties on everything the new artist paints." combined with a fundamental lack of understanding of how AI Art programs work. I say this as generally being on the side that the current way these apps IS likely unethical; but framing the argument in this way is so flawed that you're only helping the other side by making it.

[@crosswalkahead]

artists utilize reference and inspiration, ai relies on it

[@N04hrk]

I understand that this looks like theft, and that alot of artists are gonna loose their income. but that is happening everywhere, its not something new that someone takes inspiration from others to make money. its simply business. A= makes a product B= finds a way to make the product cheaper, more efficient, better and more accessible A= gets fewer customers B= gets more customers i dont like that its like this, but its just reality, noone can change it.

[@tomtheblind918]

So I wanted to explain more why artists say what we say - I try to be in-depth here. As an artist and being a part of the art community on Twitter, one of the reasons we’re being so defensive and calling this theft is because of how these algorithms are being harnessed by those who create and use them to make art for actual gain. Mostly our anger isn’t really aimed at people like you/others who use it for the fun little trend or the novelty of it. It’s aimed more at those who cultivate AI as a replacement for artists, and there’s actually a great great GREAT many people who actually believe this is a good thing and should happen. The “theft” aspect is because there‘s an alarming amount of rising cases where tech dudes and AI art “creators” use these models to blatantly rip off other artists. To directly reference three instances; Simon Stålenhag is a big Swedish artist that makes pieces based in retro-futurism, mainly rooted in scifi tech with heavy influence of 70s-80s culture and style. An AI person purposely fed many of Simon’s works into a bot in order to replicate his style to “put him out of a job.” Qinni was a massively beloved artist who passed due to severe health complications. Her work is made of beautiful bright stars with vibrant colors. After she died, AI dudes started feeding her works into algorithms in order to make new ones to profit off of them. My last case is the worst one: Kim Jung Gi was a Korean artist who was well known for his insanely precise and fluid linework - he was so talented he didn’t even need to really sketch. He could just take a pen and spin an entire piece out of pure linework alone. He passed away a month or two back - only two days after he had died, a guy in France, like the others, fed all of his works into an AI bot in order to make new ones in his artstyle. He then said to credit himself - the producer, not the dead Kim Jung Gi - for any new pieces made like this. There isn’t really any effort with creating AI art, and we keep seeing it used in attempts to force us artists out of our own positions. There are datasets being made right now that are attempting to replicate entire creators’ galleries. And I understand that to an extent it’s about how people use it instead of the AI, but that’s not the problem here. We aren’t blaming the AI for this, we’re blaming the people that make these systems and utilize them the way they do, and will probably keep doing nonstop should AI art become normalized within the public. Sure, there’s this debate whether or not AI art is real art - the real debate affecting artists as of now though is how this will affect how people perceive us and how they are already starting to see us as expendable. I’m a fairly small creator myself but I’ve already had people come up to me online and just outright say that we will be replaced by automated systems of creating. It’s very disheartening, and these sentiments are growing the more AI does.

[@Cometstarlight]

You probably already know about this by now, but just in case: Deviantart went through its own AI Art Outrage/Scare a little less than a month ago. DA, in its endless surge of terrible additions to the site, suddenly declared that it was going to allow the AI art bot to have access to its entire art gallery. Everyone's art was now "inspiration" and if you didn't want your art to be used, you had to go through each individual piece you've ever made and opt out of it one by one. The DA community lost their mind, people left the platform, and DA tried to do damage control by making it to where now it's an opt in system instead of an opt out. As in, you have to make the decision to let the bot use your art. DA is currently an ongoing treasure trove of terrible decisions that don't listen to their community. Still, it was a very interesting article to read when I logged in that morning.

[@minixlemonade2335]

Add it to the pile of terrible decisions that god awful site has made

[@JMulvy]

I think their biggest lie with that situation was suggesting that if we decided to opt out, it would somehow remove our art from the training data. When a midjourney ai engineer was asked to comment about that, he flat-out said it was impossible. That Ai can not un-learn short of resetting the whole thing and wiping the models. So even if we did opt out after the software harvested our images, there was no way to undo the damage regardless of what they promised.

[@samus88]

So you don't want an AI to be inspired by your publicly available drawings, but you don't mind other humans being inspired by them and then charging other humans for drawing they make based on your style? I really don't see why people fear AI. You gotta stop watching scifi movies. It's just software. It literally won't harm anyone.

[@JMulvy]

@@samus88 It already has. What happens when you google Kim Jung Gi, Greg Rutkowski, Karla Ortiz, or Sam Yang now? You get all of the unwarranted controversy surrounding that person because they chose NOT to embrace Ai's flagrant disregard for copyright law. For an artist their reputation is tantamount with their business, that is a justifiable damage in a law suit. No one is talking about Sky-Net or some bs like that, they are more concerned with how it is being used to skirt our current protections.

[@isa-belva]

can't believe it wasn't an opt-in in the first place

[@eli-meli-mouse]

There's some ai art that's definitely unethical, like all the artists who have passed away and cannot consent to their art being used have had ai bots created to like "get around" buying prints or original work. Kim Jung Gi and Qinni are two examples.

[@eli-meli-mouse]

Also it's silly since free art already exists like picrews and when artists draw requests. Pouring unconsenting artists' work into a database (where people specifically can type in their name to try to get it to emulate the artist's style) is a lot different than taking inspiration from another artist when you're growing as an artist. It's especially rough when these AIs are monetized while the artist goes uncompensated. I'm an artist myself and it's really frustrating to see people yelling at and fighting the original artists who don't want their work stolen all the time, and AI is just making it way worse

[@adrianmenzel1532]

@@eli-meli-mouse the way that AI generates the images is by just geneating what is basically random noise and then being graded on how closely this noise resembles the picture you wanted to get from that prompt. You do that x times and then take the best few and randomly change a few values in their "brain box" and test them again. The actual pictures in these databases never "touch" the model that you eventually use to do the txt to image or image to image work. So to get back to your point - it actually is quite simmilar to an artist having a google image search for references open on a second screen while drawing.

[@ultimamage3]

But the living artists right now are saying it's more ethical to use already-dead artists' work under the impression that no one's income is actively threatened that way and the dead person can't complain.

[@adrianmenzel1532]

@@lilac841 But what if Katy Perry says you're not allowed to use her songs for inspiration? Does she have any legal foothold there? Does she have any ethical foothold there?

[@adrianmenzel1532]

@@ultimamage3 I totally agree that this is a massive shift in the industry and that a huge amount of living wage is up in the air right now. But these artists have sadly pulled the short straw and will either have to learn how to use diffusors (the general term for these image AIs), pivot to another profession or resort to welfare. I, as a programmer constantly face new technologies that shift the industry and I have to learn them. When I did my apprenticeship 6 years ago the whole "cloud" thing was used by absolutely nobody. Today I work as the guy that maintains an installation of a specific software in the cloud.

[@galamotshaku]

Love your content Gab, it was interesting to hear your opinion. I would like to make a few points: 1- Yes, all art is derivative , but I don't think we can really say ai "takes inspiration" from other images cause what it essentially does is recognize pixel patterns from the data sets without any kind of intention whatsoever. In some cases it even copies artist's signatures when asked to replicate a particular style. Humans in the other hand deliberately make conscious choices on what they copy, steal or appropriate. 2- It's been proven that a lot of this sets have been trained with copyrighted material, alongside personal data and sensitive material which is borderline illegal and at best very questionable. 3-Many people don't know this, but fan art IS STEALING. IP holders can (and do) sue you even if you're not making money from your fan project. Just check the entire history of Nintendo lawsuits. 4- Artists are not complaining (or at least shouldn't) to the end users of this technology. The whole point is to show this corporations that they can't base their business model on stealing data from people (not just artist). Is not a matter of who gets to create pretty images, it's a matter of data privacy. 5-Generative Ai music models made by this corporations haven't been trained with copyrighted material for a simple reason and that's because record labels still hold a lot of power when it comes to lawsuits, companies like open Ai know this very well. So this is a matter of silicon valley tech bros taking advantage of thousands of small artist that they know can't really do much about it individually. The objective is not to ban the use of this technology, but to include everyone in the conversation of how the future of Ai looks like.

[@JewelinaRae]

PREACH

[@Moony1568]

Beautifully put.

[@JosephIovescu]

Exactly, the discussion is about data and copyright - every tech bro that's saying it's about "democratizing art" is just trying to blindside you so they can continue to monetize every piece of data they can extract from you

[@jewelz00]

Exactly! Thanks for saying all of this.

[@BlastKast]

You do bring up some really good points, but I'm going to have to argue against your 3rd point. Fan art is not stealing. The statement that it is, is somewhat misleading. Artists draw other artists' characters all the time. Some artists try to draw in the styles of other artists. You could argue that those artists are wrong, but I don't think that's the issue there. MAKING MONEY off of art is the issue, and companies can only sue you IF it is their IP. When someone makes a character and another person profits off it, that could be considered stealing, but in that scenario, the law would not be able to step in unless it is using their intellectual property

[@oops6876]

I personally just think it’s icky to rely on robots for “art,” when art is such a natural and human thing. To me at least. It’s one of the things that makes life worth living.

[@dafthappiness1327]

I feel like the problem a lot of artists are running into when discussing why they don’t like Ai art is they start talking about nebulous concepts like ‘real art’ and ‘inspiration.’ But discussing it like that ignores the fact that Ai CAN’T BE INSPIRED. Stable Diffusion isn’t ‘inspired’ by other artists, it’s referencing points of data. And there’s huge debate for years about the ethics and legalities of data collection. I think it’s completely valid for artists to be concerned about how their data is being harvested and used without their consent in the same way people don’t want their medical records or internet traffic harvested and used without consent. SPEAKING OF WHICH, the database stable diffusion has been trained on (and by proxy the one Lensa uses) DOES contain stolen medical photos. It isn’t only artists who should be concerned about this.

[@emgeez]

Not just private medical records, people have found non-con and revenge p**n, images of other gruesome and horrific acts like beheadings, etc. They scrubbed so many images from the internet without verifying anything about them, and that’s such a bad precedent to set for policies concerning algorithms and training. Also, the original database was only supposed to be used for research purposes, not commercial profit, which makes it even worse

[@MiguelThinks]

I had this same dilemma too. Because of the way this issue is often discussed, an artist friend of mine started feeling annoyed and became cynical after that. She no longer could see the real legitimate concerns beyond these abstract concepts, so it was difficult for me to make her realize the real concerns over abstract ones. Not that one nihilistic artist matters, but the discussion was frustrating.

[@thesystem5980]

Perhaps inspiration in humans is essentially merely that. We think it is magic, however humans are also machines.

