The AI art situation

Original video: • Getting musical inspir...
Scott's screen recording: • The Book of Chances ar...

[@robscallon]

We are very lucky to have Andrew Huang everybody.

[@SubTheHan]

And even luckier to have you and him in sonic boom ❤

[@Raven11287]

He will too be replaced soon by Ai musicians.

[@WhizPill]

The dude is one of the most talented artist I know

[@tiltman_420]

We love both of you. More Sonic Boom soon I hope

[@liamjjg]

You and Andrew have taught me so much!

[@samlilymusic]

Can't believe Andrew Huang just started a video with "Hey everyone" instead of the usual "Hey it's Andrew Huang *hwpshh*"

[@grindedfranz]

because he knows he might be in trouble for using AI

[@chiefmief9616]

@@grindedfranz Why should he? There is no chance that users of AI models are getting sued for that. Especially if the result is highly modified.

[@Edward256]

When he doesn't do the slap, then it is a very serious topic.

[@RoarTheRapper]

You know how many people would argue he’s not taking the matter seriously if he started off with his chipper intro?

[@hologram.444]

@@grindedfranz in trouble with who? the internet AI police? he's doing the people who are whining about AI a favor by respecting their perspective.

[@IronxIx]

AI relationship status: It's complicated.

[@WhizPill]

Yup 😴

[@lexruptor]

It's really not though. People just on that recreational outrage.

[@ToyKeeper]

Copyright in general needs major reform, and AI is part of that mess. Copyright was originally just 14 years -- long enough for the creator to get reasonable compensation for their work, but short enough for the work to enter public domain while it's still relevant enough to do some good for society as a whole. I think we should go back to that, and maybe even make it shorter. Maybe I'm biased since I've spent my life making open-source software, but derivative works are not a bad thing. Rather, standing on the shoulders of giants is how almost all progress is made. Our copyright system is holding everyone back.

[@d3tuned378]

@@ToyKeeper Agreed our copyright system in the US is terrible. And hypocritical if you look at things like disney.

[@mk1st]

@@ToyKeeper Right, the rise of the patent trolls has made it so that only companies with large armies of lawyers can make it.

[@hitherescotty]

I’m not an artist, I’m a musician. But my main takeaway from this video is that Andrew is a really insanely nice guy. What a good dude. He described the situation, presented what evidence he had, defended his decision in choosing an artist, apologized for how it offended some people, and turned this small instance into a deeper discussion about how the world interacts with art and media in general. Most people would have put up an obligatory twitlonger and moved on. This wasn’t even on my radar and yet Andrew did a 20+ min video about it. Kudos man. I like you even more now

[@PKCubed]

Really missing the clap today.

[@Fl4ppers]

The cream really cleared it up.

[@d3tuned378]

You can go sit on a truckstop toilet seat and roll the dice

[@squarelanguage]

An 808 clap or a real clap?

[@SotonyaAcckaya]

I recently posted a link to an art piece of a girl with a bike and ppl started to throw accusations of using AI to draw a bike since the bike design was very unconventional. Thing is, bike was 100% drawn by hand, in some parts rather lazy hand) and if you have even basic understanding how a CG painting works you'd see that this was done by hand, yet ppl see what they perceive as an unconventional and somewhat artificial - and they think of AI and start this recreational outrage. I had by fair share of fun posting photo of a real bike of this design and explaining how painting strokes work, yet i felt somewhat sad that ppl cant even understand what is AI and what is just mistake, art style or even just an weird design.

[@sallylauper8222]

I think Hieronomus Bosh and Pablo Picasso used AI alot.

[@KINNZ94]

@@SotonyaAcckaya 😂😂😂 recreational outrage.. see so much of it nowadays.

[@brantwedel]

Ha, interestingly, a good AI would draw a very conventional bike, since that's what is trained on. Unless you give it a very creative prompt

[@jarperhones5364]

Bike nerd here. What sort of bike was it?

[@jameshasseriousedoubtsabou560]

Recreational outrage is such a good term. You are so right

[@paulsmallmusic]

Recently got a gig from a big NGO who are working on educational programs. They ordered a video to motivate high schoolers to go become teachers from a very popular production company. The company decided to make a music video and write a song for it so they addressed me for music production and mixing. They gave me a reference so I can create an instrumental similar to that. Okay I done it a hundred times so no problem. Then they started looking for an artist to perform the vocals. A dozen recording sessions. We tried a few but the client wasn’t happy. So the project was on hold for a month. Then the production company generated a dozen of different versions of the track in Udio. And the client finally loved one version. I was asked to only edit the generated mp3. They even left the ai generated voice in the final version. And everyone was happy with the result. I don’t like the future.

[@supermot34]

Seemed like a positive story to me. Solution was not forthcoming until AI was used which solved the problem

[@wavehellhole]

@@paulsmallmusic sounds like the customer got what they wanted in the end because you couldn’t provide it. what point are you trying to make? that you’re bad at your job?

[@paulsmallmusic]

@@supermot34 it solved the problem in the eyes of the “people in suits” who couldn’t communicate correctly what they wanted. I did every version exactly the way they asked me but after hearing it they came up with absolutely different concepts every time. Yes I am happy to recommend generative AI to clients like this, when it can give them a hundred of versions with little to no expenses. No I am not happy with the result. Music and art is a way of interpersonal communication. And when on one end there is no person, who are you communicating with?

[@paulsmallmusic]

@@wavehellhole I am not bad at my job :) Imagine you get a task from the client with a clear reference and invest hours of your work to fulfill it. You send them over the result, they do a meeting and a manager comes back to you saying we decided that it doesn’t really fit the vibe can you change it *insert nonsensical metaphorical explanation what to change*. You do your best to interpret this, spend more hours working and come up with second version. They do a meeting again and some executive didn’t like it and shows the team a completely different reference. They come back to say that you need to redo everything to be similar to the new reference… and it drags for weeks. Then someone generates a few dozen versions using an AI and the client finally seems happy for the first time. In my opinion the public won’t connect to aomething fully generated. But the “people in suits” are happy with it. So we just populate our media space and culture with bland and empty content this way. And of course the professionals like me are going to suffer. Because ROI of working with AI in such projects is higher.

