NO, AI Does NOT Democratize Art (And That's a Dumb Defense) || SPEEDPAINT + COMMENTARY

[@JakeTheJay]

"Now everyone can do art!" This always grinds my gears. Everyone can ALREADY do art, the people that think AI lets others do art just didn't want to learn how to draw.

[@Despoina_Nyx]

It's so dumb cuz they don't really do much, they are commissioning the machine, they just gave the description to a machine like how people commissioning give a description to artist but since there is no human interaction they just seem to obtusely think they did the effort. At most some do retouch but even then at that point why even bother... unless is a miniscule retouch it would require too much effort to make the use valid imo. So either the person didn't do shit or did so much that using the AI was poinless. Hell even as an artist the economical aspect isn't even my mayor concern even the job part at this point it's still big but my main worry is the speeding nshitification of the internet as a medium of information, the spread of wilder missinfo that can direcly harm society, the impersonation dangers, deepfake porn, hell there have already been some CP arrests due to this thing. There is just so many negatives that I cannot see any of it's possible good points surpassing at all.

[@Mente_Fugaz]

The real statement should be: "Now everyone can have free comissions"

[@Despoina_Nyx]

@@Mente_Fugaz Not even free most of these services are sub base

[@mundoatena1674]

It's even more infuriating when they try to use disabled people to justify this, using them as a token to call everyone who's against AI ableist

[@WingWong]

@@Mente_Fugaz Very much this.

[@rosyfunni1939]

I’ve said this in another comment section, and I’ll say it again: Honestly what I think we should do w/ ai art is have the generators put the generator watermark ALL OVER the image. Low opacity, 8-15 watermarks. They’d be transparent enough so you could still see the image, but they’re still noticeable enough that you would immediately know it’s ai. Artists could use it as inspiration, and other people can’t pass off the AI as their own work, and corporations can’t really use it for commercial gain. And removing it wouldn’t be an option. No paying for it or editing it out, otherwise there would be consequences.

[@Suited_Nat]

Yeah I agree with this. But sadly human greed will never allow this shit to even come to fruition.

[@Mente_Fugaz]

Na , I think there must be laws against the unethical creation of models , With consent/ compensation/ and transparency on the built, After that there won't be any need to add watermarks, because it will be literally illegal to create a model using the content of other creators without consent, so the AI will just suck, and that's the real watermark

[@Mente_Fugaz]

​​@@Suited_Natin france there's a proposed law to protect artists, it covers a lot of stuff, But i think the most clear solution is to erase LAION5B , and demand stable diffusion to starts again from scratch In ethical terms

[@serenity_harbour]

Omg, I absolutely agree!! This would eliminate the problem of being unable to differentiate art and generated images.

[@fluffy11cat]

I have been proposing something similar. My Idea was the AI water mark can't be removed, since it's part of the code that made up the AI. And it's code that makes so that action can't be removed, for the AI watermark.

[@animedemonlenz]

Tbh people are too obsessive with AI art, and few even bash artists, saying that AI is better, and generates images in a few minutes. What they don't take into consideration is that actual artists' work is how AI art even exists and looks good. I honestly don't get it. (This comment was made before watching the entire video...) edit: THE LIKES- edit 2: y'alls replies are longer than my actual comment 😅

[@scottbraun2457]

It gets worse. Yes. Many works are beautiful and then..you have those mutated hands..and melted faces, or extra limbs..that sometimes look mangled and contorted.

[@chilljelloton2089]

​@@scottbraun2457or worse, it looks like the AI literally traced/recoloured an actual artists work. I remember the AI character concept "in ____ artists style" and while I cant remember the artists name but I can remember the AI piece just being an edited version of a piece that almost matched it completely aside from colours and some small details. If a actual real human artist did the same thing their entire career would be destroyed and they'd most likely never recover from it! I'm positive that the main demographic for AI art generation includes people that would try to scam commissioners by tracing and only tracing. All the users see it as is a get out of jail free card for art theft.

[@animedemonlenz]

@@scottbraun2457 that's an instance of AI not understanding the hand shapes lol

[@scottbraun2457]

@@chilljelloton2089theft, plagiarism, copyright, and a few others.. meanwhile, your English lit, and grammar teachers,would be after you. It's "an actual..." Words that start with vowels, always get, "an", infront of them, not "a". Don't want to hurt your feelings, but, other old people..my age and older..my get really nasty..before they even get around to explaining what they are upset about..or worse..misjudged you, and fail to see how smart you are, actually. ..and get mean some more.! Don't take my word for it, because I make mistakes plenty. Check it out. Actually, I've always wished I had an extra pair of arms and hands.. "to give myself a hand" ...har har.

[@JamesTDG]

@@animedemonlenz Oh, that is the TIP of the iceberg. AI cannot understand 3D space, and in turn will never understand how to generate a legitimately original concept.

[@digitalbrinjen3245]

Between programs such as Krita & Blender, the tutorials here on KZbin & Skillshare and the low cost drawing tablets from brands such as Huion & XP-Pen, art was already well & truly democratised. Just combine all those with your imagination and boom! You have art.

[@WingWong]

Very much this.

[@thering4108]

As a person who was unable to get courses or any type of professional teaching. KZbin was and still is my little classroom to learn art and other things, also because of the cheap prices of tables I was able to get a decent one. Art is more than ever easier to access learning it.

[@Roseberry606]

Exactly I myself drew on my phone using only my finger and ibis paint for years. And hell, even if you somehow don't have a phone you can still go traditional and use paper and pencil

[@dinos_go_quack]

@@Roseberry606 even a stick and sand or dirt

[@baiwuli6781]

It not that easy. From what I read on r/ArtistLounge, most artists took 3-5 years of regular and consistent practices to get descent at drawing. AI is an alternative way for average people to make art. Don't take this tool away from us, I beg you.

[@SpectralMagnolia]

Art is already "democratized". It's called practicing.

[@sianais]

People claiming artificially generated image made from artwork ripped from the internet are innately opposed to the hard work, effort, and dedication required to learn.

[@chilljelloton2089]

This! Everytime I hear people make this claim all I can think is being able to draw crude stick figures or slapping different coloured paint on a canvas are the *bare minimum* entry forms to create art, hell the difference between amateur and advanced abstract art is purely learning some colour theory and how the materials are best used. Abstract art is the actual type of illustration/paintings makes even more sense to take that role. Anyone with no art skill what so ever can make abstract. Stick figures can be argued as inherently low quality but abstract always have a sort of quality association with at-at least to me. It's the worst defense to stealing art that's possible to make because all that someone needs to do is pick up a fucking pen or pencil and scribble down. My ranting is unnecessary but the fact that people are this scummy that they still make this claim really pisses me off.

[@chilljelloton2089]

Dont even get me started on the fact that AI "art" cant make anything is 3D mediums either! Buy some air dry clay and make tiny figures-i.e a little bee or cat, boom you've made a piece of art! Congratulations! If you get some cheap acrylic from wherever you got the air dry clay you can continue the art making adventure! HELL JUST GO TO A BEACH AND SCLUP OUT OF THE SAND! It's not permanent but it's more real as an art form than AI generation! Literally the only way I can think to ethically use AI is to either pay licensing to the *actual artists* to use certain data pools or to put your own creations and only your own creations in the the library! I meed to leave this comment section before to ramble more

[@katokianimation]

Yeah, name any other industry where you just plug your portfolio that was made on a commercialy viable device and companies will hire you. Or any other sole proprietorship option, where you can just buy stuff in a regular store for less than for 50 dollar, do something with them and resell it for hundreds. Without having any paper just doing what you learned from youtube. It is crazzy how it is a claim we are talking about.

[@andrewlloydpeterson]

Stop using content aware scaling in photoshop. Practice more.

[@furonguy42]

"It makes me both sad and afraid to think of how many young aspiring artists look at AI Generated art and feel like there's no point in learning how to draw because they'll never be able to achieve those results". I know I'm just one person, but for what its worth, the influx of AI users and defenders has actually made me _more_ determined to learn how to draw, to prove that I can and that its still a skill worth learning. I've been working at Creative Writing for some years, but I've always wanted to learn how to draw, and with everything that's happening right now, I feel more inclined than ever to start practising. Even if it doesn't go anywhere on a professional level, at least I might be able to help show solidarity with painters and sketch artists. I know your fears certainly aren't unfounded. There will definitely be people discouraged from trying by AI. But I'm sure I can't be the only one being spurred into learning the actual skills by all this.

[@WingWong]

Just speaking for myself, AI art has inspired me to draw again. The controls for creating the art are advancing and improving... ControlNet is amazing. But fine grain control is difficult because at the end of the day... you are working with a jittery noise driven thing. And consistency of changes is difficult due to the nature of the tool. But yeah, I'm definitely spurred into action to learn drawing again.

[@missliv.404]

I wish I could feel the same way :,) At this point I´ve kept most of my stuff private/on TH with heavy watermarks and guest block on because I don´t feel safe anywhere, I don´t see myself having a future and even if there´s a small one I´m scared of becoming a target for the salty bros. Yes I know there´s glaze but I don´t really like using it, it looks shit with my style and takes 3 hours on my old laptop to glaze anything and if I have mutliple images I just leave it running over night and if ai bros find a way around older versions it leaved my art vulnerable again. My hope is in the dirt man

[@KatietheKreator]

Honestly yeah. I don't make art to be the best or get money or get fame, I make it for fun and to have a cool thing to show my family and friends. It's like how people make sandcastles even though they know the waves will wash it away in a few minutes, they do it because they enjoy it. It's like how people don't stop playing chess just because a robot can do it and beat almost all human players. Also I think art will still be profitable since people like stuff made by people, which is why things that were made by hand are generally more expensive and highly valued than the same things made in factories, but even if it isn't profitable, people will still do it because they love it.

[@peachypastella8647]

I am glad I started drawing how I like now. My style is not what these people think of, because they want to look at sexy waifus and I'm over here drawing old 2000s western animation style like yea, good luck dudes, but I don't wanna hear "art style theft"/"reference theft" complaints...