[@apmanda]

@@thesystem5980 Regardless of the philosophical debate of what inspiration actually is or means, the harvesting of data by a machine that can neither morally reason with itself about the use of said data without external prompting is DEFINITELY a topic we should ALL be concerned about because even photos are becoming a hot topic of “scary”. Have you seen the hundreds of fake news/event photos being generated to make up stories about things that never happened etc etc? The point of data harvesting that is occurring through ai in general is what these discussions really need to focus on. You legitimately cannot trust your eyes on the internet anymore…

[@steph713r]

My biggest problem with AI art is that it's actively taking away opportunities from independent artists. It's hard enough trying to make a living as an artist online, especially now that sites like Instagram are hurting the art community with their algorithms. There are plenty of people who like art but don't understand or respect the work that gets put into making a piece. Now that AI art exists, why would anyone want to pay an artist $100's for a piece that they could get from an AI for cheaper and quicker? Even worse, what if they could get a piece that has the same artist's style simply by putting their username in the generator? At the moment, AI tends to affect more well-known artists that have an easily-recognizable style/technique than artists who are just starting out or have an array of different styles/techniques. But that doesn't make it any less of a problem.

[@abbyz13]

This this this. Most of us have invested decades and thousands of dollars into our ability to create what we do, and this kind of thing is a slap in the face. I’m not surprised the apps exist, I’m surprised people are so ready to pick it over real art and it’s sad.

[@snowballeffect7812]

I see the problem, but I also would rather have the progress than not. I just wish we had AI figure out how to do energy storage or efficient fusion and put big oil out of business before artists.

[@MistaHahn117]

Exactly this And people get weird enough about artists asking to be paid fairly, trying to get commissioned work that took many hours and a ton of resources to make for low or no cost. Now with an even cheaper thing they see as an "alternative," that problem will only get worse. This concern is only made more real with what I've been seeing from the trend among non-artists/people not familiar with art. To someone who knows what to look for, AI art looks like lazy slop. A lot of it is poorly composed, and even that uncanny effect one might go for gets very samey quickly from the same algorithm. However, to the untrained eye or at a passing glance, many consider it "good enough."

[@itsgabibelle]

right! i sort of liken it to amazon. cool, we can have extremely fast and quicker delivery of a product, but we should still be going out of our way to support mom&pop shops and local businesses

[@jenm1]

You are mad at capitalism, not artistic innovation

[@nick-sl3mc]

Fun Fact: Im currently writing a research essay about AI art and how it is affecting the art industry and replacing commercial artists for my college english class rn. So thank you

[@Elwolfshy]

Hey same, I'm struggling though, because I suck at writing

[@r3dblur114]

@@Elwolfshy get an AI to do it

[@56clockwork]

Why are you writing it yourself we have Ai programs that can do that now.

[@dibbidydoo4318]

How are artists being replaced?

[@kanonvolt5391]

It is in fact interesting. Something that i argue about IA making art not being the same as a human making art is that an AI is a "thing" and not someone it doesn't have free will, our brain has all this thinks that make us ourselves including our memories, AI's database it's just straight up memories in form of files. We can't access someone's brain to erase, transform or replace memories as we can do with databases, and even if we should expect their consent, and AI can't consent, it just follows instructions, does not distinguish between good or bad. Bc we have the possibility to give consent if we want to let companies use our work to train an AI saving our art in it's database, then they SHOULD ask for our consent. We mostly Don't limit who can save our work in their brains (and we can't) but it's different when it comes to a database.

[@Dharmondraws]

I appreciate that you're trying to look at the issue from more than one perspective, but it seems like there's a lack of understanding here when it comes to how AI uses existing artwork versus how people use art and life for reference. For example, the late Kim Jung Gi was famous for the "internal reference library" he developed over years of practicing art. He looked at things that existed in life and in other art and committed it to memory, to the point where he could mentally recall how almost anything was supposed to look while he was drawing. But he wasn't just "copying" those things when he drew. His art was original and unique. After he passed, somebody fed his artwork to an AI program, and the result wasn't even close to the art that KJG created. That's because artists are REFERENCING an existing image or IP to create an original piece of art that is unique them and their style. In contrast, AI is COLLECTING several images, and spitting out an amalgamation of all of those images put together. AI doesn't "understand" the images that are being used to train it - it can't parse out things like structure and anatomy. That's why it can't do hands correctly, and why a lot of AI images tend to look a little "off."

[@vzoen6015]

I think the most unsettling thing about this is that ai is not a real person behind the art. Like even digital art, electronic music, CGI etc has a human controlling the outcome of what the finished product will look/sound like. AI art lacks the soul, time, and love that artists of any medium put into their work

[@dontflamemepls7256]

I think that the outrage on artists part can also be contributed to the fact that they have to put a tremendous amount of effort, time, studying and practicing to reach a place where you can actually call yourself a professional artist, while a user of AI art can just make that quality art by just pressing a button, or entering in some prompts.

[@nuvemboreal]

absolutely! and it's not to say programmers don't have their own struggle, as it is quite the complicated technology to develop - I believe, for instance, if these developers were willing to work WITH some artists and compensate them for the use of their pieces as learning samples, I think it could lead to interesting stuff, but obviously they come from an industry, which is putting profit (therefore quickness) over everything else, including integrity. it just doesn't balance it very well when your profitting from thousands of purchases on your AI when these artists are struggling to survive in an economical system that does not care about their values and the actual artistic aspect of it all.

[@adrianmenzel1532]

Just how most digital artists don't necessarily need to spend the time to learn how to use and mix and hydrate pigment for oil paints. You just press a button and presto! Extactly the rgb value of colour that goes onto your canvas in exactly the way you want it to. That kind of fidelity takes years to properly do in oil or watercolour.

[@Iwsssimuou]

As of now it still takes a lot of work and prompt engineering to get quality art. I've spent several days fine tuning prompts, tweaking parameters/samplers, and finding seeds that complement the piece I was trying to make. All to get a single image that still isn't composed exactly how I had envisioned. I'm sure it will get easier, but it is frustrating to see people act like you can just type in a few words and get exactly the art you are looking for, it takes work to get what you want out of the AI as it is just another tool.

[@c0ttage]

@@Iwsssimuou that's fair, but we're also talking about generators here. those tools and the techniques required to use them are not similar to producing art without AI. sure you can fine tune it and use your human understanding of composition and design but that doesn't change the fact that non AI art, including digital has a very specific process to creation l. there are tangible ways to hone your skills, whatever tool you're using. I haven't seen any proof that AI art can develop artists, it just feels like developers can create art. (taking "inspiration" from millions of pieces of artwork)

[@dontflamemepls7256]

@@adrianmenzel1532 It's different, but not easier. Sure, digitally you dont need to mix the colors, you have different things you need to practice. The only real advantage to it is that it doesn't leave mess, and is cheaper than traditional art.

[@zyerkos]

got a commission canceled in the middle of making it because they used an ai to generate the specific image they were looking for, for free. now theyre demanding a refund of the 15 usd downpayment i ask for everybody after i sent them a cleaned sketch :/

[@24shineon]

Ok yeah this scares me now, gonna start growing a pair and asking for a down payment like I should anyway but now especially because of this

[@zyerkos]

@@24shineon its definitely hard to ask for it at the start, but its also added protection against scammers and the like

[@Haukett]

So, I'm an artist, and my works are in the dataset that these AI are trained on (as well as many if not all of my artist friends works as well). I didn't consent to a robot using my art to generate new images, and neither did any of my friends. The people who run these AI image generators are making a profit on them, they charge fees for generating images with these bots they "made". By myself, and everyone else who's art is being used in them get nothing. If they had gotten permission, and the artists were getting a percentage or some sort of royalties, or anything really, i'd be totally fine with it! (I'm self employed, if i don't sell my art, i don't make any income. I can't have a normal job due to health issues, same with many artists i know who have also had their work taken and used in the datasets) The other thing i want to say is that without the images they are using without consent, without the millions of hours of hard work us artists have put into our craft, their AI image generators would be nothing. They wouldn't work. Their entire setup relies on the things we've made, and its insulting and disrespectful to just scrape all of that hard work into a little bot that can just spit out images faster than us artists could ever hope to. The more it improves and the better it gets, the more its going to put actual artists at risk. I don't do fanart, but i feel like thats not comparable to what is being done here. Fanart is most often made by individual artists, but the owners of said characters (like pokemon, or anime, or videogames) are usually large corporations that aren't going to notice a dip in profits at all whatsoever if some kid at anime expo is selling pikachu keychains that they made at home. If people start using an AI to generate images in my style, I am going to notice that financially. If the value of art falls because of these image generators, big corporations will most likely profit off of it (because they can pay less to artists for their art), and actual artists will suffer. Also, if a big corporation really had a problem with fanart (which sometimes they do!) they have the full ability to go after artists and send them cease and desist letters. Comparing self employed individual artists to corporations in the context of fanart is not a fair comparison. I get what people are saying when they compare the AI programs to people getting inspiration from art around them. Its inevitable to be inspired and influenced by the art you see and learn from as an artist, but, these AI image generators aren't real people. Its a program that an individual or team worked on and made. That team had full power over getting consent from artists for use of their images, and they didn't. Thats a conscious decision. Also, people getting inspired are able to understand nuance and what is and isn't appropriate when being inspired. AI cannot make this distinction, what is generates has no basis on what would or wouldn't be considered ok in art communities. (this isn't related to anything you've said in the video but people are already posting AI images under the guise of them being the artists who "painted" them, as well as using this to scam people into "commissioning them" for images they use and AI to generate. Also pretty much everywhere images are posted or shared are being flooded with AI stuff. Not sure where this fits into any of the arguments but I wanted to mention it.) To be clear, i don't dislike AI, I honestly think its great and it can be such a powerful tool for artists of any type to be inspired and build off of, but with how its being done now, it takes agency away from the artists its building off of. If the people making the datasets had gotten consent, and the artists being profited off of were getting at lease some sort of kick back, I'd be 100% fine with it. (and at least as far as i know, many other artists would be ok with this as well if this is how it was being done) (sorry for the long comment, i'm planning my own video about AI and have,,, a lot of feelings about it)

[@MintyMido]

^agree with all your points

[@megansart9763]

Yes, literally this. I wish she would’ve actually looked into an artists perspective before making this video on an artist issue. Really it’s a people issue, but what do I know. Just replace us all with robots :/

[@JustAStranger2840]

One look at the AI communities will tell you how much they loathe the very idea of consent from smaller scale workers.

[@Amanda-fh5mp]

100% agree! I also feel that when a person draws inspiration from another person's art and makes their own, they're inevitably bringing in their own subconscious touches to it that make what they do uniquely theirs. An AI does not do that, because it can just spit out the rehashed bits of other artist's work without any sort of personal input.

[@liz_lore]

Well said. I’m a copywriter who works closely with artists to complete projects. The greedy CEO at my last job started using AI so he wouldn’t have to hire any more Creatives to write and design content. Pesky humans cost too much and take too long. What a ripoff to his clients, not to mention deeply unethical from a copyright standpoint. Like with art, AI copy generators steal copy posted online, change a couple words here and there, and call it new content. But that’s just thinly veiled plagiarism.