[@Cyrribrae]

Yea. You can hear the shortcomings that they can not (and maybe we will as a society learn to do so over time too). And the result is certainly not a reflection of you as an artist that things just didn't come together this time. They came to you for a reason in the first place. The frustration is so understandable. At least let you re-record it better. But.. people are allowed to like the art that they like, even for dumb reasons. If they loved it, then they loved it. And it seems you didn't lose out financially per se either. I do, however, worry about the next time. Where they may not give humans a chance at all. Not because of the result, because I think they'll do what they have to do. But because of the financial stability of the industry. But. That's really too big picture to extrapolate from just one example. And doom mongering helps no one.

[@JadeWave]

I hope everyone sees the end bit at 19:54 before commenting. It's a genuinely virtuous action Andrew, very class, and it means a lot.

[@lolilollolilol7773]

For those who still didn't want to watch: 1) he will refund those who ordered and want it 2) the art of the next batch will be completely remade without any use of AI 3) the benefits will be entirely donated to a charity for young artists and marginalized people in Toronto Indeed a class act.

[@schoclatesouce3784]

I think a lot of people commenting here either don't want to hear a nuanced take or didn't watch the full video. As an artist myself who is against AI I think this response was mature and reasonable. Thank you for addressing it honestly.

[@TheyBroughtBackStupidHandles]

Nah, he said he would still want to use it in the future if people stopped caring as much. He doesn't actually care about the negative implications, he just cares about the backlash. And he's just focusing on images, he'll probably sound very different when AI music gets better.

[@tusharjamwal]

the comments I am reading don't seem to fit with what you must have seen when you wrote this. Actually, just now I scrolled all the way down to the end and none of the comments come off as that. The opposite seems to be true.

[@crnkmnky]

@@tusharjamwal Try sorting by Newest, and see if any different comments show up. I guess I'll look for myself… _edit:_ oh, it's over 400 already? 😬

[@schoclatesouce3784]

@@tusharjamwal I've seen plenty of people being quick to disregard the points Andrew is making here because of how passionately they feel against AI art, and to be honest I don't think it's completely unwarranted behavior, but I disagree with not hearing Andrew out because their response does not 100% align with their view... and especially going as far as trashing them or the artist they hired. To me that kind of flippant approach is not conducive to a discussion worth having.

[@nuxx1876]

​@@crnkmnky even then sorting by newest seems to mostly give levelheaded responses and critiques

[@martinhanson4281]

Deep respect. In the face of inflammatory heated comments you took the time to create a video that put forward your thoughts and response with amazing grace and sensitivity. The fact of the matter though is that you hired and paid an actual artist and let him do his thing. You have nothing to apologize for in my mind. I actually like the art work. The fact that you are donating the proceeds to charity says a lot about your character. Thanks for being who you are Andrew. I appreciate you very much.

[@mdsuen]

I agree! Despite my worry about AI taking away future jobs in my field of illustration and concept art, this was a very well thought out explanation, respectful of both sides. Great job, Andrew.

[@SethCrowderMusic]

Seriously though

[@martinhanson4281]

@@SethCrowderMusic Seriously, if you are going to comment then at least make a point. Even though Andrew was flamed he went on to make an informative and engaging video that was not only educational but also enjoyable to watch. He made thought provoking valid points. Something that maybe you should learn to do?

[@Ginger_bit]

The fact you recognize there is more to the ethicality of utilizing AI than taking a hardline stance, means that ironically you're probably more well informed than half of the people who are strictly pro- or anti- AI anything.

[@xn4pl]

I mean, it's not a very high bar to reach. You need to research the topic for like 30 minutes and you'll already be more informed than half the people taking the stand on the issue. Most people online like to just talk without any research or contemplation on the issue.

[@TwigTrig]

@@xn4pl it gets more funny when those kind of people tell you to do research yet haven't done any themselves

[@ToyKeeper]

Copyright was originally just 14 years. Long enough for the creator to get reasonable compensation for their work, but short enough for the work to enter public domain while it's still relevant enough to do some good for society as a whole. I think we should go back to that model, and maybe even make it shorter. Derivative works are not a bad thing. Rather, standing on the shoulders of giants is how almost all progress is made. Our excessive copyright system is holding everyone back.

[@DanknDerpyGamer]

I''d go a step further: Retroactively apply that 14 year duration to existing works based on their publishing date, so anything that is older than (publishing date + 14) is public domain like it was supposed to be.

[@ToyKeeper]

@@DanknDerpyGamer I agree. It'd probably need a phase-in period though, like every month the cutoff date moves up by a year until it's caught up.

[@johnboldt1452]

This is a very mature response. Out of all of the ways this could go, I think this is the most surprising and also the most positive one. 10/10 confidence restored :D

[@WhizPill]

The commenters yelling insults are the immature ones

[@ziwuri]

ngl I would've been much more surprised if Andrew had turned out to be a stalwart defender of generative AI

[@willybe6427]

very mature but short sighted... Dall-E image generator was available when he first contacted this artist, there's a good chance the artists he hired was always using AI.. "the style they use is now associated with AI these days" like man.....c'mon... your artist was just ALWAYS using it..

[@Zugzug2011]

@@willybe6427 Maybe, admittedly I wasn't as keyed in on the AI scene back in 1/2021, but looking at historical stuff people saved off it doesn't look like that flavor of AI was nearly as impressive as what we've had access to over the past couple of years. That might have been a lot harder to just pass off as professional artwork.

[@PureJadeKid]

​@@willybe6427 This attitude is shows the ignorance of the haters. In 2021 the tools were nowhere near this good. The tools have improved substantially in the last 36 months and anyone who doesn't know that demonstrates their lazy knee-jerk reaction is just that. If you think that making these large models illegal would solve the problem, think again. People can just use their downloaded "now illegal" Stable Diffusion models and hide that fact. So instead of being open about the use of AI, people would have to be secretive about it. But it would never eliminate the use of the tools.