[@peachypastella8647]

I don't know how many people will see this, but RinoTuna, a pretty popular artist, use a tiny character drawing within their pieces, and even implements their signature hidden in the designs. Just, y'know, a creative ideal so you don't have to heavily watermark it and so people know its official. I've been thinking of doing that myself.

[@booleah6357]

What's even funnier is a lot of AI platforms are starting to charge for their prompting services. So much for democratizing lol.

[@wheretao6960]

frrr

[@katherinehavegreen515]

I hope it becomes expensive enough for artists to be able to compete ;--;

[@booleah6357]

@@katherinehavegreen515 It will eventually. Using another more easily replaced field as an example Walmart cashiers got replaced by machines except not theft at Walmarts has gone through the roof and they have no way to really deal with it because the robots aren't stopping anyone.

[@humanbeeing4780]

@@katherinehavegreen515Luckily it won’t. I’m generating some right now :3

[@Okami82]

I think the worst is that Companies are paying thousands of dollars for AI when Artists didn't even get paid as much and when it comes to just the general public using AI they'd rather pay it than artists when small artists don't even ask for much money

[@v3ddira_w]

This is an Art Thieves heaven. AI art goes way too far, and I swear art critics will take the AI and use that as a reason to say “DiGiTaL aRt iS nOt ReAl ArT” which is so dumb.

[@dumbmilmarnia9122]

I've already seen people say AI "art" is the same as digital art...

[@v3ddira_w]

@@dumbmilmarnia9122 My point exactly.

[@vibrantgleam]

It's sad I can't tell the difference between ai art and real art.

[@markcooperartcomofficial]

@@vibrantgleam Then cut out your eyes. You have no use for them.

[@McJorneil]

@@vibrantgleam I imagine if you asked them to give you more technical explanation as to how they achieved their final result, the depth (or lack thereof) to their answer would tell you everything you need to know. True artistic knowledge comes from experience and practice. Not the press of a button.

[@Mielipuolisieni]

To people who think AI is democratizing art: Do you think AI companies intend to let you access their tech for free for forever? Social media that is free to use will use all the information it gets against you. Their business models rely on using others labor and information for nefarious uses. For AI companies to make their business model credible, they rely on using copyrighted material, but that is not the only cost.

[@BerixMaster2010]

Yep. Always remember: if you aren't paying money for a product or service, YOU are the product

[@WingWong]

In general... and especially if one is using the services... true. It is free until it isn't. But then again... this is why people work on bringing up these systems at home... where it can exist offline.

[@CRT_sRGB]

Some AI art proponents advocate offline generators for this reason (among other reasons). You're still going to need an expensive graphics card, however, if you want reasonable processing times. That's a big upfront cost if you don't already have a powerful card. Of course, this is completely tangential to questions of ethics surrounding the topic.

[@ZombieOwl12]

This! They are working to train the ai for free, and soon they'll have to pay for "art" again.

[@uanime1]

Well given how there are free programs to draw (Gimp) there will always be some free AI art programs.

[@jarjarthebredloaf]

The fact that I saw someone basically use "robots are humans too" reason for supporting AI images being claimed as art. This really is the beginning of the end of humanity

[@jarjarthebredloaf]

@z0w0z. Dude just orient your sentences correctly

[@justcallmekai1554]

At that point why not have an AI GF? After all they're the same but I bet most of them wouldn't be caught dead saying that.

[@jarjarthebredloaf]

@@justcallmekai1554 The worst part, some of them probably would

[@elisaelisaross]

I think a good use of AI is applying it for very tiring, repetitive, boring, frustrating jobs that bring no value to the human experience. In an ideal world, this would mean an increased productivity done by the robots and shared among all the humans, who would have more free time to dedicate to their favourite activities. Unfortunatly in our capitalist system, robots (and the value they produce) are mostly privately owned by few emplyers, who not only don't share the increased value produced, but also fire actual humans that, even without enjoying the boring job, need its salary. Hopefully this system will crumble quickly when it tends too closely to a situation when a bunch of people own all the robots doing all the jobs and gaining all the money, but nobody can buy their products because nobody has a paid job. A sentence I heard often about Ai and art, and which summarises perfectly my first thoughts about this, is "I wish AI could carry out the job in my place so that I can dedicate to art more, not that AI makes art in my place while I work at my job".

[@akinaccord]

finally, someone who says this..

[@sagetusk]

Used ChatGPT to rephrase my existing resume and got hired at the job I wanted. Zero guilt

[@Dekkard5]

This is why I refuse to use ai to make art. I'm not good at drawing but I'd rather make it myself or commission someone to draw it rather than using a soulless machine that will make some rip off of someone's work

[@Silver77cyn]

Well said. 👍

[@Pyro7693]

Thank you. Don't worry about not being able to draw. There are plenty of other art forms you can take up: photography, sculpting, 3D modeling. Find what suits you best.

[@peachypastella8647]

Good on you. And remember, you don't have to be good to be an artist. You just need paper, a pencil, and the passion for it. Best of luck on your art journey ❤

[@baiwuli6781]

How does AI "rip off of someone's work" ?. Ai-generated images are unique. Yes, they are inspired by other artists, but they are not direct copies of the original work. Stop using the word "stealing", use instead the word "inspiring".

[@aidiotthatcandraw]

The biggest issue as you mentioned, is that artists and general creatives are the 1st ones to be targeted, they always were the 1st people to be targeted later on it will be everybody else and thats when people realise the issue and realise "Oh crap it was right there". Also the general devaluation of art helps promote the idea that ai is better.For example, in 2022 my country, Greece, decided that art degrees, music, drawing, theatre, etc, were all lower value or similar value to a hs diploma. I see a lot of Greeks stating that "Oh ai is better artists are useless etc" which sucks. Not because the degrees are now useless but also because it discourages creativity, thinking outside the box, making something, expressing yourself. Idk what the future hold but I'm scared that I will never see my dreams become a reality :(

[@magicianofstarlight3123]

AI art is just the same as a translator or a calculator. You can use it to quickly translate a word in another language or to solve an equation, but you're not gonna learn the language or the process to solve that operation.

[@Mente_Fugaz]

You should add the issue that numbers and language don't have copyright, So AI is making everything with art theft through scrape using works without consent to decompose it's data

[@000Dragon50000]

Writer here and solidarity with the artists fighting these so-called "AI" image generators is my top priority. We have seen plenty of proof that that same automation is going to target us next, and it's better to fight it together now than kneecap each other and both get rolled over by the machine.

[@comradefrommars]

It has already come for us writers. Clarkesworld had to close their submissions for fiction because they were absolutely flooded with AI generated works in February of this year. Many online articles are now being generated with AI too. Who knows how deep the problem goes because we writers have not organized and spoken out to the extent that artists have.

[@DangerNoodle68]

I make art and I love to write. I absolutely agree. A lot of people don’t seem to realize that after art, AI will come for other professions/hobbies. It’s not just artists in trouble.

[@-themightymittens-]

Anyone can already make art. That's the beauty of art. If you made something, even a stick figure, it's good art because it's yours. You made it. That's a lot more rewarding than watching an AI spit out a result in 20 seconds.

[@Mente_Fugaz]

Here, take a clear difference between artists and AI: Did you knew that the Anime we all know nowadays , was a japanese reinterpretation of disney designs? That's what happens when you feed humans with art, that's inspiration, But what happens when you feed AI with those disney pictures? It will give to you more disney pictures, That's why AI promotes stagnation, because in a world where there's no more artists putting their own visions on how to ilustrate something, AI will have less and less data to be trained on, so it will stagnate eventually, You don't see people using the models of AI we had a few months ago, because people just gets bored , it looses the magic on the oversaturation... They need something fresh, And i don't know if they would like a reality without new beautiful ways to illustrate something

[@WingWong]

"You don't see people using the models of AI we had a few months ago, because people just gets bored , it looses the magic on the oversaturation..."

[@uanime1]

@Mente_Fugaz "But what happens when you feed AI with those disney pictures?" "It will give to you more disney pictures" You know who else keeps making "disney pictures" Disney. So expect them to greatly benefit from this. "AI will have less and less data to be trained on, so it will stagnate eventually" That's wishful thinking at best since AI can be trained on AI art. "You don't see people using the models of AI we had a few months ago, because people just gets bored" Because better models were made.

[@Mente_Fugaz]

@@WingWong If AI were used to have its own style, like 3D did, no one would say anything, because artists would have their own styles and ways to illustrate; the problem was never the AI, but how it was trained. That's why the fight over "consent, compensation, and transparency" is very important. When people understand that training AI with copyrighted works is unethical, when these kinds of regulations arrive, then we will see the actual creative potential that AI can achieve with its own style, without relying it's likeness on how good is the artist that it's absorbing without consent to displace him from his own market.

[@Mente_Fugaz]

@@uanime1 wtf man... 1: disney evolved it's own style over the time, now is stagnating on the 3D pixar's one and people are getting bored about it, you can see that on the box office. While dreamworks it's renovating the style on movies like puss in boots 2 2: that's so ignorant man, when you train AI with it's own AI outputs, the model colapses, because you are just acumulating errors, what you can do training it with it's own outputs in the best of the cases, is to fasten the actual data so it can be more detailed and faster to obtain good results with less prompts, but it can't evolve or do anything beyond it's dataset, that's period, AI tends to chaos, so if you saw an accidental output that you wanna turn into a new style, if there's no data about that style you are trying to create, the AI will need a new data to understand it, or it will make it even more chaotic, in that case you would need to create quality data by yourself about that new stlye you wanna create... and when that happens, you will end up hiring an artists or using photoshop by yourself. 3: No, if better models weren't made anymore, people would get bored even faster... the concept of making new models is what keep the AI fresh and the community active... because of the hype to know what it can do now... but when you get used to it... it looses the magic, just like the older models... Just like everything in life...