[@babyoppossums8808]

Honestly, I think AI art will just serve to further devalue the work artists do. People already consider art “not a real job”. Why pay for art at all when you can just have a computer do it for you? Why would a company hire an artist when they can just pump their name into a program and get what they want for free? Artists spend years and years and years to develop their styles, which are often extremely personal. When you take their *entire* style, you’re stealing a piece of them. Yes, people are inspired by other artists, but you still have your own experiences to add to your art, and that means something. AI art just feels like another attempt to get the most profit out of the least amount of work. I know you believe that nothing will ever replace the human aspect of art, but we live in a capitalist society that values profit above all else. It’s naive to think that human art won’t be further devalued, more so than it already is.

[@catastrophe69]

Artist here who has been making their income from private commissions for years now. I largely agree with you, but there's a few things I feel sort of lukewarm about after watching through and would like to try and offer my perspective as an artist who also doesn't like the current state of AI. Apologies if this is going to be long. - While you could argue AI is taking inspiration from millions of images (taken without consent to be fed into a database), it is no way the same kind of inspiration an artist takes from other pieces of art to make their own. AI takes multiple images and basically mashes them together, which true, often comes out entirely new and distinct from any images it used, but other times it still has very visible imperfections, chunks of someone else's work, even their watermarks. AI cannot take inspiration from existing art the same way another artist can, and that point you tried to make there stung a fair bit. Inspiration makes art go around, artists never hated others taking inspiration from them, but copying part of their images, or basically frankeinsteining them together with others is not it. - Another thing is that people now profit off of AI. First, the creators of these apps themselves charge people, and yes, they have put in work into making the app at the very least, even if the images they use are not rightfully theirs, people now pay no money or very minimum to generate images and offer them as commissions, designs for sale, and more. And people now actually consider buying a kindof awkward looking but cheaper generated image over paying for someone who drew it 100% themselves. I feel like this is where mostly the concern about losing income and theft comes from, and, it's both warranted, but not, and it is theft, but it isn't. It's complicated. From this same point comes even more people who already didn't think artists are justified to charge what they charge and feel entitled to their work for cheaper, or in some cases, for free. And make no mistake, there will always be people who will prefer to commission real people, who will stick to the creators they know and love, who think their work is worth it. Of course, anyone can sympathize with not having money for needless luxuries, and in the end of the day, art is a luxury. No one needs it to live, you don't need a custom commission of art, or music, or anything to go about your day to day. But in the end, it's also wrong for people to compare the work of creators to AI and go "oh if they can do it for $8 why are you charging hundreds"? They can do it for $8 because millions before put in the time and effort for their work to now feed that program. - While AI is unethical, and even if arguing about whether it's theft or not might not get us very far, the other reason why artists especially take it personally is because they have been getting this kind of disrespect since the beginning of time. They get their art stolen all the time, by companies to put on merch they have been not authorized for, by people claiming their work as their own, selling them on Redbubble, being used for personal projects without credit or direct claim to it, and when they speak up they are just expected to take it because "oh they like your work, it's a compliment, don't be selfish". So when a larger company who could ask creators to cooperate with them and donate images for their app to learn from instead just pulls anything and everything to then monetize the use of their app they built on the backs of others, it's not too difficult to see why it can feel like another kick. Some react overly strongly, but at least some level of upset is absolutely understandable. - While I understand your comparison to music, and the revolution of music from "real instruments" to electronic, same way traditional art turning digital and people being mad that it isn't real: you are right, people absolutely were, there are always those who hate change and cannot see further from their own methods and techniques and will think of other mediums as less than. However, I don't think it's the best comparison, because while closed minded people will hate new tools for no reason, they didn't necessarily take their work to make that new tool a reality. While AI is also a tool, it's again, unethical. That's just the best way to put it. SOme works will come out of it way more transformed from the originals, others won't. The real question is, what gives the right to the people who made it to tell their users "yes, for a fee, you can use these creations we generated for you" when they legally do not own most of the source that made their creation a reality? Even if it isn't illegal, it's leaving a bad taste in people's mouths, for similar reasons to my previous point. - And my last point: many people defending AI, or the creators of these apps, try and advertise it as a tool for accessibility to help people who can't draw, are disabled or can't afford art. And that would be nice, except they only use these arguments as a shield, because they completely ignore the fact that many artists are also scraping by to make ends meet, are disabled, and have set time aside deliberately to hone their craft, which to some now feels like is being taken and peddled for cheaper to appease people who are either lazy, don't value their work, or want to turn the generated images for profit. In conclusion: AI is a fun tool, and could very well coexist with creators - if they really were made in mind with creators, too. Like you said in the video too, there are many grey areas and it definitely isn't all black and white. I really recommend you or anyone to watch Steven zapata's "The End of Art: An Argument Against Image AIs" because he puts every concern, pro and con way better in words than I could (and also mentions how the same company who took artist's work without consent had no issues making an AI generator for music WITH the cooperation of musicians and using free to use and royalty free resources). Sorry this came out so long winded, love your channel and videos, keep up the good work.

[@chockie]

thanks for saying everything i wanted to say. well worded. i enjoy most of gabi's content but this one really felt like a miss to me

[@petalchild]

That's not how this AI technology works though. It doesn't just mash pre-existing images together.

[@sari9645]

Not trying to hate but your first point is incorrect (at least in tje way gabi explained how these programs work) it isn’t mashing images together it is learning how colors go together, lines work, all the rules that make art

[@catastrophe69]

@@sari9645 care to elaborate? there probably is AI that works on it's own and can make something entirely new, however, whether it is a matter of progress or being in the beginning stages, there's a ton of AI generated art that still has artist's watermarks in them too, and they definitely pulled those from somewhere. No doubt, as more material is getting added to the AI, the more transformative and "new" the resulting image will be, but then there's where the question of ethics come in, because while stable diffusion for example rakes in the big dollars, none of the artists in their datasets got credit or compensation, and a lot of that material is most definitely copyrighted, too

[@MayvaAva]

@@sari9645 nah the first point is correct

[@Moony1568]

My biggest problem is how AI art can ruin real artists’ business. Why would someone pay 100s of dollars to commission someone when they can just use a bot for far less? That’s terrifying. I have a degree in graphic design and i have yet to find a job within the field. Now with AI art there’s a good chance I’ll never be hired. What’s the point of hiring me when a bot can do the job for free? It’s already hard enough for artists and now it’s worse. Also, it is theft. Not inspiration. Peoples signatures have been found on some of the generated images. It’s a bot, not a person. It doesn’t take inspiration. It does not have a unique style that has been finely tuned over years and years of work. It doesn’t have a unique voice or quirk. It’s literally just mashing styles together from its algorithm to make something based on a prompt. All taken from other artists. It’s theft. Edit: so I’ve been told that the signatures are probably scribbles the bot placed to replicate real signatures. Sure. My point still stands. AI is stealing art. The bot RELIES on the work of real artists. Artists do not need to look at others work to start creating, but a bot does. I wouldn’t mind it as much as I do if it was just fed work from long dead artists and stock photos to create something unique, but the fact that many artists living today are having their work fed to a bot without their permission and that bot is making a profit off of their work, that’s bullsh*t. That’s unethical and I’ll always see it as theft even if it’s not technically theft.

[@Hip.Username]

Where did you find artists' signatures in an AI generated picture?

[@Moony1568]

@@Hip.Username You can look it up. People have pointed it out on Twitter.

[@jojbenedoot7459]

The odds of those being actual signatures are very low. Much more likely, the AI learned that art sometimes has signatures in the corner, so it throws some scribbles down there that look a bit like cursive. I haven't found any examples of an actual, verifiable signature of an artist being used in AI art, but if there are any then I'm happy to be proven wrong

[@ultimamage3]

Why is art an industry/business? How did artists allow creative expression to be poisoned by capitalism to where the only valid art is one that makes money? At that point you're not an artist, you're a cog in a machine and a conveyor belt worker doing what others tell you and not what you want.

[@SketchLove]

@@ultimamage3 ....we have to eat, you know that right?

[@BrookeBaubles]

As a struggling artist I'm just really sad.

[@Backup439]

U should be happy. Life keeps on getting easier. Before u know it, everything will be automated. EVERYTHING

[@tomatoorphan6166]

@@Backup439 just get out of here. Put your apathetic mouth somewhere else.

[@tomatoorphan6166]

Brooke, I feel you.

[@bucketheadkfc]

As a struggling factory worker, I feel your pain.

[@HeyTinaaaa]

​@@Backup439 booooooooooo

[@itsgabibelle]

WATCH PART 2: kzbin.info/www/bejne/a5C4n3qvfp56bdk few points! - firstly, let’s keep a civil discussion in the comments, i know it’s a heated topic - if AI art isnt semantically theft, i agree that using databases of unconsenting peoples art is unethical as i said, and there is a good debate for this. I explain at the end of the video that perhaps in the future this will change. I followed that with “probably not tho” because the world sucks. you’re allowed to have a different opinion than me on this. - I made this video because I found it to be an interesting debate, my intention was not to attack artists and defend the companies that are backing these projects, especially the ones that can be morally ambiguous with how they source their AI training- I meant to just explore this very newly mainstream piece of technology and how people are reacting to it. I support commission artists and think we should continue to support their livelihoods. as a former freelancer, I know how difficult making money from being self employed can be so I will always empathize with artists making a living from their creative work

[@acidicali7776]

I honestly love your other content! But if I’m being honest, I don’t think you should’ve joined the discussion. Didn’t seem like you even wanted to discuss the ethics in the video.

[@lostimpanis]

i support your ideas! kind of sucks that this topic is controversial and kind of attracts toxicity My stance on AI: Sure it can replicate what music sounds like, but AI will never be able to experience true human emotions. That's why it is lacking. AI will probably just be a convenient way for those who can't afford composers/artists. (minus the social interaction)

[@TOnySchAnneL9000]

@@acidicali7776 Yeah, this video is rough; thousands of people will see it and not look further into the topic. It's too surface level to those who are more knowledgeable, but not deep enough for everyone who aren't. Many of those people will consider this surface level-middle grounding as an informed opinion and it'll only be harder to get more people onboard for sensible regulation. Definitely a bummer.

[@frmw9357]

@@acidicali7776yea man, i love gabi but id rather hear the opinions of someone who makes a living off of drawing and painting etc. as an artist i personally don’t care too much abt this ai art (not including some exceptions), but i’d much rather hear from someone who’s directly affected by this trend

[@nuvemboreal]

I am grateful that you used your platform, as it seems to not have been taken seriously elsewhere, and I don't think you did anything necessarily wrong, it just seems to be more of a debate inviting type of video instead of a proper essay, and that's okay!

[@ghouls_are_people_too7088]

I'm still not sure how I feel about lensa. I am an artist myself and decided to buy into the trend to see myself in different art styles. My friend asked me to make her some AI pics too, which I did. Then she showed her family and her family showed her colleges to the point where I had people wanting commissions. I said it wasn't my art but that I do take commissions and all of them were like "never mind I'll just use the app since its cheaper." My friend asked me why I didn't just charge them for AI images because I had the app but the thought of possibly making money from another artists work didn't sit right with me.