[@yakkocmn]

I appreciate you making this video and I respect the nuance in "two things can be true at the same time" and wanting to be optimistic about the future of tech, but I think where the conversation (and some of your points) get muddy is in the nebulous terminology of the word "AI" - which is a fault of both internet debates and aggressive corporate branding. I think the productivity tools you mentioned for work like rotoscoping & subtitling can assist editors without taking control or agency away, and it's always exciting to see new software speed up a mundane task or assist with the process, but despite these tools sometimes needing to be "trained," they are in a vastly different realm from the "generative AI" that people take issue with in the Book of Chances (and in general). As you mentioned with current court cases, it is a moral issue at the moment rather than a legal one, but when the core value of these tools in the eyes of their developers and corporate users is to train off of other peoples' works to eventually replace the human effort and touch, they are not tools that many artists are interested in engaging with or supporting. You're right that we've never seen anything like this before, but that's also why the conversation is so heated - many technological advancements you mentioned in music either aren't related to the actual "creation" (digital streaming services) or have made creativity more accessible... they don't cut artists out of the process. As a video editor, rotoscoping helps me make a cool scene in After Effects, but I have little interest in loading a script into one of the new "online AI editors" and having it spit out a finished product with an AI voice and amalgamated motion graphics. This isn't to say generative AI has zero possible positive uses, but with the way it is currently being implemented, it's hard to give it the benefit of the doubt. "No ethical consumption under capitalism" also doesn't feel like a fair way to dismiss concerns about these tools. Just because products that have become integral to our daily lives are entangled with unethical practices doesn't mean concerns about new technologies should be ignored. And none of this has even delved into the environmental cost, which is... a separate can of worms.

[@TheCreativeNick]

So glad you mentioned the difference between rotoscoping tools vs generative AI. Generative AI will just generate the entire "artpiece" for you, cutting you out of the whole process entirely. Rotoscoping is simply a small part of the final result that requires a lot of manual labor and little creativity compared to other aspects of video-editing.

[@spanzotab]

Agree with you big time on the way "AI" gets used in language to describe things that aren't nearly as ethically questionable as image/music generators. I think the economic frenzy around AI right now is really really bad, and the legality stuff needs to be resolved sooner rather than later. That being said, I think there is a possible world where creative people can use generative AI in a way that doesn't infringe upon the rights of fellow creatives. No one is beholden to that right now, but some people can use what we currently have ethically, I believe.

[@gavcanflip]

Fully agree

[@gavcanflip]

Fully agree, except that the environmental cost can not be a separate can of worms, it HAS to be in the same really big can of worms

[@Yin2Falcon]

good to see you on this yakko :)

[@samlilymusic]

I got harassed by some dude online the other day who was accusing me of using AI to write one of my songs, this guy was hurling insults at me in my comment section and sending super offensive private messages...

[@lauracanela8547]

I got accused of using ChatGPT. I don't even have ChatGPT. The harassing that's the scary thing! No issue with disagreeing, and different perspectives on things, but witch hunts are so scary and divisive.

[@officialcbyt]

This reminds me of a Reddit post I saw a while ago (Post was by user u/rjln109) They showed their dad Porter Robinson's latest single 'Russian Roulette', but because of the influx of AI (and the very basic chord progression used in the song), he thought it was AI It's just really sad that people accuse each other of using AI without actually doing any research

[@Querez8504]

Well, did you?

[@Rabieshund]

@@Querez8504 Doesn't matter, let people use whatever tools they want. No one should be harassed over something like that. Discussion is good, but if people are so insecure about their own music making that they project these types of fears onto others, then maybe they should think about why they are making music/art in the first place, and perhaps also get a bit real with their believes in their own creativity and their ability to grow and develop new skills in a changing landscape. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle.

[@meloncheck]

pea-brained online person probably

[@ShinjiSixteen]

"I'm donating any money from this version, and re-doing the product with no AI involved" Thank you

[@kryptidikettu]

Touching on your description of the AI Copyright Infringement: My personal grief on the matter is that most big AI models use or have derived from Laion 5B, which was made using the "For Research Purposes" exemption in most copyright laws globally (it allows non-profits to side step all copyright protections for research). Then this ready made model was released for free (as is tradition on most research projects) and picked up as-is by a bunch of for-profit companies that used the model to generate profits (sell access to the model to generate images from prompts). What used to be straight up R&D corporate innovation was just suddenly "hey, here's this ready made product they cant sell, lets make money with it". Nowadays the companies have made R&D on their own models, but in the first waves of AI hype, it was super sleazy practice.

[@thecardboardsword]

THIS! Even the fckin AI itself is stolen work most of the time!

[@sprengar]

Fun fact, in December of 2023 Stanford University found Laion 5B was trained on anywhere from one to three thousand images of CSAM. (DOI 10.25740/kh752sm9123 for anyone wondering)

[@balaenopteramusculus]

Good point. Now if everybody also realises that ALL big corporations make tons of money on, for example, public funding and education we can have a real discussion and make some changes.

[@AnimeUniverseDE]

No, the vast majority of AI models still use stolen art, even today. AI is just a grift all the way down

[@Rygulas]

It was true with Laion and is is still true now. Whether it’s “art” transformers, or text transformers, companies are unilaterally scanning the internet for training data whether the scanned sites consent to it or not (with the robots.txt file)

[@BlazertronGames]

I think this is a sane take. There's good things and bad things and it's okay to acknowledge that. So many people seem to be either 100% for or 100% against something, leaving out any nuance. I think what you said about cutting out the boring parts makes a lot of sense. I can see AI being used to generate things like samples, drum hits etc. Someone might adore doing the sound design, making their own drum sounds from scratch. Another person might find that boring and instantly want a sample. But then of course, having a sample generating AI might take the job of sample pack creators. But so could a non-AI plugin that generates drum sounds. It's complicated, and it's too hard to just say AI is "good" or "bad". Although I do think using work without people's permission to train an AI is definitely wrong, and something should be done to prevent that.

[@MyNameIsNeutron]

What about using work without people's permission for non-AI art?

[@BlazertronGames]

@@MyNameIsNeutron I think using something without someone's permission is wrong whether or not it's AI.

[@xn4pl]

@@BlazertronGames If someone used your spoon or toilet I would agree, but if it's digital content that is freely available online and can be infinitely copied without any effect on the original, then I disagree. The only way it would be wrong for them to train AI is if they broke into your home and took your hard drive with your content. If you published it online, you had basically gave away all say if it can be used for training or not. The only thing copyright protects is if your content can be used commercially by others in a non-fair use context, and training AI is completely transformative process that is 120% fair use. And even if someone can use AI to substantially mimic your work it's only copyright infringement if they use it commercially and it's the person who does that is the one liable not the AI itself.

[@_marlene]

I think it's wishy washy & ignores reality. It's a new tool, it will upset the old order, I do feel for the people hurt but it is impossible to regulate on what an AI has been trained. Models can be run locally on a single computer that were trained on copyrighted stuff. It is totally unenforceable to regulate that. It's here to stay.