[@WingWong]

@@Mente_Fugaz That's just it though... AI learns from the data fed to it. The earlier stuff before Stable Diffusion type models, were symptomatic of AI's "natural style". But here's the rub: even if it was trained on fully consenting data... the economic problem would still exist... for artists. I think the idea of AI having it's own style... is a bit of a misunderstanding of how this current line of tech works. :) More or less... it learns associations and from those many associations, it learns meaning. It uses that learning to interpret noise. The noise itself can be seeded with words which are translated into said noise against a random seed. In order for it to produce an image to the prompt of "A picture of a tree" it would need to know what a tree is, what is typically associated with said tree. etc. "A statue of David".... it would need to know both what a statue is... and what the likelihood that the david you are referring to is the famous one or a generic one of any David. Therein lies the problem: How do you teach it what something is without giving it that something to learn in the first place? "Draw an anime style image of a 45 year old woman with long hair reclined on a towel on the beach." - that is ALOT of information that needs to be trained into the system... not just for each element... but for the relationship those elements have with one another and how they _should_ be put relative to one another. With the exception of "anime style" most of that can be generalized and even done without involving actual people. Ie, feed it abstract and/or anonymouized images. But how do you convey Anime Style without feeding it Anime Content? If you want it to draw in the style popular for a given year... you would need to feed it artwork representative of that period of time. But this train of thought leads to the issue I have with the idea that "AI art's own style".... a trained model regardless of what style it was fine tuned on... actually contains a multitude of styles. That's why you can take something as obviously targetted as a model that replicates SamDoesArt... and have it create artwork and imagery that IS NOT in the style of SamDoesArt. I'm personally of the mindset of creating a model that has the whole of human history used as a training dataset. Because I want the tool to be flexible and more importantly... representative of reality. Every thing that is omitted from the training... skews what that model considers normal or even... in existence. The question then is... how do you go from now... wild wild west.... to something sane in the future where... say artists can donate works to the public good and those works are used in totality to train systems that benefit all people? Oh wait... that's TOO far into the future... lmao. Anyways, long rant, but basically... SD systems and those of Dall-E, Midjourney, etc... don't have a unique style unto themselves per se. It is based on what is fed to it. Trying to restrict AI at this point... is a losing battle. The tech is out there. The base models are out there. The knowledge of how to make it from scratch and to augment existing models... is out there. Look at the human component that insists on leveraging AI tech to screw over artists.

[@rosemiri_art]

Uggghhh so true… i am tired of trying to explain it to people who try to convince me to “try it” but my hands work great, I still have eyes and ears. My brain is not a pile of mush and I won’t die the second I step into the woods. I am not glued to my office chair. while I do have Aphantasia which is a struggle I face in my work- it’s nowhere near enough to convince me to have an ai generate a shitty digital collage of stolen art from my favourite artists and artist friends. And even if I was paralyzed, brain dead, etc. i’d like to think I’d have enough morality to not use ai for art anyway. I get irrationality angry of course with this topic so i tend to avoid it, but we were all making swords out of paper towel rolls when we were kids, surely there are so many easy and free methods to learn, grow and experience life to input into art without being an asshole and just ripping from people without consent or payment.

[@threshasketch]

Well-said, and you laid out a lot of excellent points about people devaluing art/artists tying into why they're okay with grabbing whatever AI generates instead. I wanted to share my idea for why that "democratizing art" defense is, in my humble opinion, about neither art as a skill OR art as a product, but about art as a TALENT. In my several decades as an artist, I've realized that there are two kinds of people: ones who have some idea how to make art/have educated themselves a bit, and ones who cannot wrap their heads around it and think artists just make beautiful work appear like magic. The latter type of person tends to think of art not as a skill that can be learned, but as a talent, one that some people just have and some people do not. 100% of the people I've met who think artistic skill = inherent talent so far are people who are not artists, themselves, and who think that art is "easy" for people like me. They don't seem to acknowledge the decades of work I've done to get to where drawing looks "easy." Anyway, I think these are the sorts of people who think AI image generation is making art "accessible" to all, because they see being born with artistic talent as some innate ability that they were skipped over for, and being able to AI generate images makes them feel like an unfair situation where they were denied something artists got at birth has been equalized. Like artists have a privilege over them because they were born talented. This same attitude could explain why many people who can't make art don't want to pay anything for it, either-they think the innately talented artists can just whip up an art piece with ease and no work, so why should they pay much when it was so easy for the artist? I've absolutely seen the attitude that charging a lot for your art is arrogant, because you're somebody who can easily create artwork and you're holding that over the heads of people who were unfortunate enough not to be "born with art talent", so it makes you the bad guy for wanting to be paid decently since they genuinely do not believe that YOU had to work for that art ability. They think you just have it, not that it's a skill you worked your butt off for. I'm not saying this is all people who think AI image generation = "making art accessible to all", but I've met this sort of person time and again throughout my life, and it sure lines up with the attitudes I'm seeing about AI. It may also provide a reason why AI fans can also think it's no big deal to scrape billions of art pieces to train the AI generators, because they might secretly think artists are getting a "taste of their own medicine" by having others suddenly be able to "easily make art" like these people think artists have always been able to as an innate talent. Sorry for the essay, thanks for the video!

[@Dexter01992]

I draw since almost 10 years. I've grown my community, I've started a Patreon right before AI came out to destroy everything it touches, I am glad my patrons still follow me for (their own statement) their interest into supporting me because they want art made by me. I feel bad immediately as I imagine kids today interested into learning to draw instead of go out and play football, usually the introvert, the "loser that likes to draw" (sorry for the term but that's exactly what I faced when I was in secondary school). Nowadays you'll get the bullies showing up with their smartphone and pull out an AI image generator. Underline how "useless" what you're doing is. That it is pointless to learn to make art because AI can do it "so much better and in seconds". Wouldn't be surprised if next generation will grow with barely anyone interested into making art, because "AI". Art saved me from depression 10 years ago, just few years after I entered the adult world. AI is giving people yet another reason to think artists are just "losers that couldn't find a better job". While simoultaneously thinking that artists are also "Self entitled rich people that wants to gatekeep art". Art exists since humans begun to live in caves. We had to invent the tool meant to bring it to its extinction this precise age, doesn't it? AI represents the very culmination of the depressing society we live into. No matter your interests, your hobbies, your passions, everything must be turned into mass produced fast food to generate profits for the big companies.

[@McJorneil]

Lots of people out there are lazy, ungrateful idiots, but the joke's on them because eventually the unsustainability of cheaply mass produced instant gratification will backfire. If an EMP wiped out the power grid, their AI generators wouldn't matter anymore. They can think whatever they want about artists, but without practical skills and knowledge, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. You can have a good job and still be an artist on the side. Humans have to work in order for things to exist. And it takes a certain amount of dedication and determination for things of high quality to exist. Keep making art and don't ever stop. Never let anyone convince you it's a waste of time, because *they* are a waste of your time.

[@longislandicedtea6323]

@@McJorneil Hell, I'm already seeing some AI "artists" deciding to transition into actual drawing

[@CRT_sRGB]

Imagine civilization reaches a point where human inputs to the economy reach a value of zero, and humans are totally dependent on an all-powerful ASI. It just isn't going to be good for our minds. All we'll have left will be society. Stuff from high school like cliques, social maneuvering and grandstanding shall not be attenuated by the pressures that the adult world currently imposes. That dork kid loser? Where are they going to find a niche where they can make something of themselves? Yes, they could pursue their passion as a hobby, but it'll be the same as playing video games is for us today. Unless you're a pro-gamer, gaming cannot raise your station in life.

[@uanime1]

@@McJorneil "If an EMP wiped out the power grid, their AI generators wouldn't matter anymore." Neither will artists since people will be concerned about real things.

[@ceinwenchandler4716]

Oh, man. You're so right. I hadn't thought of that, but that's completely true. Those poor artistic kids... (Also, people called you a loser for having artistic talents and interests? How does that even make sense? How could they not see how cool it was that you could take a pencil and paper, or whatever you were using, and take what was in your head and put it on paper? It's an amazing talent and I envy it.) As a writer, I'm so grateful AI can't really write a competent story without human input.

[@Kuroomiii.]

adding onto the argument of ai taking over other positions, if ai takes over medical fields such as neurologists (i think) that diagnosis people with things such as but not limited to bpd, autism, adhd, did, ect, there could be so many inaccurate diagnosis’ because ai’s wouldnt be able to comprehend and understand what those people are going through. whereas a real person would either be able to relate or not. and a real person would help a person get to fully understand what they are going through. An ai cannot go through an experience as a person due to so many factors, and feelings humans go through.

[@DreamyAileen]

Except there's already a lot of misdiagnoses happening even with real people, because no human doctor can make the perfect diagnosis every time. And who says AI has to replace doctors? Why not have AI be a _tool_ to assist doctors? Best of both worlds, right?

[@Kuroomiii.]

@@DreamyAileen yes, but the argument being made is saying if ai took over careers. You make a good point but im taking abt that, if ai took over

[@missliv.404]

@@DreamyAileen congrats you figured out that humans aren´t perfect. But ai won´t be either, because it learns from us, but lacks the emotion as the person above said. Yes there are already misdiagnosis and that sucks, but *ai won´t make shit better at all*

[@Backtitrationfan]

Ahem. You do know AI can be scarily accurate? The main thing about AI is that it can find patterns from datasets which humans struggle to

[@DreamyAileen]

@@missliv.404 Wrong. AI _are_ far better at some things than humans, most notably large-scale data analysis. That sort of thing would be super helpful for doctors when formulating diagnoses for patients. Now I'll grant you that AI won't be as helpful for mental health diagnoses as for physical health diagnoses. But even if it only decreases misdiagnoses by 5%, that's still an improvement over not having it at all, right? To be clear here, I'm not saying AI should replace doctors, that's an idea I'm wholly opposed to. What I'm saying is why not have AI be a _tool_ to assist doctors? Why do you people keep assuming this AI thing has to be all-or-nothing?

[@fluttzkrieg4392]

Engineers and doctors make our lives easier and longer, but artists make our lives more enjoyable. Think about this every time you listen to your fav song, watch a good movie, an awesome anime, read a great book, play a video game...

[@mathiaslienafa789]

As a young artist im agreed with you

[@scottbraun2457]

That "anybody can do it", is a massive dramatic exaggerated statement and easily a brand new modern myth..considering the subject.