[@BrookeBaubles]

Yuuup. It's completely demoralizing. The vast majority of people don't appreciate or value our hard work.

[@MertowVA]

@Bumblesnuff buffallobath It's a silly take to support automation for the sake of automation.

[@bitspirit3]

@@MertowVA What about for the sake of progress? It's hard not to "invent" AI art when you are working on things like computer vision, machine learning, natural language processing, all of which have great potential to improve human life.

[@MertowVA]

@@bitspirit3 The field of ethics would simply not exist if blind progress was the most important thing ever. Go back to "why care about who is affected and how, if it slows down progress" and you end up with awful consequences.

[@bitspirit3]

@@MertowVA There will be huge consequences, but we're betting on the great outweighing the awful.

[@evelyncastillo1094]

Currently by industry standard, it can be theft. Game designers were discussing using ai concept art but with no way to know what the source art is, you can’t tell if anything on a piece is original. If it’s made by a human, they can at least understand WHERE their inspiration comes from and they know how to make it different enough to not be plagiarism. Meanwhile AI can spit out something entirely unoriginal and not know it. It’s also soooo grim seeing generated art with the artist signature accidentally generated it, you can literally see that artists are being ripped off.

[@leonpage3585]

You're the first person I've seen actually use the term "plagiarism" for it. It seems obvious, idk why people haven't been using it more

[@evelyncastillo1094]

@@leonpage3585 I think it’s because people use the term “inspiration” when we need to realize that this is AI generated art. It can only go so far, as AI art requires a template and images to be fed into it. It’s the same with writing papers, if you aren’t creative enough to have your own writing style then you’ll end up plagiarizing the works you read.

[@heidiherndon3890]

@@leonpage3585 it’s not technically plagiarism because it’s transformative enough to be fair use I hate it but it’s true

[@InvisibleRen]

@@heidiherndon3890 That’s what I was told when someone copy-pasted the first few chapters of my book, just changing the names and removing half the sentences.

[@heidiherndon3890]

@@InvisibleRen well that’s different because someone took from single source were as programs like mid journey use 1000s which is less like your situation and more like someone getting angry at someone else because they wrote a book that’s the same language as their book ai art has such a large datasets it’s impossible to say it isn’t transformative I’m not saying it’s right just that it’s legal as an artist I knew this was gonna happen eventually I just wished it happened 40 years from now so wouldn’t have to adapt

[@mechanomics2649]

I mean, there's already been at least one instance of someone entering AI art into an art contest and winning.

[@Kanoog]

EXACTLY. They have a episode of South Park similar to this.

[@karma-cu8lx]

as a young artist, i've already been hurt by this...but only bc i had drawn my partner in my style and he never set it as his pfp, but fed a selfie of himself onto an ai art engine, got a more realistic result, and used THAT as his pfp 😂😂😂

[@chiariscuro]

I get both of you! Sometimes people are just picky about their profile pics. Also, my bf draws realistic portraits and he drew me but I prefer using my own stylized art as a pfp lol

[@swaggyfrog]

15:09 its interesting you say that, considering some people still think digital art is "fake" and "doesn't need any skill", even after its become so popularised

[@nuvemboreal]

that is also a great point, we should definitily not approach this from a "new technology is bad" perspective, but rather question if this is really necessary and who's actually benefitting from these AI, if not the artists themselves

[@thecreativeducky5781]

@@nuvemboreal it's not technology we needed, some of the people developing this just have it out for artists, and I couldn't understand why. They could've done something so much more worthwhile with the resources but yet, here we are.

[@mayhemilyy]

I've tried explaining how uncomfy the "AI girl" trope makes me to men, and it never goes well. It's the same types who view Ex Machina as softcore p**n instead of criticism... It astounds me how far people will go to dehumanize and commodify women

[@bongibot1104]

That's such a cool movie, it did a fantastic job of grossing you out from what was happening. That ending tho, I do feel bad for the guy

[@kaitlynnelson2139]

Have you seen the Pop Culture Detective's channel on KZbin? He does a whole video on this topic called "Born Sexy Yesterday" and it's fascinating. The trope is so deeply rooted in misogyny it's insane

[@perfectdawnn6714]

I absolutely agree with your sentiment, but I believe Ex Machina is a poor example. The reason they were all attractive women was to show that Nathan (the billionare) who created them was lonely and also a pervert, he created them in his version of the "perfect" woman. Caleb pointed this out in the movie, asking Nathan why he made them all attractive women when they could've just been a gray box, and of course Nathan ignores this question to objectify them even more. He also created Ava, the test AI for Caleb, to be as close to Caleb's porn history as possible, just to see if he is capable of trusting and falling for an AI. Nathan is sick and demented, and that's why you have these overly sexualized AI. A better example would be in Halo 4, when they made one of the main AI protagonists have overly sexualized features for no other reason than to objectify.

[@mayhemilyy]

@@perfectdawnn6714 i know that's the point of Ex Machina... that's why I stated that the problem was with certain audiences and not the film itself

[@clauday6467]

Ai learn from human that's why there's so many issues of ai being sexist, racist and use beauty standard

[@resuliz]

I get where you're coming from with the inspiration bit, but I've seen AI pieces of fanart in my relatively niche fan community (note that fanart is actively encouraged by the those behind the community) where it was obvious the artist the AI was taking from. The characters were in the same pose, same color scheme, you could easily tell it was based off of others' popular works. It was essentially 85%-90% of the artists' work, as the artists could pinpoint the exact pieces of art used as reference. These pieces of art were used as a base and any "flourishes" the AI added were inaccuracies to the actual details of the characters, showing little care and respect both for the original artists and general community from the person behind the AI. At that point, it is blatant theft and as long as these bad actors are within the midst, I feel AI art should not be encouraged in any form.

[@jarednelsonn]

stable diffusion is creating their own ai music generator. they have openly admitted that they are using the same algorithm as the image generator. they also admitted that their algorithm tends to copy, so ai music is being created used copyright free music. that means that the image generator also tends to copy, but since the visual artists aren’t as protected they don’t mind exploiting them.

[@artemis5394]

I think a huge issue that AI art comes with is the idea of anybody being able to use AI art that has learned from a database of artists who haven't consented to their art being used, and using it for their own benefit, such as monetary gains. You bring up that there's hypocrisy behind the idea of everyone is inspired by each other's art, and fanart is a huge example of that, yes, but that is also created using the techniques and skills that the artists have spent years honing in order to develop. Being able to just take all of that and make something using their artstyle that can be wildly unique to them, feels cheap because it takes away the autonomy of the artist. Being able to just take that skill and craft and use it to make something for way cheaper instead of commissioning the same idea to the actual artist, hurts their potential profits which is ultimately already a problem in the art world.

[@adrianmenzel1532]

So the core argument I can take from this statement is that the effort it took to make is part of the value of the art piece, right? I think that argument would also extend to digital art then: Back in ye olden days people had to get a canvas crafted from someone by hand, probably source and mix and hydrate their own pigment in a good ratio of pigment to oil, had to know which oil to use, had to source nice brushes (which you probably couldn't even get from an art supplies store during davincis times). The artisans that wove canvas by hand don't get payed by the machine that makes them now, even though they use the same weaving technique. The machine that makes the finger joints and assembles the frames doesn't pay any royalty to carpenters. Adobe sure doesn't pay any royalties to any paint company for using their colors. Adobe doesn't pay any royalties to brush patterns that have been "heavily inspired" by the way that a brush would put paint on the canvas. Is digital art somehow worse/has less value than a "proper" canvas painting with a handcrafted frame, diy-ed pigments and paint? I believe that an artstyle, a character and a fictive universe holds value on its own. But we as a society have decided to allow to share them without the artists consent. People can make fanart and commercialise it; people can imitate someones artstyle and profit from that work. So I think if those are ok then a robot imitating an artstyle or the concept of a pokemon should fall under the same jurisdiction.

[@izuminn3826]

@@adrianmenzel1532 Obviously, imitating art styles and inventions or innovations are taken to consideration when it comes to creating an art. However, you somehow missed the point here, many artists are against to this, not just because the “effort” and ”hard work” they gave away, but the amount of plagiarism is going on a strike. In art community, it's alright to recreate someone else work WITH consent of the og artist and a disclaimer. However, when it comes to AI, based on my understanding, they use and combine different works of random artists WITHOUT CONSENT, creating profit when they didn't made the art themselves, and ppl be claiming them, “Oh, I made this, take a look at this” when they eventually, didn't made the thing and just paid for a stolen piece. Honestly, it will not be bad if those apps hire their own artist and use what they make 😔

[@maevem316]

Honestly, not even just the undermining of the effort: fan art is not the same because it does not just take someone's art and 1 to 1 replicate it. Creativity is added. AI art can't do that, it works off of premade art/photos and premade art/photos only, it's just that the data set is so huge that what it generates manages to look different from those individual pieces

[@adrianmenzel1532]

@@izuminn3826 the way that AI generates the images is by just geneating what is basically random noise and then being graded on how closely this noise resembles the picture you wanted to get from that prompt. You do that x times and then take the best few and randomly change a few values in their "brain box" and test them again. The actual pictures in these databases never "touch" the model that you eventually use to do the txt to image or image to image work. So if you get some art out that looks like someones artstyle you have to know how to coerce the AI into doing so - just like you'd need to learn how to imitate someones artstyle with other means. It's actually not as simple as people make it out to be. If you don't train a new model on your own computer (which requires several 10s of thousands of dollars in gpus) and you use the stable diffusion checkpoint you can't just add "in the style of (random artist on twitter here)" to the prompt and make it look that way.

[@iiNaoki]

@@adrianmenzel1532 People have used prompts that included a specific artist's name, as well as created models for specific artists, in order to replicate the art of specific artists. Your argument is disingenuous on that part. There's also the fact that the models would not work without the stolen art of countless artists. Your explanation of how the image generation works does not excuse that. Also finding the keywords to get a certain artist's work replicated in an AI model is nowhere near the same as putting in the work to actually recreate it as an artist. I tell you that a someone who does work as an automation developer and a traditional and digital visual artist.

[@icecreamlid]

This AI Art is quite... interesting. Even my artist idol commissioned an ai artist. I lost hope.

[@adrianmenzel1532]

What is there to lose hope about? This just means that creative people can visualise their ideas waaaay faster now. You still need to have the idea in your head. You still need to fine-tune your prompt to get exactly what you invision. I'd say we'll have orders of magnitudes more creative and unique artpieces in the near future because people without the money to comission an artist or the time to learn how to draw can get their ideas out there now.

[@icecreamlid]

@@adrianmenzel1532 I meant by lost hope in my artist idol:") not everyone /every artist

[@kevinpillar6934]

@@adrianmenzel1532using ai doesn't give you an artist eye You're not learning anything. You're just consuming. AIs are only getting better and better. A lot of things are going to be homogenized the AI will be just good enough and everybody will use AI since it's so cheap.