[@BlazertronGames]

@@_marlene I'm sure it can be regulated for big companies, the ones that are making the most money off of it. Charging for a service where they've used copyrighted stuff without permission is wrong in my opinion, and it's not comparable to denoising software, or AI upscaling, because even if those used copyrighted material to change them, they don't generate an entire creative work from scratch, they just modify a currently existing thing, unlike generative art AI. Might not be possible to stop individuals from doing it, just like how it's not easy to stop piracy, but that doesn't mean regulation is useless. There should be laws, even if they're easy to get away with in my opinion. Just because it's easy to pirate a game or film without getting in trouble, should that make it totally legal?

[@jaxweby4343]

I greatly appreciate the discussion you give and your transparency with everything here. I think there are three main issues (to me) with current AI usage: climate impact; theft of likeness; and local vs global usage (which I'll explain in turn). The climate impact of generative AI, such as photo or text generation, is significant: even if none of the original data is stored, everything it's learnt takes up substantial server space, and recall of that information takes great processing power. This can be avoided by avoiding the use of generative AI, especially anything cloud-based on large external servers, but smaller models learning from personal servers or computers may well be okay in this regard. (I haven't researched this in depth; this is speculative but feels like a reasonable estimation given what I know.) Your discussions on copyright infringement remind me of similar issues with taking one's likeness via deepfakes. Use of deepfakes to impersonate someone's voice can have severe consequences depending on how it's used; using someone's exact art style feels like a similar issue. I'm aware that AI doesn't simply take one person's style and copy it if it's trained of a lot of data, but it can tend towards doing so if it finds favourable results in doing so. This can result (and has resulted) in the original artists being accused of using AI art, and may also result in someone generating art that appeals to morals against those of the original artist (in a similar vein to deepfakes of someone's voice being used to say something horrific that gets pinned back on the person whose voice was impersonated). As for local vs global usage - I should clarify "local" as being small-scale, either in task or in server-size (so things that could run on your personal computer like automated rotoscoping or pitch correction in Logic), and "global" as being large-scale things that need an external server like text, music, or image generation. Aside from climate impacts, the tasks these tackle differ greatly; local-scale AI takes care of those mundane tasks like rotoscoping while global-scale AI "creates" its own media. These are two very different uses of AI and I much prefer to see them discussed differently; I feel that local AI usage can be incredibly helpful and productive; it ultimately doe what machines were intended to do - make our lives easier, not replace them. Global-scale AI flips that on its head. I hope what I've said makes sense, and I'll try to respond to questions if anyone has them. Ultimately, AI does have some good uses, but generative AI is much more of a destructive force than a constructive one in my eyes. Thank you for acknowledging the concerns of your many viewers.

[@funkahontas]

You do realize that most of the image models are local and literally none of them are on server farms? You can run SD3 , SDXL on a single 4090 with 16gb of VRAM no problem. You people are literally so clueless as to how it works. It's not "learning" while generating, it's distilled during training to a single 5-10gb file which is used LOCALLY to generate the images, it's not storing terabytes of artists images and doing a collage, it is not "recalling that information" , the whole climate aspect of AI sounds so asinine to me.

[@reillyspitzfaden]

Here's one perspective I have on generative models and intellectual property that I don't see talked about as much. Rather than being concerned with a generative model making a product that looks like a copyrighted work, my concern is that the model is already a product, and it took non-consenting people's IP to make that product - to perform the training process and build the model. OpenAI gets a ton of money from VCs and charges for some forms of its product. I consider the existence of OpenAI et al.'s models as a commercial product to *already* be an unacceptable use of artists' and writers' IP, even before someone uses those models to mimic existing IP.

[@space.tel-e-grams]

Exactly. Those models are being monetized (through credits), and the people profiting off of that input are not the people who created that input. The product being sold is not inspired by the appropriated art, the product being sold IS the appropriated art.

[@denzelv1]

Well said!!

[@SLYKM]

I disagree. The programming uses people's work to learn how to generate images, and it's output, when not trying to imitate a specific style, looks nothing like what people make bc it's not a copy and/or a product that was copied.

[@tazerrtot2095]

​@@SLYKMIt's not necessariy "trying to", but that's what it does- literally what it does is generate images statistically similar to the images it was trained on. It's not learning how to generate images, it's doing math.

[@user-lk2vo8fo2q]

that's just not how copyright works. it doesn't care how something was produced, it just cares about the end result and how similar it is to other work. since in this case the end result is a computer program and the other works in question are drawings there's really no comparison.

[@VyletPony]

i think a fundamental aspect i hope you consider is that while we as human creators have always taken inspiration from other people, learned from other people, even implemented other aspects of other peoples works like in sampling and quoting, that's all still organic. there's attribution involved, if someone asks about your process you're able to not only talk about what you did to create something, you can talk about the things that inspired it and show exactly what things you sampled or referenced even. ai is a black box that is so nebulous that you WILL, without a choice in the matter, be lifting someone else's work and you have absolutely no way to even connect with it, attribute it, or consider it on a deeper level at all. this is so different from technological innovations in every corner of the arts industries. i think it's important to be a futurist, but tech like this cannot exist safely without massive restrictions. like even if you humour the counterpoint of "well people steal ideas and trace peoples' stuff all the time anyway", you can identify it, there's accountability for that, and there can be ways to address it. what are you going to do when the stealing is being done by an amorphous neural network?

[@TimTamSlamCan]

I like this response. A different perspective I hadn't thought about and I agree!

[@urproblem]

Agreed, problem is that you can't ask AI who their influences are. Thus killing the history of art and human culture altogether.

[@drunkshinx960]

yes, for example when he talked about when he asked chatGPT for video ideas and it spit his own video idea with exact title back at him. If that was somebody else who then used that idea and title, that person could not credit Andrew for the idea even though it came directly from him.

[@lettuce01]

this is a very well-thought out response and i completely agree. the authenticity of creating art is something that cannot be replicated with AI. i said myself that the use of AI to generate artwork removes the need for creativity to actually produce artwork. sure, if you don't have a certain element that you want to complete your vision, you can have AI generate it for you. but that removes the problem solving nature that inherently comes with art. being an artist involves working with limitations, and more often than not, those limitations force us to be even better creators. AI is working to remove that part of the process, killing off the problem solving and it fails to encourage people to actually grow as artists, let alone even become artists at all. if there's no need to look for ways to improve from other artists, then how can people expect to grow at all?