[@Mente_Fugaz]

This logic applies to anything, Because anybody can be anything , With studies, practice, social and economic stability to learn and practice, you can do everything literally.. That's why " anybody can do it" is absurd

[@scottbraun2457]

@@Mente_Fugaz the way you finished this, shows where your head's at. I like your answer very much. After all, if all things were equal, yes, literally everybody can. But quite frankly, nearly nothing is equal, so no. It doesn't realistically work.

[@Envy_Level_Zero]

AI is heavy on keywords, I don't think average Joe will write 50-100 keywords and 20 in the negative prompt.

[@NerbPrincess]

Your art doesn't need to be good or polished for it to be art and for you to be happy with it though? Read making comics by Lynda Barry pls. There is beauty in unpolished art :)

[@Envy_Level_Zero]

@@NerbPrincess Yes thats true, but humanity loves profit and high end "talent" So when an average Joe cant instantly recreate a high skill artwork they think they are unable to make art. Not even concidering anything drawn/painted by them is already art.

[@ASusBlondMan]

The foundational point of copyright is to make sure those who do work have priority to economic reward for the work they do, to reward and encourage hard work creativity and ingenuity. AI art takes other people's work and uses it in a way that it threatens to destroy that reward for the original creators' work and rewards other people for those original creators' hard work instead. That's the opposite of democracy and the opposite of fair use. Eventually AI will get better and be able to do this to anyone's work. Either we decide it's theft or we throw away copyright laws entirely since AI will eventually backdoor it into being entirely pointless.

[@Mrcheese772]

after all the movies abt ai taking over we STILL do this?! like omg.

[@thedomeguy]

The argument that AI art somehow democratizes art is an insult to everyone's intelligence. Democratize doesn't mean giving everyone the false ability to do something with no work or learning of skills. You cannot democratize reading and writing by taking the need and means to learn reading and writing away from people. Similarly with art, which isn't just about producing images, but is literally a form of visual communication. Removing the need to learn the principles and fundamentals of illustration doesn't democratize art, it makes art less accessible. AI will only make it harder and harder for new budding artists to learn how to make the art they want to make, feeling like their work will never live up to the predetermined standards set by AI's trends, and will never be seen or recognized amongst the ocean of AI generated garbage filling up the internet. Even more insulting, is the arguement this democratization will make art more accessible to those with disabilities, as well as to marginalized groups. This shows a complete lack of knowledge or care about the issue. These AI evangalists don't get a shit about disabled people. Disabled people and their caretakers have invented many ways allow them to make their art. AI was never and will never be one of these methods, as you can't make art with AI.

[@baiwuli6781]

Not all people have time to practice drawing. From what I read on r/ArtistLounge, most artists took 3-5 years of regular and consistent practices to get good at drawing. AI is an alternative way for average people to make art. Don't take this tool away from us, I beg you.

[@rickalbuquerque595]

AI does take a lot of technical knowledge and skill. Those who think it's just writing a few prompts have no idea what's like spending hours choosing the right lora, VAEs, checkpoints and fine-tuning everything with inpaint.

[@ZombieOwl12]

We're seeing it with the writers and actors strikes, people don't care about art because to them, it's a HOBBY. They indulge in art, movies, shows, books, in their downtime from their day job. They enjoy the final product and judge how easy it was to create because it was so easy to consume, and therfore, they feel entitled to art "the artist would just be making anyway".

[@MyRandom2Cents-wl9wq]

If AI was only limited as a tool, that's one thing. But if people want to replace actual artist how worked for many years on their skills, craft, etc. good luck having a TV show/movie/commercial with the most unholiest visuals you will ever seen.

[@McJorneil]

All they're going to succeed in doing is flooding the market with low effort garbage that all looks the same anyway. Who's going to bother noticing one piece of low effort garbage from another piece of low effort garbage in a sea of billions of pieces of low effort garbage? They'll just bury themselves in it. Most artists don't get recognition anyway, so the idea that AI "artists" would somehow magically rise to the top and start raking in all the money is absurd. They'll just be competing with each other over who has the prettiest garbage. Real artists are better off just ignoring it all and continuing to work on their craft.

[@longislandicedtea6323]

@@McJorneil Its no different than steam greenlight and direct.

[@uanime1]

@@McJorneil "Real artists" are going to be the first to lose since the AI can outproduce them with superior-quality images.

[@サリエリ-q5g]

@@uanime1 it's been a whole year, all freelance artists I know are still working as artists. A lot of people don't want to buy or generate themselves ai "superior-quality images" so they decide to pay real artists (no quotes)

[@uanime1]

@@サリエリ-q5g "all freelance artists I know are still working as artists." Are they still getting the same volume of work? "A lot of people don't want to buy or generate themselves ai "superior-quality images"" No one will buy AI art when they can get it for free. "so they decide to pay real artists (no quotes)" Once you can copyright AI art expect this to be greatly reduced.

[@beeceelad]

Great video! AI only gives access to those priviliged with affordability to have access to subscriptions and/or high-end computer hardware. Creative democratization is a pencil and paper.

[@DudesOnline]

You know it's a good day when a duchess Celestia video drops

[@WingWong]

+10000 this.

[@luraymoondust]

yes

[@forest6008]

i am not skilled at drawing but i am learning, not because i think that i will be able to create art faster, or better than ai, but because i feel like it and i want to be able to have absolute control of the art that i create, not just a few words, that are then interprited by a stastical machine

[@vibrantgleam]

See, this proves our society is lazy as hell and we just don't care. We rely on robots for everything and it's starting to show. It was happening 10 years ago when Siri and all these assistants were introduced. Sure, it wasn't as extreme as today, but it really does show.

[@McJorneil]

It sucks but as long as you're a hard (and smart) worker you can rise above the lazy folks who thrive off instant gratification. Might be a bad example, but just look at how many people are currently struggling with student loan debt. They thought it'd be written off by the government if they waited long enough and then reality slapped them in the face. Meanwhile other people saw an opportunity to pay it off and now they're free from that weight and able to thrive while the ones still being crushed are begging for a bail out that will never happen. Never get complacent and always keep trying to improve.

[@wheelsndealz]

Its really weird and kinda ironic how in the past everyone thought ai and robots would replace all the blue collar workers and arts would never be capable of being touched cuz people couldnt imagine machines ever doing art. Yet here we are, and art is the first industry facing the actual threar of being replaced. Because like you said, people dont really see art as something important enough to protect. Bc yeah, most people really do care more about the end product more than the process.

[@meechartz4235]

This video is great. Furthermore, artists are behind much of the media people consume DAILY. Feeling entitled to art but not willing to value it means people dont deserve entertainment either. They fail to realize that.

[@mushroomdude123]

The entitlement bit really got to me. You explained something I’ve been trying to process for a while, but couldn’t find the words for. Why do people feel no shame in just stepping over each other to get what they want? Art, Education, Politics, you name it. No one cares about the consequences their actions have on others, so long as it furthers their own life. And then when those consequences inevitably happen, no one knows why. I see people complaining about how trashy movies and shows are getting now, but then get hyped over AI. Why can’t they connect the dots?

[@WingWong]

people generally don't care about consequences... because those consequences don't directly impact them or someone they care about. others don't care because they have had consequences been dumped on them and might feel they have a right to pass it along.

[@osuf3581]

It is the people who want to dictate what others may not do who are entitled here.

[@mudnarchist]

As someone with very limited artistic ability, I will always appreciate actual human art more than machine generated images. The effort and passion that go into art is what makes it impressive to me. It's the same way I respect professional chess champions for being as good as they are at chess, despite almost all of them losing to computers.

[@Notyouraveragename]

As someone with a few friends and "friends" on either side. (Yes, i know. "TAINTED E-SATAN"). I think it's just that like 90% of people, at this point in 2024, either care about themselves, or have LEARNED to care for themselves first, not knowing if others would do the same, or already knowing. - For ai art, i know some people who just like both or prefer one. Ai shines most at personal use, not secondary use. The people i know and have most fun with, use it to customize dnd rpgs and plays. But definitely some are 100% true blue crypto bros or scammers. Others are hand drawn harassers who try to guilt trip/harass or dox people into human payments. I think poor behavior is a two directional gap. And i've seen many harassment campaigns with individual nice people on both sides. I think tribalism putting a team of shitty people over good ones is a problem. People aren't incentivized for being good in a 'mob rules' system. They're harassed into fitting for a mob in team games. I've known some artists who were kindhearted and then doxed by crappy, selfish, money stealing teenagers. Some people in art are hugely immature, selfish, and some people in ai are also hugely selfish. It cuts both ways. Imho, things should be better for bees than the wasps. But i'd rather fight for a unpopular opinion i thought was right, than put up with a terrible "right one" that used people for money and put mob mentality over good people.

[@WolfJarl]

If people don't want to learn anything or have any real talent or skills in anything, I say leave them be and let life screw them over.

[@vibrantgleam]

Hell yeah. Karma's a bitch.

[@Ridgerian]

Careless, focus more on our craft. There's nobility doing humble things well.

[@antaresthetall]

This isn't relevant to the topic at hand, but I wanted to say that your art is always improving and this image especially is stunning. Keep making gorgeous art!

[@YourWaywardDestiny]

One good thing AI art is doing: with how much "aesthetic" art it is churning out, our drive to consume less traditional creations will grow. Being that art is not about how good it looks, realistically, but about how it resonates with people. People will adopt less "pretty" styles soon enough, and have a better grasp of protection over web scraping before that even, and a new movement will fill in the gaps where AI art will no longer be able to plunder. Adversity has always had this effect on art. We haven't given up on it for the entire time humanity has existed, and I don't think anyone will stop now.

[@IAARPOTI]

Did you watch wall e? The facts that humans are gonna be more chubby and lazier because they rely on robots. We are gonna be wall e irl.

[@-starrysunrise-2908]

If we're alive at all...

[@ccsartcrypt]

That's what I've been saying. Life is going to be like wall e and I don't want a future like that. It's scary that Wall e humans could be our future.

[@carultch]

@@ccsartcrypt What I wonder, is how are the humans in Wall-E even breeding, if they are so indifferent and oblivious to the existence of each other?

[@TheHitsubasa]

I don’t want to live in a world where everything is done by AI. It sounds cold and depressing as fuck.