[@wrenegade6283]

@@adrianmenzel1532 you put a few pictures together, some of them STOLEN btw, and let a small thieving app do all the hard work resulting only a soulless Frankenstein of an image. That's not visualizing anything. If these people really want to learn and fine-tune their skills, pick up a pencil and practice, it's not that difficult

[@alexsyoutube3119]

I’m in my third year of an art degree and for me the biggest concern is not so much if it’s theft (I personally don’t think it is) but how it will effect the industry. It’s already incredibly difficult to get art jobs anywhere, be it freelance or in a studio. Studios have long been known to cut corners in quality to save production cost, and I think many wouldn’t think twice about dumping their artists to use AI instead, when it gets to a similar ability (which is most likely will). And what I think we will end up with then, is thousand upon thousands of people without work and products which are less imaginative and lower quality. And I can’t see this stopping with art, most industries can have their workers replaced by AI and if the people at the top see that as the better option, we will all end up in a situation where nobody but the most wealthy have employment, just furthering the wealth gap. I’m honestly terrified for my future, that I will have spent years and years studying something I’m passionate about just to have a machine do it better, faster and cheaper, and I know I’m far from alone for this. I think these programs can provide a bit of easy fun and inspiration, but I feel very strongly that they will overall do more harm than good.

[@danny.golcman6846]

So what will you do then?

[@alexsyoutube3119]

@@danny.golcman6846 Keep hoping that the change over to AI is slow enough that I’m either dead or retired by the time it gets rid of most jobs 😅

[@danny.golcman6846]

@@alexsyoutube3119 lol ok best of luck.

[@thecreativeducky5781]

very coincidental

[@jawlinejawlinejawline]

​@@alexsyoutube3119 or just learn how to use AI as well, get on board, don't get left behind

[@Elfieee13]

My dad is an artist. he said the real reason why people are so upset about AI art is because most of the programs steal real peoples art. and chop it up into a “new” piece. when really it’s just a bunch of stolen pieces Frankensteind together. I’m not saying whether or not I agree that’s just what he said.

[@lostgarbage4055]

Obviously he doesn't understand what's he is talking about. AI is approximating. It take image of Noise (random pixels of different colours), and tries to change the pixels of this noise in a way it resembles the prompt. The end. Also Frankenstein was a doctor, not the monster.

[@lostgarbage4055]

@David Hetherman okay, boomer.

[@abigailthompson838]

@@lostgarbage4055 AI needs prompting though. You need to feed it human work (or at least, it was originally human). Also they never implied that Frankenstein was the monster.

[@lostgarbage4055]

@@abigailthompson838 you feed ai human work the same way you feed students human work.

[@abigailthompson838]

@@lostgarbage4055 it’s not the same as a reference. It’s pure amalgamation, no real human behind the mixing. It isn’t “inspired” by human work, it’s completely the work of someone else. Idc about ai art as a hobby but monetizing someone else’s work is not suddenly ethical once you’ve run it through a machine.

[@RuFaru]

The biggest issue is that in order to make good art a lot of AIs need the name of an existing actual artist in order to rip off their styles. If someone wants something in someone’s style they can commission them. There’s a difference between using something as a reference and recreating an individual’s work.

[@adrianmenzel1532]

But what if the original artist is unavaiable? What if I want some picture in the simpsons artstyle? I'd have to go to someone else to "rip off" that art style for me. So might as well get the robot to do it.

[@intothevoid1996]

@@adrianmenzel1532 youre not entitled to a commision in a specific artstyle. Not available? Too bad. The argument "I want it but cant get it so i will get it in a shady/exploitative way instead" makes no sense to me. Find something similar. Find someone who has a style that still appeals to you. Youre not owed anything.

[@Blockoumi]

@@intothevoid1996 what’s the difference if the person makes the art themselves instead of commissioning the person? In the case of AI they don’t steal the art, they just study it as an artist would study art and make a completely new piece. The only problem with it isn’t “stealing” art to study but instead just that it’s bad for business. It’s harder to make money when a person has an easier way to get their art

[@iiNaoki]

@@Blockoumi The difference between a person commissioning an artist and creating the image themselves, is that person actually puts in work to learn & hone the skills to make something they want to see themselves. That's a major difference cuz without those skills being developed over time, it wouldn't have been made at all. In the case of AI, it is stealing because, if it did not have the stolen works in its dataset, it would not be able to create what it does. It does not just study and use reference as a person would. It stores that work in its database and continually uses it while it generates images. There's been evidence that many AI models actually don't create brand new pieces and that generated images actually only look a bit different from source images. As an example, the "this person doesn't exist" AI generator was recently exposed for this.

[@intothevoid1996]

@@Blockoumi people have found almost exact comparisons to artwork that already exists. An AI cannot "take inspiration". It picks and chooses until it is told enough times that it did well. It copies and pastes artwork together, it doesnt create anything new or different, its just very proficient in cobbling pieces together. The difference is how a person implements, integrates and addapts inspiration to fit is where it is best. A person has a feeling for aesthetics, years of experience give them tools to work with colours, compositions etc. that the AI is now leeching off of to try and recreate said authenticity, which it doesn't have and will never have. Also, yeah, thats the exact point why its so bad? That people that would otherwise save up money for a commision don't even consider it anymore. Heck, a huge ballet company has already started making their posters in AI, thats one artist out of a job. Game programmers want to start using it for the concept stage of art, so that also puts a ton of concept artists out of work in the future, and that with industry jobs being more stable and safe compared to other possible job prospects for artists.

[@koryeasterday5164]

I’m a digital artist and have recently quit. People would never pay for my work before. But they’ll immediately pay a bot to create stuff similar to what I make. No reason for me to put the time in effort in that kind of work any more.

[@dodgeman777]

That's absolutely tragic

[@katiekatie4056]

Please don’t quit, even if you don’t profit off it or you don’t think you’re good enough there’s still value in creating.

[@colemacgrath2005]

Congrats, you’re smarter than most

[@colemacgrath2005]

@@katiekatie4056 you can say that shit all you want but at the end of the day you’re not the one who’s gonna put food on OP’s table, are you?

[@katiekatie4056]

@@colemacgrath2005 what point are you even trying to make? Not everything you do has to be for survival

[@jkem2731]

I agree Ai art can never beat human art because ai art lacks soul and whatnot, but its not like general public and companies care about that. Most of them just want quick and free things, what is art matter very little to them. ):

[@SilvrRazorFeather]

As a self taught traditional artist, I have a few thoughts. I don't make a lot of money from my art, and the money I do make is almost exclusively pet portraits. My clients generally just want me to copy a picture, or use a handful of pictures to put their pet in an aesthetic pose, so practically speaking they could get the same flavor of result by running the photo through a watercolor filter. But they choose to pay money for the time, labor and skill it takes for a human to paint their pet. So my rational brain tells me AI isn't a threat to commission artists to the extent that some are saying (although many artists do bring home food with money made off smaller assignments like flyers or album art, so it still is displacing their income). That being said, my emotional brain hates AI art. It hates it because of how streamlined and heartless the end product is. Art, music, writing, theater, any creative outlet, is so intrinsicly human. People have always created, since we lived in caves and etched mammoths and deer on the rock. It's so important for humans to make art, and I don't want it to be taken from us by machines we built. It just feels traitorous.

[@InsaniquarianDeluxe]

I think that the valid use of AI images is quick fun. You want to see something on a whim so you type in a prompt and get a silly image. Its use as a 0 effort, 0 cost tool makes it a novelty that you can't/shouldn't really get mad at. It fills a different niche compared to commissioned art which you'd usually do with reason, expecting a high quality result that you wouldn't with AI.

[@torbjornkallstrom2316]

Yeah the best use of ai art is for memes in my opinion. For genuine artwork I'd much rather see something made by an actual human

[@elixir478]

exactly. and it's also nice for people who can't draw but have a creative brain who can on a whim think of an image and get it back

[@Latte-at-night]

it's not 0 cost they're charging to 8usd and so there's a man profiting from millions of artist's unpaid work.

[@nocause5395]

Sure, it's not like artist need money and to be paid.

[@N04hrk]

i agree, if you want a cheap easy frozen pizza you go to the store and buy it cheap but if you want a professional gastronomical pizza you go to a nice restaurant, i understand that artist are not gonna get payed but now in this time of Tech and Internet the art industry is going to fade away.

[@torbjornkallstrom2316]

Regarding the "not real art" discussion it's not really a problem of tools getting more advanced or the creation process getting easier and more accessible. That has been happening for centuries and it only enhances peoples ability to be creative. The problem is that at the end of the day there isn't a human author behind the work. I think it's quite easy to imagine a dystopic future where an algorithm just takes your personal information and tailor makes all media for you using ai. There will be no artists or content creators, only the content that the ai decides you want to see. I'm all for automation of menial human tasks that only make our lives worse for having to do them. But when we start automating away the things that we use to communicate between one another and that actually make our lives as humans more fun and interesting then I start worrying about where we're headed

[@Eibarwoman]

It makes me wonder if the Amish were right about technology being bad for humanity as a whole. As in eventually the capitalist class would just automate all the fun and interesting things out of humanity.

[@boredfangerrude]

Human authorship isn't the end all be all of art. What if an AI generates art on your behalf using every drawing and painting you have ever made? Is it still not you and yours? Does that not have validity to it?

[@Socioromanticism]

I think some a-hole takes are: 1. "Why would someone pay an artist more for rapidly developing AI that can make something approximately similar?" Well, unless the customer wanted something specifically human-made...they absolutely wouldn't. The rhetorical question asked to make a point is not being asked rhetorically by consumers: fields that can be automated with less effort, time, resources, sick leave, human messiness, etc. for profit absolutely will be. It's imminent. 2. Just because you love to create art doesn't mean you have to make a living out of it (although to make the art you want, it may take more time than you can spend as a hobby when you have a life and a job to make a living). I don't think the problem is with AI. I don't think it should be restricted in any formal way. I think the issue is with: A) Understanding our respective business models (as artsy-fartsy _Creatives™)._ If we're running businesses, then let's operate like we're running actual businesses. We should operate knowing our markets can and will change. We need to meet the needs of shifting markets. Our market to make a living may only be those who really want authentic, non-AI art and those who can afford our rates. And then we have to get into new market positions to sell our respective art. Or like other business fields, we may decide that we just can't turn a living and have to find new jobs. B) Consumers needing to become more knowledgeable about what they consume and valuing art made by humans more than algorithm-approximated creations. In terms of plagiarism, AI-generated art should give credit and be held accountable. Voice acting is also running into this issue, where VO like myself have to decide to find ways to market to those wanting authentic voices and/or those who can afford our human rates. Or we give permission to use our performances to AI voice technology...for massive rates and royalties. And bigger voices can and do sue for recreating a likeness that is too much like a performer with a distinctive voice like Samuel L. Jackson or Morgan Freeman. I think artists have to get business-like and legal to not only protect themselves but to also net income from AI (and suing for using your art without permission, credit, and agreed upon compensation.) The future may be that artists don't make as much art, because it's not in as high demand. But artists may still make their living on AI royalties. And you may still get to have a life that lets you take ample time to make your own art without the pressure of having to art for a living.