[@Kian00]

Very true. Almost all forms of media and art have something that inspires it, and these inspirations are quite often made clear, be it developer/producer commentary, how x was made, or simply in the description. AI is currently incapable of this, the most you can attribute is the prompt. There is research going into understanding neural networks more deeply, but since AI is only trained on material and doesn't actually contain a copy of it, it's still impossible to find what 'inspired' any piece of AI work without looking at the prompt and every single part of its training data.

[@goodvibes8036]

I work both in the animations and music industry. The issue I see with AI is that it doesn't hurt professionals who have made a big name of themselves as much as the anonymous beginner artists with big dreams who is struggling to make into the industry because of AI. I think the debate about weather it is stolen data is VERY much Irrelevant (unfortunatly) its just what ligal protest we artists have to grab onto. Even if it wasn't stolen data, I have no doubt that it could achieve the same level of looks and sounds. I think it's easy for a big names who has made it in the industry not to worry as much about AI. But I wish to live in a world, where children of the future can grow up and aspire to become artists. No matter how we look at it, AI will become 99% of the internet with the only intent to chase quick clicks and farm likes. There won't be room for Artists, musicians, writers, cinematographers, photographers, coders....etc.. Spotify is already saturating their platform with AI music to keep 100% revenue. For me it is not about how AI was created, it is the use of it.

[@K3dev]

what will hurt more artists than AI is to try to go against AI, as AI will not be stopped, there is no way to stop the evolution of AI, so artist should adapt before is too late and they are behind the rest that has good workflow with AI. In the past, painters had to do their own pigments, that was part of the art, but after the industrial revolution that disappeared, do that means the painters that uses premade pigments are not artists? Imagine that a painter from that time that would be against the industrialization of the pigments, and don't buy them... that painter would be in disadvantage because all other painters will be painting in less time or focusing on other things of theirs paintings. The same thing will happen, if there is no signs of the AI to stop, then those that are against it will be in disadvantages. Why a small artist could be struggling? if they got writers blocking just tell AI to help you and modify it as you like, generate some music to get inspiration or to steal some phrases that you like... The ones that are more beneficial are the small artists that embrace AI. We are becoming directors, real artists now, We are important because we have the eye and the ear to know what looks and sound good, how to guide the AI, what parts from the AI generations to get and what parts not to. The end user don't need to know how the art was made, what inspiration or what tools where used, they just want good art, if you where really lucky and got a good art generation and doesn't require any touching is also fine, as you where the one with the eye to know that it don't require any touching and that it is good as is.

[@themightymcb7310]

You can't train an AI without stolen data simply because most all of it is stolen. There is no way to stop it. To even exist online is to have your data stolen.

[@KitZunekaze]

What about the artists who will learn to use AI to make something incredible that has never before been seen by human eyes? Is that not worth seeing? We can go back to a historic period of art whenever we wish. We could all swear off computers, or canvases, or brushes. We could say the only art should be made with the MOST basic of tools. That's REAL human art. Truth is, we've been doing this dance over and over and over again, to the point where it seems like every generation has their version of it. They come up with NEW art, and hte old artists get offended, angry and defensive. New artists will emerge. The part people are missing is that NO amount of 'tool' even machine learning, will ever change the fact that an ARTIST is someone who has honed their craft WITH the tool... and the rest of us plebs will make stick paintings and think we made the Mona Lisa. I'm excited to see what art will come in the future BECAUSE of AI... But people out here crying about their jobs. Jobs change all the time... some go extinct. There's not a LOT of call for an oil portrait artist these days, for example... but we still make art. Everyone on the 'AI is bad' side i've talked to has absolutely NO desire to talk about any kind of benefit.. because they want SO BADLY for everyone in the world to immediately see the evil in it, and demand governments ban the use of AI before 'it gets out of hand.' It's already out of hand, you lost that war already. Seeing people who disagree with you only makes you feel like you're losing the opportunity to fight back. And you're right. That's exactly what's happening.

[@Geoplex]

​@@K3dev I want to clarify some things. OP says "But I wish to live in a world, where children of the future can grow up and aspire to become artists." Your reply is about what the nature of an artist is (a painter that uses premade pigments vs their own) and how AI could help an artist produce more work (using AI to help with writer's block). Neither of these things are relevant to the thing OP is talking about. OP is talking about careers - the lifelong pursuit of art. We can only undertake such lifelong endeavours if there is some assurance that our efforts will be worthwhile in the future. Otherwise, one might be better off taking a better bet career-wise. I want people to be able to be artists in a MEANINGFUL way, where they can use a thing that they have a monopoly on - their own skill and ability - to produce works that have value to others. In a world where no human has skill or ability that is greater than that of a universally available genAI system, no human has any creative monopoly over anything of worth. What OP is lamenting is the death of a world where an artist's work can speak for itself - where that work represents something about the person that made it, be it knowledge, skill, ability, etc. The reason people describe AI use as an act of plagiarism *should* be because it grants the user superhuman creativity that the user can then pretend was produced by their own mind. It is creatively dishonest and will significantly change the nature of which art is valuable and which art is not. This is why I choose not to use it, because I know that it will erase the value of my own work.

[@SLYKM]

This is correct but the problem existed before AI. The only people who can sue for IP violations are people who have the money to afford it. It already existed to benefit wealthy people. I always fall back in on the problems with AI will be those who pretend they made art by hand and that we live in a society in which we use art to make money to live. Bc of how AI works, I have not been convinced that it is actually immoral or stealing if one is honest about the use of AI, it's mostly a legal debate.

[@moonicproductions]

This was a very insightful and open video Andrew, you've clearly done a tremendous amount of research on the subject and I really appreciate that you made this. I love this, thank you! : )

[@maxpeacemusic]

As a small artist trying to get into video game composition professionally I can’t help but feel like I kinda have to be against AI, the work of smaller artists is completely at risk right now, because it is cheaper and quicker to just generate a song as opposed to hiring a composer, especially us artists without much experience, what we need in order to get to the level of those professionals we idolise is experience. Idk I hope it all turns out well 👍

[@grindedfranz]

You got any ideas how it will turn out well? I mean if your really optimistic, how would the future look? I ask because I cant. I need help!

[@zbsfm]

@@grindedfranzI take comfort in the fact that ai art, by definition, has no soul or creative vision. No ai-composed music will ever stand the test of time. AI to generate parts of it? Sure, but you have to decide what to keep, meaning you’re the artist. Same argument as generative melodies in eurorack. The one art industry i can actually see AI taking over is stock photos, corporate drivel, background jingles. Stuff that isn’t *supposed* to show the artists creative vision.