[@aerendyll]

I think the fundamental problem with automating everything using AI is that when there's less jobs lest for people to do, the only way to make money is to already have things. But you also can't run an economy on just owning things, as this would lead to a severe imbalances between rich and poor that's not possible to overcome without some sort of interference, whether by government or other means. You can already see this gap widening and at some point the economy is going to fall into that hole. The question is just when it'll finally happen.

[@Gamingpandacat]

studying art and learning to draw has changed the way I look at things, I look for vanishing points now, before knowing what they even were, I didn't pay attention to a horizon, it was just part of the picture, and the more I look the more details I can see, AI art would not give you that knowledge, it would just give you the answer to a match question because its a computer program, it thinks with numbers and ratios, not with shapes and colors. You can kind of learn from ai art only if you understand the fundamentals of art and know that it was taking other artists' skills into its creation Also yeah, nobody cares about creatives, they never have and never will, only when the elites pay big money and show a product people only care about the product.

[@RaspK]

Minor addendum: I disagree that the immorality stems *_entirely_* from the non-compensation of living artists; arguably, if the same AI was the result of training it entirely on non-surviving, non-contemporary artists, and it still produced the same kind of results, it would still really be depriving artists of the capacity to find a niche in the market. The immorality exists *_even in absentia_* of what's basically art theft, it's just that the latter made it so much worse.

[@Despoina_Nyx]

There is also the other dark sides of it.... Missinfo, impersonation, deepfake porn, CP.... all of that becomes stupidly easy and accesible for people seeking to do bad stuff, we already saw what a dodgy image of a suppose attack did in the US, now imagine making it so hard to really know what your political candidate is actually going for because there is so much deepfake and missinformation around that you can't easily discern a real speach from a fake one, that is just a open door for blatant corruption. And more monstruous imo we've already had CP cases thanks to this case, yes they got arrested but imagine now how easily it would be for abusers to use that, how easily they could do it without leaving a trace... I've come to worry a lot more beyond the economic elements of it, they scare me yes since I'm an artist but the other stuff seem straight out of a distopian novel telling you not to do this thing.

[@Ch50304]

Wouldn't that also make selling fanart immoral, yt you don't see artists caring enough to say something.

[@Despoina_Nyx]

@@Ch50304 Selling fanart is a gray area and it's mainly done either hidden or with the permission of the IP owners... Also I don't know how you compare fanart Deepfake Porn and CP.... Fighting for AI regulation won't end fanart this dumb idea that IP holders don't have any recourse to strike fanart is stupid because they can, they have done it already, they allow Fanart due to PR and keeping goodwill. You'll find more legit art selling sites actually have actual legal agreements about what fanart merch can be sold. And stuff outside of that is strike down. Do there exist people that do it against the permission of the IP holder yes, but again most of the time it's not worthy for them to strike them unless they are doing something like just directly grabbing assets, and even then I have a friend that literally asked Suda if he could make merch from his game using assets and he said he could.

[@greenflagracing7067]

The music business has a similar problem with autotune, and it might be even worse because pitch correction to a perfect tone takes away the human feel of a performance in a noticeable way.

[@SSSTARGIRL95]

I've been interesting in writing and drawing for such a long time now, but I was always afraid to start! For years I'd just dream about being an artist or a writer, but recently I've mustered up the courage to actually start! Don't be discouraged by the AI, guys! There will always be people who appreciate us.

[@Suited_Nat]

11:29 as an artist myself, I completely agree. The sense of entitlement some ppl have to say, oh well I deserve x w/o payment is just beyond my understanding. Especially since these video games, if they aren’t in first person, need art, whether it’s character design, background design, etc. and yet people devalue that.

[@WingWong]

quite frankly... most people have no perspective when it comes to the value of a skill. I would imagine most people who aren't affiliated with artists and have seen them hone their craft really understand the "work" that goes into creation. Same is true of many fields. In this day and age... everything is reduced down to a few words... how do you explain the years of training to be good at something in a few words to someone who has no conception of your field?

[@osuf3581]

You are the one who is entitled if you want to restrict what others may do and that they must instead follow your process.

[@fredobishai1611]

Wow. People fighting to save their vocation from companies trying to destroy their vocation. What's restrictive there?

[@osuf3581]

​@@fredobishai1611- First, you are not entitled to your job. Society progresses. That is incredibly.. entitled of you. Second, the companies like Disney would love more regulation as they are the only ones who stand to gain by it.

[@fredobishai1611]

Of course society progresses that doesn't mean you should take people's work and train them without their knowledge. Secondly, Regulation of what exactly? Because if it's Ai art then no disney aren't going to benefit from it, If they are then I would love you to explain how?

[@saturn379]

weird how people enjoyed artists work for centuries and now they are turning back and even insulting them sometimes

[@radiantsquare007jrdeluxe9]

Even with ai art I believe that human made art will still hold some value, simply because it was made by a human with a passion for creating art.

[@Notyouraveragename]

I still feel like positive human interaction can always be a plus. The people i like, make human interaction a pro. And contrary to belief. i've had case by case where a human manual artist was disappointing (either no opinion, or lackluster, or fun), or a ai artist was grifty, or fun, or exciting (dnd, fun antics, etc)). Mileage varies 2000% more on the person than the method imho. There's plenty of selfish or fun people both sides for my coat. But tribal politics are a thing and 1000% people will hate you for the right/wrong coat. Or just be lonely and tired and just want people around instead of constant fights. I don't wrong those people. I think creation is fun and sharing with people who engage, manual or ai is fun. Sometimes people will engage over what they like to use, their favorite brush or favorite subjects, what they like to see, what they like to do. Sometimes it's just self centered fantasy. I get the feeling, at least for me. Art or ai is just the side note. It's like going to a restaurant after you've already learned how to cook tastier food. If you go out for the social experience, you pay to hang out with people. if you go for a negative experience while being demonized and screamed at and extorted for money. WTF are you going there for? Meanwhile if you pass over a friend who's pleasant but just trying to make ends meet or put a lot of time into a dish. Is going "My food is tastier, you are worthless" really the "right" choice? I think it'd mean a lot, 'good food or not' if someone made a hand baked good. i think it'd take a reddit "Doesn't care about other people's thoughts or opinions, it's my condition" to go "your food is terrible, i don't want it". Most people enjoy food, even if it's 'bad', as long as they like the person or appreciate the effort that gone into it. But it can cut both ways. Even Gordon Ramsay notoriously held back his tongue against a mother who was trying to make food to feed her family and community. But he rips onto narc people all the time. People need to put food on the table, but if people don't find a way, and they just become abusive and dysfunctional. Screaming and alienating people while nobody in corporate is willing to hire them, and they're wishing harm on others with anti ai. People aren't obligated to 'save' people who can't 'save' themselves. it takes a lot for family to leave it's own blood. Some of anti ai have accomplished that, and it's not art that did it. It's screaming at people constantly and using them as disposible wallets while some of them come off as verbally abusive (fear, obligation, guilt, / FOG), instead of fun, pleasant, enjoyable, worthwhile. Course i would love it if we could all live in a fantasy land our bills were paid with, either by happiness or screaming at the top of our lungs and developing bipolar/npd. But as far as im aware, the only thing that gets a man is the insane asylum. A girl? A princess treatment.

[@mandyviv57]

This is why SAG/AFTRA and WG are striking too. With you all the way, and you are an eloquent speaker! My first KZbin of yours, definitely won’t be my last!

[@sir_alphabetsoup8178]

Ai really is just imitating real art.

[@Backtitrationfan]

Well isn't that what humans do?

[@sir_alphabetsoup8178]

@@Backtitrationfan I don’t think so, art is produced through intent. It’s like breathing, you (just) don’t imitate other people, you actually do it. Ai shows you a chest going up and down but is it actually taking in air and exhaling? No. Art is what you take in and then choose to produce with artistic intent. For the ai it’s just an action without any nuance.

[@Backtitrationfan]

@@sir_alphabetsoup8178 what? If the AI draws a person breathing air in and their chest is moving up and down, how is it any different from a human drawing of a person breathing air in and out? None of them are actually breathing air in, it just looks like it

[@sir_alphabetsoup8178]

@@Backtitrationfan i Said it works like a person breathing and a machine simulating that movement but not actually processing air the way a human body would, not drawing a breathing person , I think you just misunderstood my comment

[@Backtitrationfan]

@@sir_alphabetsoup8178 ah I see. The only reason we don't have a full simulation of the way a human breaths is because of the need for a lot of processing power. Maybe one day we will have enough to accurately simulate it (according to Moore's law). However, I still don't see how this is relevant to comparing AI art and human made art. AI art is just the AI recalling patterns in its dataset which is what humans do in a sense; to find patterns in reality. I'm not saying that they are EXACTLY the same but that they are similar in a sense that they both deal with patterns

[@DreamyAileen]

8:43 Just want to point out that Corridor actually acknowledged the ethical criticisms that Anime Rock Paper Scissors received and rectified them for the sequel. Anime Rock Paper Scissors 2 uses original art commissioned from a human professional artist as training data, instead of screenshots from an anime. I think that just goes to show that Corridor is still a team of _artists_ at the end of the day. They're not some soulless greedy corporate boogeyman like a lot of people in the art community seem to think they are, they're a group of talented and passionate filmmakers who at the end of the day just want to make short films with cool VFX stuff using tech that's accessible to the average internet user. They want to push the boundaries of what a small independent team is capable of creating, but they're also committed to honoring the work of other artists. And I think Corridor's pretty cool for that.

[@d-o-l-l-parts]

problem with ai art is how it usually takes artist's art without consent, or is posted without the mention of it being ai. ai art can be genuinely helpful with the PROCESS of creation (getting an idea of what something could look like, general inspiration, among others) but a lot of times, people will just post it and claim it is theirs also- art doesn't need to be "democratized", art isn't an object for the elite, you just have to try, even if it's bad. if you aren't satisfied, the only thing you can do is keep learning. it's the same as any skill personally, i'll always prefer human services over robots. it may not be as fast, or efficient, but if, per say, i commission something from an artist, i'll feel more happiness from the fact that someone personally took time out of their life to do it, while a robot will just do it, there's no soul to it

[@Ninetailsmaster16]

“now everyone can do art”. no. everyone CAN. ALREADY do art. What these people really mean is “lazy people can now conjure up the type of art profit-chasers consider sellable and algorithm pleasing without years of actually BEING an ARTIST and honing skill”.