[@psalmsworld7050]

It’s like non-artists just don’t get it.

[@zyerkos]

im not too far into the video yet, but i just want to bring up that clip studio paint (one of the biggest and most popular art programs) was very close to creating their own image generating ai. it was going to be trained on the millions of artworks uploaded to their cloud servers.

[@24shineon]

Did they walk back this decision completely?

[@zyerkos]

@@24shineon thankfully yes, after massive backlash from its user base. if theyd gone through with it i wouldve purged my csp cloud and go back to whatever art program doesnt do that lol

[@24shineon]

@@zyerkos thank goodness

[@24shineon]

@@zyerkos do you have a twitter or anything where you show your art? I’d love to support you!

[@zyerkos]

@@24shineon thats sweet of you! but id rather not connect my youtube to my art account(s). i really appreciate it though :)

[@avagilll7639]

AI makes me feel so unbelievably hopless

[@myactualnameis9996]

It affected me and my career choices so much... I know whats coming and its really dragging me down :(

[@nostalgiagatuna]

Same... Sent me straight into a new depressive episode

[@JesseFicarra]

@@myactualnameis9996 Talented artists will be far better than AI for a good few years to come, especially those who learn to adapt to and evolve with the tech. All of the best AI art you've ever seen has been heavily edited and processed by a human for ideal results. AI is much more stronger as a tool in an artists arsenal than as a standalone creator.

[@shmirko1665]

With sampling music, the owner of the song that gets sampled needs to approve and get paid by the artist sampling them. That's not the case with Lensa which 'samples' art without paying the artist. Not saying that Lensa should do that, but that comparison doesn't hold up when you look at whether or not there is compensation for the original artist or not

[@lostgarbage4055]

About Lensa i'm not sure - but all the diffusion models are literally built on denoisers. It tries to clear up the noise while biased as to what is hidden behind it. That's why denoisers and upscalers appeared first. That's why Image2Image has a special slider for image weight.

[@cerys113]

yeah oh my god. also its not taking attention from the original artists.

[@petalchild]

The point of the comparison was that Lensa does not straight up sample existing art work.

[@laurencamila9024]

"AI art is bad because it creates insercurities about what you actually look like" says while using insta filters. Like AI art is bad but that's not why ._.

[@aldene.9413]

It’s interesting to look at the history with AI translators and compare it to AI art. AI translators changed the translator industry. Started mostly hiring and paying for “edits” rather than full translations, other times eliminating the job altogether.

[@iwantmyprivacy2217]

ML/what AI translators and AI "art" (barf) use for the base of their thinking are also ecocidal levels of energy misuse, in a time where it's a literal crysis for people who actually NEED it globally.

[@sherbertshortkake6649]

Similar things have already started to impact the story-writing industry and will start happening with the music industry soon.

[@vanillainfusion]

I used to work at a LSP and this is mind boggling. Most AI translation ‘edits’ are so bad that the translator has to redo it anyway, for pennies compared to their actual rate for fresh translation. I’m a transcriptionist and it’s starting to happen here too. AI transcription is godawful (just try using youtube with any autogenerated captions and you’ll see) yet I have companies trying to get my work for super cheap because they already ran the audio through a crappy AI transcriber and I’m just ‘editing’ it. Girl, I’m having to do it from scratch!

[@sherbertshortkake6649]

@@vanillainfusion Gosh that sounds awful. We really need to do something about these AI revolutions...

[@CrumbisBumbis]

I think there's a big difference between something like mixing artifical sounds to make music and an AI generating an entire painting, the first still requires human intent informed by human experiences in every decision, which who knows if AI will ever be able to have. I'm more concerned with AI art when people have it generating work in styles that have recognizable artists attached(which might also be what's giving the impression that it's just mashing images together and not something that actually "learns")and profiting under the guise that it's more "accessible" which I have unfortunately seen happen already.. The biggest difference to me is there's a reason an artist does what they do, the way they do it. With fan art for instance, artists draw someone else's characters because of a human connection to them informed by their experiences, in a style informed by their experiences. I don't think AI could "replace" artists altogether, but I think it's just disheartening to already be struggling as an artists and to now feel a sense of competition with a literal robot.

[@thecreativeducky5781]

all art ever needed was a pen and paper, yet it's not "accessible" enough

[@apperusenpai]

I think the biggest issue with AI "art" is that so many of these databases (especially Stable Diffusion!!) were trained with a lot of... questionable material, including things as sensitive as real people's medical records. Early databases were also absolutely piecemealing images together and spat our things that still had watermarks all over them (though that doesn't seem to be as much of an issue anymore, it's still something that raised many red flags for artists). Not only that, but we're already seeing large corporations reaching for AI instead of hiring human artists to make graphics for things like articles because it's cheaper and faster. I think AI images are a useful tool for creatives to use as inspiration, but it's totally spiraling out of control and affecting too many people's livelihoods now.

[@KayBbyXOXOXO]

The issue is that they’ll ask artists or estates to use their art to train the AI, the artists will say no, and then they do it anyways. There have been several cases of this with major professional artists

[@aurora2670]

The thing that really swayed me against it was when peoples personal watermarks were seen messed up on these images.

[@abbyz13]

The only way it goes too far is the fact you can see the original artist’s spliced signatures and logos on the AI generated pieces…because it’s just art from real artists, cut together and regurgitated. It’s so sad. It’s like people are prioritizing consumption over quality in every way

[@windle_withbees7024]

Idk we can argue about ethics and what real art is all day, but in the end there are people out there who's whole careers are exclusively commissions like profile pictures. They can and should be upset that they might not be able to make a living off their passion anymore, and I think that's what we should be focusing on.

[@colemacgrath2005]

So we should stop technological progress because of that? Lol let them be upset

[@cosmiccutie6687]

No entity is owed a market for its services. Supply and demand

[@Abbstra]

I’m a college art student (at an art-specific school) studying to be in the character design industry for video-games. I was discussing this exact topic with one of my traditional media professors today, among some classmates, so allow me to share a college-art students’ perspective. Seeing AI’s power is scary. My professor shared my worry in discussing my career path- but not at all in a discouraging way, more of a, “make sure you stand out in your field, work to be very unique” sort of way. When discussing it with my peers earlier this morning, we agreed that it can be a very helpful tool, but more often it’s upsetting. Hearing that Kim Jung Gi’s art, (an extremely respected illustrator among creatives, and for good reason) was stolen and uploaded to these databases without his family’s consent a while ago infuriated me to my very core. It’s horrible. This happened the day directly after he passed. If there were regulations, and artists were fairly compensated for their work being used, I think more creatives would be okay with the programs, but at the moment, it’s more than a slight cause of anxiety. On tiktok, I see younger artists feeding their work into the programs, and being amazed at the results. I find that this is very harmful- most often, the AI completely changes the work- and while it may be cool to see, often using the programs removes a lot of emotion out of pieces. If there’s any advice I have for younger artists, it’s that- while it’s fun to mess around with AI (it can be a helpful tool! It’s not taboo) please don’t lean on it. The best way to improve is practice, studies, and more specifically studying your favorite artists’ techniques. I didn’t mean for this to be rant-like at all, just thought it was a coincidence to see a video on the topic after I’ve had some bigger discussions about it today. Stay safe out there! : )

[@diibadaa]

AI needs to be fed with billions of hard working artists work. Yes, artists get inspired by each other but copying or tracing is being frowned upon. People have to use their own imagination. When artists art get stolen to be tested part of an AI, they get rightfully mad because they never gave an actual permission. Some examples of artists who got their art stolen for AI are Sam Yang (Sam does art), Greg Rutkowski, Karla Ortiz and a deceased artist, Kim Jung Gi. So you could technically get AI do work for you in their art style without paying them. Lensa uses a photo bank of 5.8 billion photos. These people never actually gave a permission to use their work but it's there. If you do your research the Lensa app is based on Laion-5B data which is not really specified where the data is from (this is based on what they share on their website). So technically a huge part of the photos could be stolen and Lensa gets ALL THE PROFIT. It's true you shouldn't be mad at individuals for not knowing better and for using the app however when you learn that it steals from artists do you still want to use it? If people want to replace artists with an AI we're getting there. Artists already are not respected enough. You got to notice why that is problematic. When you talk about bad arguments of artists I don't really get it because you have no examples of these arguments. And I think talking about another issue like fanart is kinda derailing the original topic. I'm sorry I usually like your arguments but this one isn't my cup of tea. I do art, illustrations and graphics myself and I really hope I wont be replaced with an AI. If I spread any false information, please correct me.

[@24shineon]

Thank you, I really love the artists in the comments who are able to better articulate all of these points than I am

[@myactualnameis9996]

The Money wont go to the programmers but just more rich people leading ai art monopolies... Im willing to bet lol. Also LAION 5B database is full of private documents and images from people, medical documents have been found on that database. Its not just artists work that is being stolen its everyone. Also its crazy how little respect artists get, and are now not taken seriously while AI is on a failsafe way to replacing them :( . Its honestly tragic, thank you for this comment tho! I agree

[@diibadaa]

@@24shineon I hope my comment helps anyone really or we get a good conversation at least. I'm not a professional on this topic however I think I've seen enough to know where I stand on the topic. And I am not completely anti-AI-art but the Lensa app is probably profiting off of others work so yeah I don't know seems kinda sus to me.

[@24shineon]

@@diibadaa I’m not really against ai art either, it can be a great tool, but I agree the way it’s created and implemented now is unethical, I think your argument is very informative and clear and it’s very much appreciated that you took the time to explain so clearly

[@nuvemboreal]

I believe the bad arguments she was referring to was the ethnic bias and legal technicalities of the concept of theft, as well as those AI misinformations she mentioned, like the concept of AI = fancy Photoshop. but FROM WHAT I COULD TELL, she seemed to mean it in more of a "get your facts straight" kinda way, instead of "you're wrong about this". I do agree it sounds like a bit of a rushed video, but I can appreciate she is pushing the conversation forward. and who knows? maybe we'll get a follow up in the future too.

[@sunbunnow]

Good point, why is AI always women?? That’s crazy…never thought of that.

[@NeonNijahn]

In the case of Cortana, it makes total sense for the halo story because master chief has a weird oedipus complex due to his proxy "mother" being a cold, calculated, morally corrupt scientist.