[@Jala_haru]

I think those looking for real art will find you

[@chickensandy9525]

I think it's important to realize that a lot of AI looks like junk and is slop because the vast amount of people using it to say make a quick buck or get clout, don't have an artist's eye or creativity to know what looks good. Those who can recognize what looks good, you may never realize it was AI generated and you shouldn't feel guilty of using AI as a tool, inspiration, or as help in the work of creating art.

[@dayleywhaley2420]

@@zbsfm Ai art and music may have no “soul” but I’ve actually seen comments of adults responding in tears, relating to Ai generated art and finding the art beautiful. Although it has no “soul” it’s certainly capable of resonating with human’s souls

[@TheGrunch64]

PLEASE. Everyone. Watch the FULL VIDEO

[@threefoldcrossroads]

Kinda sad that people wouldn't watch the full video, it's only twenty minutes long. Doesn't seem like a big ask to me.

[@PestilencePage]

just coz u said this ima bail before the end XP

[@lolilollolilol7773]

For those who still didn't want to watch: 1) he will refund those who ordered and want it 2) the art of the next batch will be completely remade without any use of AI 3) the benefits will be entirely donated to a charity for young artists and marginalized people in Toronto Indeed a class act.

[@yanshuu4244]

It's a funny coincidence, timing-wise, that many points made here can be heard in the same context as Rick Beato's recent videos, almost as a response. Makes me wish music KZbinrs ccould have interesting and even direct discussions along these lines, I think that would be interesting.

[@snowscape]

There's a few crossovers that happen like that, but I agree we need more!

[@mdsuen]

The artist's process was actually pretty cool to see, despite my own worries about AI as an illustrator and Product design student.

[@hogpsking33]

Canadians sure do know how to do apology videos.

[@ranitbose9609]

Where's the apology?

[@hogpsking33]

@@ranitbose9609 exactly

[@j0shj0shj0sh]

Also, something to note is different Ai platforms work differently. I think Adobe Firefly is supposed to have more robust rules in place - in terms of training their Ai on art and photos that users are aware of, and have the option of opting out of Ai training. At least that is the theory - trusting Adobe is not always easy at the moment I will admit. There are also platforms where artists upload examples of their body of work - so the Ai becomes a tool that the artist uses to generate art, that is trained only on their own artworks.

[@lettuce01]

i will copy something i left under another comment where i discussed the same thing, but you are right in that trusting Adobe is not always easy. "when i heard that they trained their AI on works they had full consent of, i was perfectly fine with the use of Adobe's AI, because even if i hated it, i couldn't exactly have the same sentiment against it that i had with other more common AI models. that was until i learned more about Adobe's idea of "consent". they are a company with highly predatory practices and have made it clear in recent cases, where they essentially forced all concurrent users of their software to consent to having EVERYTHING they made with adobe's software sent directly to be AI training data. they hid this form of consent in their terms of service, however by signing into your adobe account, you would agree to the terms of service. this meant that logging in to deactivate, delete, or cancel your account or subscription, would still force you to forfeit those rights. furthermore, because Adobe is an industry standard running a total monopoly in the creative workforce, many people quite literally cannot escape Adobe, as their jobs, schools, or whatever it is they are a part of require that you use Adobe. legally, yes, they can claim that they have full consent over all the training data in their system. but in every other way what they are doing is absolutely wrong and the idea of "consent" is absolutely stretched in their favor."

[@darkowl9]

Well, Adobe basically force-opted every Adobe Stock contributor into Firefly's training by saying "it was in our terms!" and giving them a small one-off fee. There is no way, currently, if you sold an image via Adobe Stock, to *not* have your work used as part of the Firefly model's training data.

[@ariaofthe6strings230]

@@darkowl9yep. Users also could NOT use any of their services even if they were ALREADY subscribed, unless they accepted the terms that their work would be used.

[@reset_rt]

AI or not, I think the cards are still a really engaging and creative tool! Even if Scott used entirely stock images in the design, his art style would probably still been called out. I really appreciate the transparency and your thoughts around AI ethics. It's definitely not an easy topic, AI is so new and it's certainly a powerful tool capable of good and bad. Well done 👏

[@ItsJustAdrean]

Imagine if these AI companies had to pay royalties to artists, whether the composition was copyrighted or not. AI would stop dead in the western world -- but china and other nations would use it and run us/their artists out of business

[@Yin2Falcon]

Not yet mentioned regarding ethics: The most sophisticated LLMs (nothing about this statistical brute forcing is intelligent) are highly inefficient. They use up a lot more resources than would be necessary for the task. And the copilot thing is kind of whataboutism. There are companies that strictly ban it due to being trained on and reproducing copyrighted material as well as sending data back. No serious business that intents to stick around can afford that. And I would argue most companies that do, do so because the ones in charge do not understand what's going on / haven't even heard of copilot yet.

[@shelinmusic]

So engines like Udio capable of generating an original song in 10 secs are inefficient ? 🤨

[@Yin2Falcon]

@@shelinmusic if you consider the energy (computing and training) that goes into that compared to an artist doing the same and not just the time it takes you to click and get a result - most likely, yes that said I haven't heard of Udio in particular and if it would fall under "most sophisticated LLM" - so I don't know

[@Yin2Falcon]

As a high level example for that general trend: Google intended to go carbon neutral. Their AI endeavors have them going in the opposite direction. This will apply to all companies competing in that space, because this LLM approach is brute force statistics. It takes a lot of energy by design.

[@josiethompson5739]

I'm skeptical that most coders use chat gpt. I'm a coder, I've been on teams that tried out ai assisted code, and the general consensus was that it's just not good enough at writing code for specific purposes. General purpose AI imo is a copout, and in using it you deprive yourself of the experience of creating the thing you need and developing relevant skills. Machine learning is a powerful tool, but I believe it works best when we design it for specific purposes that make our lives better, rather than use it to replace the things we love doing.