[@panda.with.a.pencil]

Fuck AI. I refuse to use it. also the mention of 'wild thunder last night', as someone who lives in the same city, I know what thunder you're talking about and damn, that thunder was wild.

[@PeriluneStar]

It's so strange how us humans are ruining our own future. We've advanced so far in technology that we might all end up jobless eventually. It's pretty scary.

[@GoddessOfThree]

I'm only about halfway through the video, so I'll edit this comment if I feel differently after hearing the rest! I just didn't want to lose my train of thought: I just disagree with one of the arguments in this video. To disclaim, I am overall staunchly on the side of artists. I'm a lifelong hobby artist, so I intimately understand and share in how deeply important art is to artists' lives and often even identities. And while I don't personally stand to be financially impacted by the effects AI has on the art market, I hold empathy/solidarity for artists who do. I have a personal goal of buying from/supporting human artists throughout my life, once I'm out of school and have a stable income. I'm against training AI on pieces without the artist's permission, compensation, or often even knowledge. I'm against exploiting artists via scams like paying less for a sketch to later finish rendering with AI. However, I think all those are completely separate issues to whether someone is inherently "entitled" for using AI. In a situation where someone wants to create something without paying for it or knowing how to do it themselves, and it leads them to feel like other people owe them their labor to make it happen, then THAT is entitled and disrespectful. This is the classic situation that happens all the time where people feel entitled to a particular person's labor for cheap or free. But this is NOT that situation. There is a huuuuuuuge difference between having a right to access something *in general* and feeling like it is actively owed to you. For example, I DO believe that all people have an inherent, natural right to access basic resources like food, clean water, shelter, medical care, etc. But I also agree that this does NOT automatically mean that any given farmer owes anyone else the fruits of their labor. I have a right to eat, but that's not the farmer's problem. If the only possible way to access food is by buying or growing it (which is mostly true for most people), and I'm unable or unwilling to do either, then that sucks for me... but it's not the farmer's problem. It's the same with art, yes? I think we all have a right, as humans, to experience/consume art *in general,* but if the only way to access that art was to buy or make it, then that sucks for us but is not the artists' responsibility to give it to us. But here's the thing that's different about this scenario... that ISN'T the only way to access art. The fact is, even without AI generation, the internet is absolutely drowning in free, publicly available, human-made art. I do not think it's any more "entitled" to forego paying one artist for their art, in favor of consuming a DIFFERENT artist's work they've made available for free. Not any more "entitled" than it would be to wander into an unowned field (if one existed) and take an unowned apple from a tree, instead of going to your local farmer's market to buy one and support them. Is it explicitly good to support artists, local farmers, etc? YES!!! Absolutely, 100x yes. But that doesn't automatically mean that NOT doing so, and pursuing alternative options instead, is explicitly wrong. If I am okay with not getting that specific farmer's apple, or that specific artist's work, then there's nothing inherently wrong with me going elsewhere for a different apple, or a different artist's work, for free. Main point being, I disagree that it's entitled to take advantage of free resources offered to you, just because paid options exist who are now not getting your business. You NEVER owed them your business to begin with, unless you SPECIFICALLY wanted their work. *Now, if no free alternatives existed, that would be a different story, and it would absolutely be entitled to stomp around complaining that no one will gift their labor or its fruits to you.* That's just not what's happening here, though. Like with the animation example (the one that sat wrong with me), you expressed the opinion that if a party can't or won't afford to hire someone or learn to do it themselves, they aren't entitled to create the thing. I STRONGLY disagree with this sentiment, for reasons coming. I can completely understand where it's coming from though, and even 100% agree with it *in the contexts* that it likely stems from, such as the classic scenario of a business not deserving to exist if it can't or won't pay its workers fairly. In that case, there are actual people whose labor is being exploited/stolen. That business doesn't deserve to exist because it *cannot* exist without exploiting that labor. However, I believe this does NOT carry over to businesses that can sustain themselves by implementing newer technology, or literally anything else that decreases the necessary number of workers (e.g. more efficient protocols, cutting operation hours, etc.), as long as they are fairly compensating the workers they do still have. *Basically, expecting someone to give you cheap or free labor is entitled, but choosing not to hire them in the first place is not.* Prior to initiating a working relationship or contract, no one owes anyone their business, nor the offer of employment. Just because you're creating something that has traditionally required hiring a skilled human to work on, doesn't mean that creating that type of thing always and forever inherently comes with a moral obligation to do so. If that necessity no longer exists (as frequently happens when new technology is developed), and a cheaper or even free option now exists, then why would it be explicitly wrong to take advantage of that option? It's not RIGHT, but it's not wrong. Of course the overall trend ends up hurting whole professions, and that majorly sucks (and I do NOT mean that insensitively). As a result, there are people like you and I and the rest of your audience who care, and want to actively support people in the profession. But again, that doesn't mean it's anyone else's inherent moral responsibility to do so... it is not a moral failing on their part to utilize a free option instead of hiring a human they never had any responsibility toward. It would be nice if they did, but they aren't "entitled" for not doing so, any more than the person choosing the free wild apple over buying the farmer's market apple is. So to reiterate, AI art generators suck. They suck for a lot of reasons, and I've agreed with literally every other one I've ever heard you talk about! I just don't think "entitlement" is one of them, and the reason I cared enough to comment about it is because the extended implications in this context make me uncomfortable. In a context where there's just an entity minding their own business trying to make a thing, and wanting to take advantage of already-available free resources to do it (i.e. not exploiting or feeling entitled to a specific creator's labor/work), I feel uncomfortable with the insinuation that they're entitled for not doing more to "earn" it (because that's the logical alternative implication of this argument, if it's not that we inherently owe artists our business). In this very specific context, it feels more like a boomer talking about the sanctity of work ethic and how people don't deserve to have anything, including basic survival necessities, if we don't work hard enough to "earn" it. As if there's some cosmic force arbiting whether we've worked hard enough to deserve a thing. No, this doesn't sit right with me. No one's keeping track of what we've worked/paid enough to morally "deserve" in this life. I take these things on a case-by-case basis. If you want a thing and the only way to get it is to obtain it from someone else, either fairly or unfairly, then you'd better get it fairly or not get it at all. But if there are other options, such as other people (or technology) choosing to provide it for free, then who made the rule that it's wrong to take advantage of those options? Who decided that we need to pay or work for every single thing even if that means observing a self-imposed moralistic barrier, when we never specifically owed anyone for it in the first place? Who's keeping track, and whose business is it, anyway? Sorry that was basically an essay of my own, again I had to just get it out, and before my ADHD brain purged it all by the end of the video lol. Again, overall, AI = bad, paying artists = good 😂 Just for every other reason *but* this one, in my personal opinion. Okay gonna finish the video now, then come edit if/as needed~ Edit: Yep, still agree with everything else you said to the end 🥰

[@deborahfaithsimonson9126]

I strongly agree everything they said in the video. This needs to stop.

[@skeeter3136]

i've been drawing for 7 years now and just this year i've gotten to the level where i'm happy with my art and AI art just pisses me off i hate AI with a burning passion i learned how to draw because of my friends they inspired me and with AI ppl can't be inspired or want to learn art

[@McJorneil]

You're better off just continuing to work on your art and ignore whatever the AI folks are doing. That's what I do anyway and it works for me.

[@anony_apis]

If somebody went to an artist and said “hey i have __ idea!” and the artist draws it, does that make the person with the idea art? no! Also also whats happening with jobs is like this quote: First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out-because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out-because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me. -Martin Niemöller

[@Lufleee]

So many of these arguments are also used to justify piracy. I am a writer and draw for a hobby. People have said to me it is okay for them to download e-books for free because they wouldn't have purchased them anyways. But they still feel entitled to have them. I used to say "then you shouldn't have it" but I your point why is really good tbh

[@Lufleee]

@@ThatZenoGuy I strongly disagree

[@Lufleee]

@@ThatZenoGuy I mean, if it makes you happy pirating people's work go off I guess. I don't see how I'm wrong for appreciating the efforts of artists who are just trying to make a living instead of feeling entitled to their work for free.

[@mumudacow9770]

"Ai lets everyone do art!" Everyone could already do art to begin with??? All you have to do is draw something. It doesn't have to be a masterpiece, you just have to make it. It's still art either way.

[@NerbPrincess]

THIS! 100%

[@NerbPrincess]

@@ThatZenoGuy but art doesn't have to be a masterpiece to be art?

[@colebehnke7767]

@@NerbPrincessyes, but people want particular types of art that they are currently incapable of making themselves, so they use Ai to do it.

[@NerbPrincess]

@colebehnke7767 ai takes the fun out of it? Plus it's kinda rasict because I kept trying to make a tan character when I experimented with it and she came out either milky white or overly smexy everytime. Literally, you can just learn or commission an artist and not have to deal with something so hollow and soulless.

[@mumudacow9770]

@@colebehnke7767 I can understand that but in my opinion it feels a lot more accomplishing and refreshing to make it yourself.

[@KrillixKai]

I do hate that AI had to start out so strong with smearing art value. Why couldn't AI open up with something... helpful... not faux creative?