[@supernova_29]

No such thing as an AI artist

[@dodgeman777]

I'm with the artists on this one, I've already seen it happen. I'm a live sound engineer and artists sometimes come through with video backdrops projected behind them, some guy was literally saying to me the other day "Oh yeah I just generated this with an AI because then I don't have to pay someone to make it for me". And it looked shit, no surprise. This wasn't a poor struggling musician either, people are just going to cynically discard the value of human expression through art and media to save a few bucks any day of the week and I think in a few generations the idea of putting pencil to paper in order to create something from nothing using only the electrified meat jelly in your skull and millions of years of evolution may effectively just die out, all in the same of cheapness and laziness. The worst is when musicians do it for their AV or album art because they themselves know the struggle of being validated for your art but choose the cheap, lazy and mediocre option anyway.

[@apollosartz4487]

Theres so many people complaining about commissions being too expensive, im just scared that non artists will stop commissioning real living breathing people to save some money

[@sockcosmos9793]

i agree, and the thing is commissions tend to be UNDER priced. if an artist lives off of commissions and sells something they worked 6 hours on for $100, for example, they're not making minimum wage. even if they're just trying to make extra money and doing commissions on the side, there isn't always compensation for the hard work that goes into creating art because if they price things too high no one will buy from them. artists tend to be undervalued in my opinion, and that's part of what makes AI so scary.

[@KissesLoveKawaii]

i already do. not playing 200$ for a realistic art of darth rey, i can make my own now. 200$ for A PICTURE, nope.

[@brewski118sempire]

I am not an artist but every artist I know has an issue with this trend, so I'm sticking with the artist.

[@KissesLoveKawaii]

I am not an artist but every artist I know has an issue with this trend, so I'm sticking with the AI.

[@technus147]

most artists dont understand how the technology works so why should their opinion be more valuable

[@BeautySnake]

I'm sure its been brought up before but it's important to remember these AIs can't "think" and cant be inspired by something like a person can be. From what I've seen of it, AI art is closer to photobashing only it uses other artists work instead of copyright free assets and photos. If an artist were to do the same it would still be considered theft

[@anon3263]

As an artist, we already have a very difficult time making art our career, so AI affects our livelihoods. AI art will become available on a commercial level which will result in loss of income because it's cheaper than hiring an artist.

[@KissesLoveKawaii]

and? People get replaced with technology all the time. You are not special. Adapt, or there is no future.

[@anon3263]

@@KissesLoveKawaii because we live in a capitalist system where we sell our labour to make money, and in this system the ultra wealthy under pay us. So until our government implements a welfare system like UBI, yes I am fucking concerned. You should be too. There's gonna be a lot of fucking homeless people because of automation unless something is done about it.

[@KissesLoveKawaii]

@@anon3263 people lives are cheap and there are too many of them. Welcome to the real world. Art is luxury and when it gets dirt cheap alternative people will choose that. You don't get to choose if your profession get automated. Adapt, start using ai yourself and photoshopping it to make it perfect, well untill ai evolves to make perfect hands and details.

[@anon3263]

@@KissesLoveKawaii it's really sad that you think people's lives are cheap. Maybe you need to look inward. That's a real depressing statement to make about others.

[@KissesLoveKawaii]

@@anon3263 nope it's the truth of the world. People living in first world countries have absolutely no idea just how cheap life is. That's why all of your electronics are made in China and that factories has anti suicide nets installed.

[@rolloutthebarrel]

Hey, I’m just wondering how everybody feels about automation occurring when it copies things that people do like mechanical things such as putting cars together or assembly line work that people used to do but now we’re done entirely by machines. Just because creative arts weren’t affected by automation yet didn’t mean they were safe from it, why was it OK for it to happen to other industries but not the creative industry?

[@ultimamage3]

"Professional artists" were glad automation was happening to other industries and depriving people without means of their only source of income.

[@444.TheStar]

Who said it was okay ?

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

The thing that scares me in the near term about the new AI tools is that cheating for high school students will become trivially easy on essays. My kids will be in high school soon and the tools to cheat are now pretty easily accessible and pretty effective. They need to learn to write well themselves. I'm worried both about them cheating and also the kids they compete against for grades cheating.

[@pewnit]

I think the artist's problem that I agree with is the fact that their images are used for a commercial purpose. That's the issue I'd have if I was an artist.

[@ZheffDaniel]

Btw u should include actual digital illustrators/artists opinions in the video, a lot of them are on youtube too like samdoesart for example

[@tuckerroyal7656]

I doesn't matter if a human can do it better, an AI will do it cheaper. Think about google translate, even if the result is notoriously bad, it's still way cheaper than hiring an actual translator to do the same thing. The artists that are being commissioned to produce art will have a way harder time supporting themselves if people can just use an AI to produce a cheaper, lower quality product. I'm sure a good amount of people will still pay for a real artist, but chances are we'll just end up with a handful of celebrity artists with enough clout to make a name for themselves, while the average commissioned artist will get pushed out of the market.

[@Kanoog]

About 1% of the human population can even make art as detailed as AI art.....AI art can make it about... idk 1000 times faster compared to a professional artist at the same quality. That's obviously a guess but it's stupid fast compared to a human.

[@michaelfrancis1166]

You do have to get samples cleared by the original owner if you want to sell new music containing their work. That’s similar to where the issue is with AI for artists right now, there are people who are profiting off these models that use data originally meant for research purposes only and gathered by scraping the internet without anyone’s consent. Some of these AI generators have generated images with artist signatures visible. AI models currently aren’t able to generate a style if it isn’t fed that style. A human could potentially come up with a similar style to another artist having never seen their work. That misuse of data could set a bad precedent on what other companies can do with any data. (Which we already know won’t be good) This could overflow into more than just generating profile pictures, which is where AI is *currently*. AI is getting smarter and will be able to do more. It’s important we make the rules clear now so more people aren’t screwed over in the future.

[@wiiink]

as an art major the main issue I have with AI generated art is that it has the potential to make concept artists obsolete

[@SaintShion]

Some AI will actual scan 1 v 1 backgrounds and styles. It's not just compiling than making a new background from scratch. *Some AI programs are taking bits and pieces from other artist work and put the together like a puzzle to make a coherent photo some including the artist signatures* in some! Phillip DeFranco* did an episode on it. As an artist we don't copy 1 v 1 a style (Not counting style challenges or theft).We ingest inspiration and work it over and over for months till it represents our style that includes maybe small pieces from other artist we like. Like "Oh I like the way they do eyelashes" let me practice for months to incorporate a VERSION of it into my style. Not copy pasta boom heres your art. Honing the craft is hard when ppl are about instant gratification.

[@maxxhibbsmusic8606]

it really makes me sad that the general public is so excited about art when it's immediately accessible and computer-generated. If I were to define the opposite of art it would be "immediately accessible and computer generated"

[@adrianmenzel1532]

Is that really a good part of the experience though? Does the fact that a human sit in his office for 30 hours to constantly draw - ctrl-z - draw 5-20 times over to get the calf on the leg right really improve the experience with the finished image? A few decades ago using computers itself was orders of magnitues harder as well. Is a spreadsheet that you filled out manually in some way better than the one someone generated in microsoft excel by filling in the top row and then dragging down to auto-generate the rest?

[@adu_adure1266]

@@adrianmenzel1532 for someone like me it is. Art is exhausting but I have the joy of learning and putting something together knowing I did that. Ai art has merit. I use it for ideas for concept art, but what's happening with artist is terrible and we have reason to worry that it will devalue art more.

[@Mirai_the_weeb]

As an artist it pisses me off. Because this is gonna limit the amount of jobs artists can have because businesses will choose it over people so they don't have to pay a person

[@BitchChill]

Oh well. Reality isn't fair

[@TOnySchAnneL9000]

@@BitchChill Then lets make it fair. Most of the reality we deal with on a daily basis is an abstraction created for the purposes of a functioning society. Abstractions can be changed and controlled.

[@BitchChill]

@@TOnySchAnneL9000 That's never happening no matter how hard you try

[@TOnySchAnneL9000]

@@BitchChill Have some self-esteem bro. People have revolutions and change society all the time. History is always happening, but it never happens to dweebs who don't believe they can affect change.

[@BitchChill]

@@TOnySchAnneL9000 Okay so? After all of those changes, life still isn't fair

[@canislunaticus]

5:47 I want to correct this and say that no it's not only used for that, people are already using AI to sell "art", pose as artists or enter competition that are meant to be ARTIST spaces, not AI prompters. It is already a corporation hell, it is stealing art from us and selling the means to make poor copies with AI to it's users and then in return the users can do whatever the hell they want with it. Also we as the artists are never even given credit for our art being sampled and clearly used to generate these horrid images.

[@gaymushroom6426]

As an aspiring concept artist, I am just scared AI will be an excuse for companies to not pay artists and just write some props, it is cheaper for sure. I want to have a job. I mean, Dolly 2 is literally doing commissions (not good quality ones, but could be). Technology goes quick, but art improvement doesn't (always). Maybe when I am finally job-ready I don't have one because of AI. I don't know, we will see :D (also, I'm Spanish, sorry for my grammar or sm)

[@Kanoog]

It was already hard being a Artist hints Starving Artist and now AI is here to make it even harder..... What I hate is that if you spent days on a digital painting and post it, people are so burned out on AI art they might not even care about the drawing. Having so much Digital Art out there now is like all the Marvel Movies, people are just burned out making it less impressive.

[@vieavona318]

I hate how many lives are being worsened by technology that would be a net positive in a world without this competition of workers vs. more (technically) efficient ways to do something (in the eyes of how much money you need to pay). Ultimately, I am concerned with how AI will affect artists, because I really like art, the human emotions behind it and that some artists can live a happier life with creating art, while also not disliking AI art in general, because all the arguments that I have heard wouldn't matter in a healthy world where people don't need to fear losing their income because some programmer created some program that now takes over a task that they did manually before. (And I also think that it is funny how there are regular discussions in programming circles on how programs created by programmers will make the same programmers obsolete. It's obviously not going to happen in the coming years, but it's interesting to see how progress in technology will apparently be created regardless of the possible consequences for the creator (in this society, at least))

[@Greygas2800]

I’ve seen a lot of people say the “it can’t replace real artists” just because a lot of us appreciate the art of real people doesn’t mean that’s how corporations and people with the money to commission artist feel that way. Why would a company pay an artist for a piece that’ll take time when they could get a bunch of options generated. And ai “art” is at early stages I don’t see how more people don’t understand how this will continue and affect artists income. There are lots of fields I can understand people saying no one wants to do that job anyways, but art isn’t one of them. It’s people’s passion and millions of people want to be able to make money from their art. Being an artist is already a financial struggle for most people this will just limit jobs more

[@barzguitarz1039]

Would love to see a follow up where you interview people that do art on commission. Most people I know that do art for a source of income hate this especially if they are tying to live off their art, but it would be cool to see an artist with a diff opinion.

[@Sunshineattacks3]

Can you imagine paying for your our education and the stuff comes out?! I would feel pretty dejected as well. I can’t blame them.

[@PeacefulAutistic]

7:20 My main issue with this is that deviantArt has an opt out feature but they have still used the art anyways. It’s more as if they were saying: Opt out but really it’s just to lure you into a false sense of “this isn’t going to be used because they gave me their word” but really we did it anyways because haha this is our platform your art belongs to us since we have banner ads running alongside the art.