[@josiethompson5739]

In particular, I do feel like the method of the artist you hired feels exploitative. I don't want to be mean, and when I say "General purpose AI is a copout," that definitely sounds mean in the context of evaluating someone else's work. So let me try to use different language instead. Generating _key_ components of an image with AI is not great imo. It's like sampling in music, but instead of sampling the hard work of someone else, you sample ai-generated music that attempts to mimic their hard work so now they don't have to be paid. It also just generally feels out of touch with humanity in a bad way. Like, you _choose_ not to find sources made by other people when they absolutely exist. You can find dozens of photos of whales and people on docks with not that much research. I guess my point is that it is really hard to use general purpose AI in a way that fosters creativity. It's a tool to provide shortcuts to get around being creative.

[@thrownstair]

I am currently doing a coding course. My teacher said that we shouldn't use AI to make code, because it falls under plagiarism grey areas and also we're there to learn what things do and not make the machine spit out stuff we don't yet understand and can't fix bugs in because we're beginner coders.

[@kalinunesferreira815]

Also a developer here. If someone tells me they're using ChatGPT, or even Github Pilot to generate their code, it'll make me instantly doubt their analytic capabilities. Like, at best you'll be reintroducing old vulnerabilities if you manage to compile it or run through an interpreter.

[@user-fed-yum]

Keep coding. LLMs will never replace coding. And will never independently innovate. Replacing coders would require a completely different approach, and I've not seen anything credible that would achieve that. I don't think most people have any idea at all, of the sheer scale required to emulate how any single human approaches complexity.

[@alexhydron]

​@@thrownstair I'm an artist with no programming backround, I've used chatGPT to help me create blender addons and chrome extensions, I usually give the AI a "logic tree" of what I think the code should do, it spits it out, I copy and paste it and test it out... Running the code and seeing unexpected outcomes taught me to consolidate my logic and iterate on it. Additionally, I found myself learning so much about code during this process, to the point where I began to manually tweak the code myself without any assistance... If not for the existance of chatGPT I would never even touch code in any capacity. so is AI good or bad in this scenario?

[@danquaintance8465]

My problem with AI in its current stage is the lack of transparency of its use from the established artists and "AI Artists". I feel like conflict could be avoided at this point if the use of AI was clearly labeled, and most people can just avoid that content. Although it is still the internet, people will rage comment on anything and everything. AI generated music is constantly being thrown at me on youtube and as much as I tell it I don't want to see it, I still get it recommended. I forget the name of the software, but it can just create music with little input information and the users can immediately upload it on youtube and spotify where it doesn't label it in any way as AI generated. At this point, there isn't much that can be done since the models are out there. I just wish for content created solely by AI to be labeled as AI generated, and images such as the ones used on the cards to be labeled as something along the lines of "AI assisted". Until the ethics and legalities of it are fleshed out, consumers should at least be aware of it's use in their decision making for when supporting an artist or buying some products.

[@auxvr]

100% agree

[@kcahdp]

I think reality would turn out to be vice versa, people would start label "real art". For example, many pop gigs have "live sound" emblem that indicates no use of pre-record voice. Also, artists would start to impliment some code into the art that makes it untracable for AI to learn on.

[@cerulity32k]

@@kcahdp Fun fact: Nightshade and Glaze are tools that already attempt to do this by making incredibly subtle changes that really screw with a model's pattern recognition.

[@kcahdp]

@@cerulity32k it definitely makes more sense

[@Edward256]

I've heard of Suno. And yes, if people don't label their videos as containing AI then it will appear in your feed. There is now an option one needs to check, just like the age demographic options. In the end, it comes down to human honesty.

[@TurnerXei]

It really doesn't matter if it is here to stay or not. There are a lot of very bad things that seem inevitable or inescapable that doesn't mean we should embrace them. Comparing generative imagery/audio/text to basic machine learning tasks like rotoscoping is fundamentally different from a technological and ethical standpoint. MP3 using reference songs during its development is another false comparison. MP3 is not a machine learning algorithm. It is not a generative algorithm. It cannot reproduce the original references unless the original references are supplied directly to the encoder. That algorithm cannot generate music on its own. The modular gear uses a handful of simple rules that you control to generate voltages. This is so far removed conceptually, technically, and ethically from generative machine learning. They are only similar in the most vague analogies. They are fundamentally different. I feel like you must know this. There are so many other comparisons in this video that are on the same level. Apples and oranges. Just because they're both fruit or involve computers doesn't mean they are at all comparable. I can understand if you don't get the technological aspects of it because it is not your forte, but you are repeating a lot of marketing speak that the companies that develop this technology are using to try to wriggle out of their mass exploitation of artists. And it would be best if you did not use analogies like this in your videos to further mislead people, unless that was your intention. Generative imagery absolutely can and does reproduce existing images in the training set, that is how they work fundamentally. It is not like human learning. It has been shown over and over again, with LLMs (a close relative of generative imagery systems) leaking internal documents from multiple companies in the last year and being tricked into divulging training data. Using images of copywritten work via photography can absolutely be infringement. The people who own the Hollywood sign have sued a lot of people over this very fact. We can argue about what copyright is or if it is justified or good, but the law is immaterial here. Generative machine learning systems are wildly unethical and attack artists and musicians. Not because most people can't tell the difference but because capitalists don't care about the difference. That is what will starve more artists than anything. Generative systems are just a new front on the capitalist hellscape. Having been both a musican, photographer, and a photomanipulator myself the video that your artist presented demonstrates the issue pretty cleaning. He is assembling random elements in a vaugely moody Lisa Frank way and we would call that photomanipulation. It has always been a form of art that relies heavily on borrowing from other artists. Typically, we would credit them in the final composition. Myself I used a lot of my own photos, but I also credited the people whose art I used (particularly those that were skilled at collecting and cleaning up organic textures), even if they gave it freely. Whose art was Midjourney trained on? Can you list even one? Do they not deserve more than a soulless middleman (Midjourney) scraping their art and *selling* it anonymously to people without letting them know who did the original work? It is not like even MP3 piracy. At least then you and a friend could figure out that mislabeled Weird Al song was actually by Tom Lehrer and buy the album down the line. With generative models? No, they gatekeep the artists and intentionally obfuscate their work so you are reliant on their product. Google will use my comment and your video to train their LLMs and video generation models. And we don't need to let them do it without pushback.

[@PureJadeKid]

Your point about training holds, and about discovery of new (to me) artists in the Napster case, but it's weird that people think that someone who is excited about AI art as a tool is a just an unthinking shill or booster for the evil tech capitalists, but someone repeating doom-and-gloom anti-AI-art tropes (brigading, death threats, in the extreme case) is not just rehashing a narrative pushed by fear-mongering headline-writing news capitalists. Por que no dos dos?