[@WingWong]

It did start with something useful.... - text and info capture from images - noise reduction - intelligent or context based fill - face detection - face fixing - ai powered image scaling - ai powered image detail refinement - ai powered video and image restoration - ai powered background removal - ai powered subject removal - ai powered restoration of blurred images from different kinds of blur effects etc. etc. There were lots of use cases that AI opened up with... throughout the last several decades. Most people couldn't care less. Well.. nix that. People DID care... and people DID complain. It's just that people outside of their domains didn't care. For example... intelligent context fills... that strikes at the heart of the job of retouchers and photoshoppers. Huge debates spawned about it. But these were mostly in photography and photoshop oriented forums. Same debates sprung up when the face fixing tech came about. The scaling and image detail enhancement had stock photo agencies up in arms because it would dilute their quality.. but they never even knew that they had been accepting AI scaled content for years. Image and video restoration.. that impacted another field of people who focused on restoration and transcoding of tape to digital. etc. _This_ particular OMG event is because it impacts _this_ particular group of people. The same is true of LLM(s) and other AI tech. For instance... who is going to go after Google and Microsoft for whatever it is they used to train their language models on? Or the ASIC manufacturers who use AI for their ASIC and IC design? Has anyone checked to see if all of their training datasets were actually owned by them? I'm sure there was a big event there when it came out. But that is a different group of folks. :) On and on. The current generation of LLM(s) has more people freaked out because it has reached a level where it can greatly simplify or force people to rethink their jobs. Datascience is a big area and LLM(s) have been in use for a long while. It's just that _now_ it's easy to use. :) What other fields... material science, super conducting formulas, star field analysis, cancer analysis, radar analysis for the identification of lost non-natural objects, targetting systems, agriculture planning, genetic research, etc. I know whenever I mentioned it to folks, the response was always something like, "meh. that's just for _that_ use case. Not like it will ever get close to doing what I do. lulz" You know that scene in the movie 2012 and Woody's character is standing on a hill watching the explosion? kzbin.info/www/bejne/gHiomIeOqKyChs0 I think we're in that general vicinity with regards to AI right now.

[@Okami82]

I couldn't agree more. I've been drawing since I was a child, art was always democratized, everyone has a paper and a pencil at home, if those AI bros weren't lazy they could've just went get a pencil and watched a video and they would've learned! I recently entered an art college and before entrance I was so fucking scared that I would feel remorce and end up without a job because of what's happening with AI, I can't say that this feeling haven't gone away but, being surrounded with other artists and seeing how hard we work everyday made me more motivated to keep on creating. Even if everyone ends up using AI, I as an artist will always keep on making art even if it means I'm the only one making it Thank you for sharing your opinion so openly, it really helps to see other people fight against AI

[@a_me_1]

It's so frustrating, it feels kind of impossible to do anything about it too which is horrible. People are pretty heartless towards eachother they just don't care until it affects them. It bothers me that art is not valued they say it's talent and ignore the practice. I've had people say, Oh I wish I had time for that. When they go out drinking, go on dates, watch netflix and have extra work shifts to pay for brand name products. If you dropped a few of those things you'd have time for it too... I just choose to prioritise different things. Everyone always just expects you to draw stuff for them too and have no idea the effort that actually goes into it..😓

[@traditur_]

Artists have been screwed for centuries, it's nothing i'm not used to.

[@JDslushieking]

[⚠️TW: talk of unaliving.⚠️]. I seriously feel that if the world is taken over by AI as in it taking all our jobs I would just kms. Like what would my purpose even be any more? Why should I be a writer singer and artist if people don’t value it enough to pay me fair wages and would rather have AI do it?

[@sharklovrr]

honestly, the general public seems to have a negative view of ai right now, so i think that would stop it from being able to advance too far (or at least be widely accepted as a replacement for human art.) i truly believe there will always be people who appreciate real art created by other humans.

[@ASusBlondMan]

I believe that there will not only always be hand crafted art appreciators (even in digital mediums), but I also believe that AI assisted tools will come into play that are more like the current digital tools we have right now. Those tools would help artists stay relevant and even preferred over AI mashed potato generation, especially since we've got some rulings out there already stating that art generated by ai is not eligible for copyright without significant human contribution. We definitely need to make sure we don't decide that feeding people's work into AI without permission is an accepted practice though. That creates a workaround that completely destroys copyright protections of people's hard work

[@LZCleric]

I'ma be honest, a big part of me wants the acceleration to not slow down or halt, it wants it to reach it's logical conclusion in the fastest span possible, even better if it's within a year, so the consequences of the actions that the ideallistic techbros are trying to achieve are met with the reality that utopia can NEVER be achieved, no matter the model they use because of human nature, they're way too blindsided by both greed and lack of foresight to see the bigger picture. I'm just...tired of everything happening, that's just all.

[@BarKeegan]

This is why I’d recommend reading Lynne Kelly’s books, Memory Code and Memory Craft. An amazing insight into how ancient art was used to facilitate memorising encyclopaedic levels of knowledge by our ancestors. So when a solar flare takes out the world’s electronics, we’ll be prepared 😊

[@Swe3t_Coffe3]

AI is so infuriating, and it's especially annoying how people seem to get so big-headed about it. It's fun to mess with, don't get me wrong, and good for art studies, but it honestly sucks if you're trying to get into the creative industry. Also, great video Glue Best Filibuster!

[@kiwilittle_]

I just hope the whole ai art thing is just a trend and hope that these people will get bored and move onto the next trending thing like the nft stuff. But then again they are two different things so who know at this point

[@Urmumlel7025]

I literally used to be so afraid to do art until I started to practice. I became decent over one summer. In the immortal words of Keilin Quinn, "IT'S TIME TO FACE YOUR FEAR!!!!!!!" I'm also not gonna try to defend Corridor as a company but, their anime video was sourced from their own database with art that they made on their own. If anything, they used AI to impose their own art onto movements actively doing rotoscope in real time. They actually had to draw things from scratch like everyone else with AI being used as nothing mroe than a tool.

[@Tiredarsonist]

istg its like us artists can't get a single break. we had the NFT thing, tracing and now ai. were literally telling people that ai is snatching from other artists and saying its theirs, honestly ai is getting out of control cause has anyone else noticed the absurd amount of ai apps on the play store/apple store??

[@justtired2050]

I disagree with your general position on AI art, but thank you for articulating your argument against this particular aspect of it so clearly. I didn’t fully understand why artists against AI art disagreed with democratization of art in this way, and you made it a lot easier for me to see where you and other artists are coming from

[@kawaiigoomy3487]

AI has not democratized art, it has comodified it.

[@ceinwenchandler4716]

The golden eyes in your drawing are absolutely beautiful. I could stare into them for hours.

[@AlpixRezzie]

calling someone’s argument “non biodegradable” is so funny lol. It’s like saying that bad take is going to stick with them forever and it’s never going away

[@findot777]

I really hope we just stop with AI

[@nicodemus6872]

This is totally off topic, but I wanted to say how happy I am to see creators put channels they recommend/friends in their "channels" section! There's so many creators like yourself I'd love to watch more of, but rarely do people actually utilize the section for anything other than alt channels anymore. So thanks!! :D

[@buseyilmaz7642]

What is you guys' opinion on animation studios possibly using ai to create the in-betweens of their animation to speed up their process? 🤔(I am an AI hater, but I do like it for making some processes just a bit easier rather than fully taking it over)

[@jackfelldown1]

If the creation of digital art didn't make traditional art irrelevant, then I don't think AI art can make the need of human artists unnecessary. People don't work that way. We have diverse preferences, and sure, sometimes we like things when they're easy, but we get bored of such things easily too. Sure, some jobs would be affected, but as a whole, I don't think AI can completely displace all artists. As for humanity, it's already redundant.

[@jcwt_pdx]

I plan to go back to 1993, when art was art. 30 years ago. 😎💜

[@Peachykats]

I don’t comment much but I feel you, I am young and I aspire to be an artist I wanted to be an animator so much I know I’ll never make it due to AI, everything will be AI when I get old enough I assume and I think it will ruin everyone I agree fully with you and hate how people say such things, I personally changed my art style to a simpler one that I can do faster purely so I have a unique style from AI I also kinda feel like it should start to normalize simpler art just so we artists don’t get confused for AI

[@Morhamms357]

Art gets democratized every day and has been for maybe a hundred years or so. Art has been democratized ever since everyone could afford a box of pencils and a stack of papers. Yet still, it gets MORE democratized. We now have digital completely free and accessible ways to paint paintings, make animations, or even render 3D models. Or even better, we now have an infinite depth of resources on HOW to learn how to do any of these things. Anybody of any social status or background can get into art if they so choose, and more complex things will become democratized. AI isn't that. Simply because you're not making the drawing. The AI is making the drawing. "AI artist" is an oxymoronic name, and real artists will always have their place. Well, let's just hope the employers can agree with that, which they won't.

[@MichaelisMoshu]

The most disgusting thing I see with the popularization of ai image generators is the decay of culture. It's replacing artists, it's replacing voice actors (taking a valuable part of their identity, their voice), it's replacing writers, actors, coders, heck it's even starting to replace lawyers who specialize in contracts where they're being hired to write contracts to feed the machine that is supposed to take their job. And worst of all it's literally weakening culture. The basis of human cultural development has ALWAYS been through telling stories, something that most people aren't doing anymore. It's essentially programing younger generations to stop using critical thinking. And that's a dangerous and depressing concept to think about. All for the sake of a corporate tech bubble to line the pockets of shareholders. What a world.

[@bluethebunnylord9274]

Here’s the thing with AI, they can only predict the predictable and and are programmed to react to predictable events. But an AI unlike a human are never programmed to handle the unpredictable. Say you have an AI flying a plane, they can only react to emergencies that are common and known how to handle. But say something like the Reeve Aleutian Airways Flight 8 incident happens where the propeller flies off and slices the belly of the plane and the flight controls, would an AI know how to react in that specific situation? Or like the AI surgeon, what if during a surgery it is discovered that the patient has a rare disorder that completely changes the entire way the procedure needs to be done? Would an AI know how to act in that very specific situation that they were not programmed to do? No, only a human would be able to know exactly what needs to be done in that specific scenario because they as a human actually knows what is going on, and what needs to be done. Hopefully this makes sense

[@shaman50900]

It kinda makes think about the fact, that it's the human art that actually insires us to analyze, admire and create art. With Ai it's just mix of other people's works with no vision of it's own. No matter how detailed the promt will be it won't actually be of any intelluctual value, since you weren't the one expressing whatever you had in mind. And as mentioned in the video any industry can be the next in line for such fate, it would be kinda miserable to live in a world where there is nothing actually created by humans.

[@zuzugaki]

I don't feel the same anxiety towards AI art, but that is only because I don't view my studies and my artistic adventure as a means to someday profit or turn into an actual job, so the AI can't replace my internal satisfaction from trying out my hand at arts. But hearing the thoughts of someone who actually lives through their art and suffers the impacts of AI, it makes me realize how terrifying it is to see technology trying to replace your career. I wonder if hobby artists like myself, who don't see art as a career, should be doing more to push back against it as well...