[@krust9976]

My biggest issue with AI art kind of piggy backs off the “nonconsenting artists” argument. What happens to the art of artists that passed on? The sibling of a deceased artist I follow has been actively trying to opt out of including their art in any AI databases. However, not everyone has someone to protect their art this way. Some sites make it so that all the art in their databases can be used for AI art (I’m mainly thinking of DeviantArt before they changed it up thank goodness). Edit: I don’t want to pretend I fully understand where and how they develop their databases. However, it doesn’t help that art is often reshared and reposted non-consensually. It’s entirely possible that these reshared images are being used in their databases. Until there’s more transparency, I will consider AI art as theft.

[@boredfangerrude]

They are dead, their work should be in the public domain.

[@dogwoodleaf]

One of the huge problems with AI art is the intentional use of it to replace specific artists. Programs have been made to recreate specific artists’ work through taking all of an artist’s existing pieces and training the machine on it. Then they try to sell the resulting images for profit. A huge artist in the field recently died, and some guy immediately took all of his work and made an AI art program with it. Then that guy asked people who prompted images using this database to credit *him*, the guy who took all of this art and made a program with it. Not to credit the recently deceased artist.

[@moony6692]

The issue is that AI doesn't merely reference an art piece or artists work. You can see remnants of some artists work in related AI art, including their signatures. It's literally ripping off the original artwork. Breaking it into bits and mashing it into new art with related prompt images. Referencing is ok, tracing/stealing pieces is not.

[@babyvia6712]

But that’s….not how AI does what it does. It’s more like Frankensteining memories and less like tracing or mashing. AI can ONLY reference work. That’s what “Machine Learning” is. What you’re describing is some sort of automatized collage maker. AI looks at a data set, studies it, and creates something new out of that data. You can see “remnants” in the same way you can see “remnants” from one work in another work by the same artist. It just memorizes it and then uses it’s memory to do something similar. It considers the signatures to be a part of the work itself, and probably prioritizes it because of how often it reappears. Referencing is all it does. However, the most unethical part of it, is that some people didn’t consent to being used as a reference.

[@moony6692]

@@babyvia6712 ok, but this "art" is still being sold as commissions or through lensa right? Ones with signatures?

[@babyvia6712]

@@moony6692 yeah but that’s not my point. Selling an exact copy of someone else’s art is bad, but the way you’re describing how it happens is wrong

[@kaylee5869]

I really like gabi but I feel like she missed a lot of points from human’s perspective and this wasn’t as fully researched as far as copyright laws and art inspiration as it should have been

[@araco491]

i really haven't seen any argument that "its not real art" bc artists understand better than anyone that art is subjective, I've only seen ppls concerns for capitalist exploitation of creators

[@millienexu5684]

WOW I’m really impressed by all of your points, I’ve seen a lot of content defending artists and denouncing AI art and while I don’t mean to put artists down sometimes the arguments I hear really confuses me. 1. ML model training: not even listening to a song as you create, it’s more like an artist copying a piece of artwork by another artist in the process of learning - means almost nothing on an individual work basis, but taught something infinitely intangible to shape their future style and creation process. It’s THAT far detached from the artists’ individual piece, particularly at the scale they reference, so this argument really doesn’t make sense to me. Artists can be uncomfortable having their work referenced but in an app like this it’s never pinpointed to an individual; plus that’s also how they learned and how the industry works? Art doesn’t just appear out of thin air. All that being said, when a data set is targeted to a specific artist then that’s a problem, but also what’s the difference between AI doing that and a human trying to imitate the style in new pictures? Unless you say the human is just as incorrect, in which case I would generally disagree but that’s a different topic. And as an important aside I specifically reference large-scale training models, because I’m quite conflicted about other situations. I also only talk about these situations where you may upload your own photo or some other material owned by you, rather than pure “randomized” compilation by an artist because that’s an entirely different problem for reasons mentioned like it can’t extract from out of database. 2. “Not real art” - how do you even define art? Another argument I hear a lot is “support an actual human” which is definitely great for those that choose to do so but at the same time no one owes anyone else anything. This argument is often commonly used for “supporting small business” but at the end of the day the consumer is looking for a product and they are not responsible to support anyone else. While I do personally enjoy small businesses, it’s not because I feel “like I should”, and likewise I don’t think that’s a relevant argument for art. 3. I don’t believe that something taking more effort necessarily increases that item’s value (which is different from that item’s value to a person, and in both cases value specifically refers to “the item itself”). Eg someone types a paragraph and someone else types that exact same paragraph but it takes them more time and effort for whatever reason, doesn’t mean that second paragraph is inherently valued more (it could be worth more, but I’m hitting the limitations of the English language differentiating between the two, hopefully you get what I mean). That said, theSpeechProf on KZbin said something pretty important. I could get an AI piece I spent $2 on or a handcrafted piece, whether significantly more expensive or free as a gift; one I could toss away without caring, the other I’m absolutely treasuring. Anyway, probably gonna get a lot of hate if anyone reads, but as someone in a middle ground (I create art for gifts but don’t rely on it for finances) which should be relatively unbiased, here’s some scattered thoughts too late into the morning. And open to change with new ideas too. HUGE SIDENOTE: I don’t mean these arguments to undervalue the price of an artist’s work. Since the dawn of time that’s something I know artists have been struggling with and it’s ridiculous; AI art may be pennies whereas similar handmade is hundreds, but that’s because a human being spent hours plus years of education and practice to do what they do. AI can get close, but likely can’t offer that full extent of customization. I think people can make their own decisions of which they would prefer, but they have no right to judge the value of an artist’s work, time, or effort just because AI can do it cheaper. Edit: also want to clarify that I’ve never used this app and tbh the extent of my knowledge about it is seeing a few ai portrait pics floating around + the workings explained in this video + limited background understanding of ML models. It could be these apps are totally different than how I picture in which case my opinions here are less valid

[@LEEHAMLOL]

This is the first small step for AI taking over the world, calling it now

[@ginbug7061]

By far the biggest problem I have seen is that these AI programs do- in many cases- copy and paste pieces from other artists works. The way to make an A.I. program that would NOT copy and paste is to teach that program how to paint, draw, sketch, etc. The primitive AARON program was a great example of this, it didn't use a data base of existing art and try to replicate that, it simply analyzed the techniques of how to create art and implements those techniques to create. By using a database of existing art, your A.I. is not learning how to create, rather, it is learning how to replicate. These programs analyze lines, styles, patterns and then mashes them up into these "original" images. Some artists have already begun doing side by sides, pointing out where their original designs are replicated in the AI designs with little (or in some cases no) change. THAT and that alone is why I do believe this is theft.

[@Yuinemon]

Everyone commenting Stop villainising fanart! Fanart is not stealing, you are literally drawing something you love in your style, fandom would not exist without fanart , there's a reason why companies will hold fanart contests , because its fun Please stop acting like fanart is a bad thing its not I'm a fanartist Fanart is normal

[@Tri1122]

When I went to art school we were taught to draw from life. If I need a pose I can look at myself in the mirror. It's only when we understand the basics when a style starts to come about. The fact is really simple. If there was no art posted on the internet. You wouldn't have your "blue cat in the style of Van Gogh." While I can pull inspiration from around me.

[@Tri1122]

@@OpenWorldGames_On-Telegrxm. only an idiot would fall for scam like this.

[@feshgogulululu]

If we’re gonna allow ai to replace human visual artists we might as well do that with every sort of media creation 🤨

[@dodgeman777]

I think the bell will toll for other forms of media too at some point, and all the creatives who never bothered to defend traditional artists and illustrators will suddenly have the rug pulled from under them

[@biakeller]

Soon youtubers will be gone!😅

[@EverydayLegend]

@10:26 - the issue comes in where an artist creating fan art of an established character is using the skills they’ve spent their lifetime - which is a finite and nonrenewable resource - honing and improving to the point where they can take a commission from someone else to create something that’s been requested of them. An AI that’s been fed other people’s artwork only knows how to take pieces of said preexisting artwork and directly copy it in ways that mesh well with other pieces of art it’s been fed. There is no element of separation, no need for a human to take something as inspiration and develop something that’s been fed through their personal artistic slant. The AI’s process is, quite literally, mechanically reproductive in nature, and isn’t being filtered through an individual artist’s imagination or produced through the experiences they’ve gained and skills they’ve strengthened through the investment of time, a resource they will never, ever get back. If you can pay some techbro conglomerate to use their AI to produce something, you can pay an artist.

[@madelinemarlett4956]

So I think there at some gray areas of AI Art but there are also some really innovative ways artist are embracing AI within, their workflows. For instance is an artist who paints alot of abstract psychedelic nature paintings, and then uses AI to apply this to photos they have taken. Definitely has potential to help creative people make even more creative art.

[@WhoMikeJones21]

The fact that Lensa will often try to "sign" artwork was the death nail. There are some of my friends' pictures where you can practically read the signature of the artist that it was pulling from in the pics.

[@buklau6509]

this is so misunderstood. Its not an actual signature. Show me 1 example of an actual signature. Its just a generic signature the AI creates, because it has learned that "oil paintings have a signature on the bottom right corner", for instance. So when you prompt "an oil painting of a tree, by picasso", it will likely have a signature. Its NOT a screenshot of picassos signature or anything like that. I dont know why this isnt more known

[@WhoMikeJones21]

I know it's not an actual signature. I'm saying the AI in learning all these photos also "learns" the signature of the artist they're learning from. The AI will attempt to draw a signature often in style with the artists.

[@buklau6509]

@@WhoMikeJones21 Still, it is not a real signature from any real artist. The same cannot be said about the "getty" watermarks

[@Amanda-fh5mp]

@@buklau6509 The issue is the reason it can make an image that looks as nice as it does is because it ripped off a bunch of art that had signatures on it, while the original artists have no say or credit in the process.

[@buklau6509]

@@Amanda-fh5mp Yes i understand this. Im on a huge dilema because i've been working on a shortfilm created with AI and manual animation hibrid, and now im faced with all this uprising against ai art. But i do understand that it is problematic, they did everything in the benefit of the AI without thinking about the creative humans that made the art in the first place. It's like tech-liberalism, no rules

[@ZealTroublemaker]

Artist here: I have put nearly 2 decades into honing my skills. I do not want an AI to use my 18yrs of experience to make high quality art in 2 minutes. I worked my ass off, I have spent money, time, sweat, and tears learning to do what I do. Artists don’t get to make money if AI can use what we’ve already done to make it quicker and cheaper.

[@lostgarbage4055]

Factory workers said the same thing, and then robot hands, 3d printers and automated workshops came. Web designers said the same and then WIX came. Taxi drivers said the same, and then ai-cars came. Programmers said the same, and then visual studio started writing literally every piece of code for them based off of classes name. Why should you be treated different? You didn't defend them.