[@GBomberFlora]

I totally agree. You're preaching to the choir. This whole AI situation poses a frightening precedent for the future...

[@ojiilemon]

Imagine walking up to a barista at Starbucks and saying you want a Frappuccino even though you have no money. You’d be laughed out of the store. And we can and should start laughing and shaming people who are pro ai

[@smc9098]

The first thought that came to my mind on robots doing surgery, is sadness. A person's life will be at the hands of an algorithm.

[@LJXrot]

with every new video i grow more pessimistic for the future, just when I'm starting to make money, just when I'm doing things I've wanted to do since i was young, this shit comes around. i kinda wish i was born earlier and was a digital artist around the 2000s than 2010s

[@chevgage6210]

None of these people were EVER going to buy art and the people who can afford it still will because AI is too flawed for their needs. Wasting energy on people who were never going to be a useful contributor to the community is undue stress so try not to let it get to you

[@TylPhumin]

So I don't know what exactly that "Democratize" means in this context, so I don't have an opinion about AI art calling it that BUT lots of your arguments seem really flawed to me (in the sense that they are hypocritical/double standard-y) If I understood correctly,, "democratize" means to make available/accessible for the general public, and for example tutorials (video/website/etc) already does that. But, only because on thing is doing it, doesn't mean the other thing is also doing the same? (not saying it is, just questioning it) 5:26 agree, ppl who don't do art are not artists. So if the AI does art, the AI is an artist. (not the person giving the commission/idea (aka prompts)) 5:55 I'd argue there are a lot more jobs that are not (at least in the near future) automatable. Only because those task might include things as plumbers and the ppl that change a light bulb on a tower that signal to planes, and those tend to be the "not so desirable jobs" doesn't mean there are none. Also, it doesn't take away from anyone to be able to learn or do art. You can still do it. Or what? Are you now getting lazy because you might not be able to do it for money? 6:34 yea it might be. probably also was when the "industrial revolution" happened. ppl adapted and kept living tho. im not sure if you are talking about "art as an artist" or "art as a worker(job)". 6:55 disagree. The aai is only the tool to do what ever idea (creativity?) the one putting in the prompt has. Skill, technique, knowledge etc has nothing to do with creativity. 7:07 disagree, there is no need for creativity to create art. (tho might be a question of the definition of art). 8:32 thin line with that "entitlement" topic. first of all, I agree younger generation feel entitled to have everything available for free. (which was not your point/waht u said, just sayin'). BUT I am asking you, how many "free" things do you actually use without paying or working FOR it? KZbin maybe? did you ever use google? alt he information you find on the internet? Did u ever go out and learn all those things? research them? made physics or chemical experiments to get "basic information"? or do you exclusively use paid services to get any information at all. Even like, weather forecast?. Entitlement is also, feeling entitled to make money off of a skill you have learned (aka art in this case). Even if there is AI, noone is stopping you from doing art. If you are good enough in art(and marketing probably?), you may even continue to make money with it. If not, I guess time to "not be lazy" and learn something new, to make money in another way. 8:57 by that logic, if I have a nail that needs hammering in, but i don't have a hammer at hand. Instead of using the next best object in range to hammer it in, i should go through the the trouble of going out, spending money on a hammer, going back and using the hammer instead (instead of being creative and using something available to me). 9:50 with that logic: if you are unable to (aka to lazy to learn) all the necessary skills to make all the tech required and code all the code required, to create a video hosting platform (including internet, servers, hardware, software, etc.) then whatever you have to say/show, should not be on the internet at all. Since you are to lazy to learn all the tech stuff, the best you might be able to do, is go to your local market place and shout what ever you have to say in public. Maybe take a bell with you, if you have learned how to make one, so you are qualified to use it to garner attention. 9:37 I rly find it harsh that use "aren't willing" and "lazy". there are tons of reasons why something CANNOT be done or learned. but I guess I shouldn't be talking, I'm also harsh x: 11:47 agree, if u want a service, u have to pay for that service accordingly. But you can also chose who you want to the service from. If one prefers AI X art over your art, then that's that. If my budget only allows AI X art and now urs, than thats that. If whatever fits my needs better than your service, then I will chose the other one. If I want to drink I quick coffee, I will gladly chose the one gotten by clicking on a button, than one where a woman first has to do the beans, and boil the water, and let it drip and what not, until i get my coffee. So if you don't want to be replaced by automation, than whatever you offer needs to be better (can be quality, can be price/quality ration, whatever it is) more attractive, than whatever AIs can do. If not, u might need to learn new, different skills. Ya know, similar to, how the ppl who got replaced by machines in factories, are now the ones repairing the machines, or so. 12:34 this sounds super salty in my opinion. but lets compare. so, are you not using a plane, but swimming to the other side of the earth instead, because you did not do anything to learn about planes and flying and everything needed? or is the argument "well i paid for the ticket". So if someone pays for an AI art gen subscription, they also pay for it, no? or heck, if they pay someone for AI art on fiverr, they also bought it no? 12:56 u mean the team of animators that is generally underpaid/overworked and drops dead? 13:53 so TLTW, you don't feel needed anymore? 14:03 By that logic: artists within for example anime and game studios are required to draw in a certain style and draw pre determined things, that has nothing to do with creativity and "what is what a human artist is" nothing more than "factory" work in the end. also commissions make u also not an artist anymore, as someone else tells u what to draw 14:21 even if 2 ppl with the same skills and experience see the same thing, they won't necessarily see the same thing. And considering such a 100% matchup isn't possible anyways, so that doesn't exist in the first place. Also an artists "intention" and whatever they wanna express and what not doesn't mean shit to the general public/layman anyways. even before AI art, who cared about the purpose of that sunflower of van gogh? almost noone. Majority of ppl are only interested in the end product. Is it aesthetically pleasing? useful for whatever they need it for? affordable? etc. TLDR: Entitlement goes both ways and I prefer applying the same rules equaly. So I disagree with a lot things you said, purely on a logical basis.

[@meat3958]

Bro is waffling so hard 💀

[@jhuh24]

You misunderstood her point about animators, generally many Japanese artists took inspiration from diseney's animation style and other American and Japanese styles. She was not talking about the litteral process of an animation studio, she was referencing how animation got its look. So weather it's the art director or the writter. They still took inspiration.

[@caryonplays9024]

So, if I don't know how to configure an Android, I should hire a guy to use my phone? Oh boy, thank God they democratized tech.

[@ASusBlondMan]

There's some views in this video I don't entirely agree with either, but also a lot I do agree with. At least in the context that the ai currently is using unethically sourced materials. @TylPhumin "BUT I am asking you, how many "free" things do you actually use without paying or working FOR it? KZbin maybe? did you ever use google? alt he information you find on the internet?" There's an expectation of users and visitors to be exposed to ads and potentially click on them in exchange for that use, and the sites get paid by advertisers, so it's not exactly the same. You can argue that yeah, sure, it's still basically free. However, the point is their work isn't being used in a way that denies their economic reward for their work. Unless they're using ad blockers on those sites, then yeah you can say it's entitled and hypocritical. Which is the issue with current AI art generators and the artists who's hundreds of millions to billions of hours of hard work went into them, only to have the value of their work get absolutely destroyed by that use because the generators are designed to compete with and outright replace it all in the market, all while the devs profit off all of the artists' hard work instead. The whole moral point of copyright is to protect the economic reward for people's hard work, creativity, and ingenuity, in order to encourage more of it. AI being used this way destroys the economic reward for those who's hard work was taken, and rewards those who take advantage of other people's work instead of doing it themselves. Fair Use is only meant to come into play if the taking advantage of other's work doesn't rob them of the reward. AI will just get better and be able to do the same with other fields as time goes on. Either we hold the devs responsible for their unfair use of other's work that is harming the original creators, or we set a precedent for AI to be a bypass to copyright law that renders copyright's protection for any and all intellectual works completely useless from now on, and fuck over a lot of the honest, hardest, and most passionate working people in our society.

[@wl-o8197]

With the corridor crew video the entire point of it was show what AI can do, not just to make a animated movie It was basically an experiment and exploring what AI could do, they didn't make it so they can say they made a movie

[@OnyxGalaria]

finally someone says it. also a tad bit unrelated, but i wanna share my experience with this i've noticed a trend on a game platform [wont name names] where some assets like icons and thumbnails were made with AI. i brought it up in the forums and expressed my concerns copyright wise. the replies were mixed, but some beat my ass. i was basically told that i was "anti-progress" and "but ai can generate code and textures so uh,,," the anti-progress remark is bull nuts. i'm all for progress, but the way the generators are "progressing" rn isn't looking good. as someone who got a lot of sales on that platform when i accepted that platforms' currency, it hurts.

[@rubymoon72]

I blame a part of this ai problem is the unstable mess of the economy and inflation. Like if the economy is good and fair, people will pay artist more for art.

[@JamesTDG]

5:00 honestly, we have hit peak democratization already, AI literally is 50+ steps backwards for democratizing skill.

[@carultch]

And it's not like artists have actively worked against democratizing art. Plenty of artists offer online lessons completely for free for the general public to watch, and would have no problem giving one-on-one guidance to people who ask.

[@ElloFantasy]

AI "art" has really been a blow to my creative side. Many many times I just wonder what's the point anymore and I've been drawing for all my life. I loved it, but every time I go online to see what other people have made, I see so much AI garbage and I feel my chest tighten and all motivation to improve just goes out the window. I hate it so much. Art is supposed to be something that cultures share with one another, it's supposed to be something to bring people together with their interests. But AI is hollow...and makes me lose more hope in the future of humanity. Artists are going to lose their jobs because businesses are going to want to use cheaper methods, and what's cheaper than AI? And art is only the surface, machines are taking over the job force and there's no way to stop it. I can only imagine that in the future the only jobs humans are going to be able to have are jobs that involve repairing robots or AI, which could eventually be self-sufficient. I realize this is a huge "conspiracy theory" crap thing. But it just seems more and more plausible with how much we're replacing the things that humans love to do..