[@TimpanistMoth_AyKayEll]

Great comment.

[@gabrielraines655]

​@PureJadeKid because the middle ground is not always the most virtuous. This "wrong on both sides" is whataboutism. It doesn't make the pro-ai argument any more rational if some anti-ai people are "doom and gloom" about it. Threats against individuals are wrong, but it's unsurprising people feel they have to resort to extremes when they're ultimately fighting against megacorporations and people who make in a day what i make in a year by pushing the adoption of ai (not andrew ofc, i mean silicon valley creeps)

[@nathaniel.edward]

I love photobashing; it is my main approach to making art. One thing I won't do though, is use something like Midjourney or Dalle to generate something and then photoshop a bunch of ai art together and claim it's not ai. Where and how you are sourcing your images matters, hence why the artist mentioned "royalty free." So for the artist to claim no ai while sourcing from generative art platforms that were built on stolen images is pretty upsetting. I appreciate Andrew's even keeled response; it's just frustrating the artist isn't being more honest with himself, Andrew, or us.

[@ChasMusic]

Not an expert but my understanding of "royalty free," a concept that has been around much longer than AI, is that companies obtain work for hire from real people, so the company rather than the creator owns the copyright. Then the company sells non-exclusive reuse rights to the work or collection of works. This applies both to images and to music. I worked on a project 20 years ago that used royalty-free music. We can argue whether it is ethical that the composer didn't get anything for our project using that music, but that's the agreement they signed with that company back then. This is separate from the deck artist's use of AI in the project.

[@nathaniel.edward]

@@ChasMusic I was simply referencing the artist's mentioning of royalty free to point out that they are clearly aware that where and how you source images matters. As such, they should understand the, at best, ethical gray area of sourcing images from generative ai.

[@esoteridactyl]

TBF the artist didn't claim 'no AI', not sure where you got that from. He admitted to using AI.

[@user-lk2vo8fo2q]

The images aren't stolen. Copyright has limits. If you're allowed to look at something without a license, you're allowed to run statistical analysis on it. That's just how the law works.

[@nathaniel.edward]

@@user-lk2vo8fo2q Legal expertise won't change my views on the ethics of generative ai and the use of STOLEN images. :)

[@darkmann12]

Wait, your hair is like, awesome, woah

[@cashwarior]

reminds me of when i learned an artist i was listening to (macroblank) makes plunderphonics, which I didn't realize meant they took existing music and just made small changes to it like slowing it down, putting reverb, adding a line or two, and then releasing it. I looked into the samples they used on whosampled for some of the tracks and found that some were from really small unknown artists who wouldn't get any attention because of that. I think the idea of plunderphonics is cool if it was treated more as sampling; taking small parts of multiple tracks to make something completely new, or if it was made entirely with your own music, but the way it is mostly used just made me sad

[@crnkmnky]

That sounds like _vaporwave,_ which I'd never thought of as plunderphonics. 🤔 I've always had a similar uneasiness with how the credited "artists" in the vaporwave genre are more like "curators," once you learn how little transformation is being done. Yet the "lost media" aesthetic demands that the original context remains obscure. I'm still unpacking those feelings, and understanding whether there is any artistic or moral difference between the "plunderphonics" of hip-hop vs vaporwave.

[@praticle]

the description of macro blanks channel says "I take no credit. Everything is plundered. This channel is non-profit."

[@bronsoncarder2491]

@@crnkmnky Indeed, and to circle that idea back around to AI; what AI does is a lot more like Ben Levin's fakerwave, where you make vaporwave music but without sampling anything, trying to get the same feel as sampling but creating the sounds from the ground up. In other words, it SOUNDS like multiple things stitched together, but is really just a high-level recreation of that idea.

[@cashwarior]

@@praticle yeah i didn't know what that meant for a while 😭

[@repinaboxx]

@@praticle ...........man. i didn't realize that's what it meant but now it seems so obvious lol

[@TheCreativeNick]

I appreciate your level-headed take. With that being said, I still do not support the use of generative tools whose models were trained on thousands of artists' work, most of which did not consent to have their work be trained on. The main concern I have, and something I've seen other people in the comments say, is that AI will push away young or beginning artists from pursuing a career in art. There are so many instances of art competitions be flooded by AI generated images, pushing away actual artists and elevating people who just type a few sentences and want to make a quick buck :(

[@HA11EYS_COM3T]

I'd like to mention that there are AI models which, at the least, claim not to use any images without consent - in that case I think an artist like Scott could be forgiven for not thinking much of it, because if they were using a model like that they were reasonably sure the images weren't being generated unethically. I personally think AI is acceptable as a supplement to an artist's toolset, honestly, like how Scott has claimed to use it. And be sure to keep in mind, you're against models here; a different AI model can be and most likely is trained differently.

[@TheCreativeNick]

@@HA11EYS_COM3T Training data is only one of the reasons why I don’t personally use these generative AI tools, but if you’re using an ethically trained model I don’t mind as much. Unfortunately, Scott used MidJourney, which the founder already admitted to scraping millions of images without artists’ consent. I also enjoy the full process of making art, so I don’t want a machine to do all of it for me. I agree that there’s definitely AI tools out there that are useful in ASSISTING artists. Anyhow, I’m more concerned with GenAI pushing away prospective/young artists and such.

[@OnYourMarx]

@@HA11EYS_COM3T But the models themselves are black boxes - we are taking the company's word that their AI is not using images without consent, but there have been numerous examples of people putting artist's names into those models and receiving near-perfect examples of their work. The same has been the case for text-based models, where they have generated paragraphs of copyrighted novels based on the author's name. Without any chance of oversight (not happening with an industry as large and powerful as big tech), the only way to stymie the tide is to make using AI a social faux pas

[@thedevilsadvocate5210]

It's already over. People support the stealing of music from the artists. They pay. 4/1000 of a cent per spin to musicians. So 996/1000 cents go to the platform and the labels. There is no product you can make and sell for 4/1000ths of a cent.

[@lettuce01]

@@HA11EYS_COM3T for a while i was torn on the use of AI under certain programs because they made this exact claim. one big example was Adobe, who claimed that they used content that they had full consent to use to train their AI model. upon hearing this i was perfectly fine with the use of Adobe's AI, because even if i hated it, i couldn't exactly have the same sentiment against it that i had with other more common AI models. that was until i learned more about Adobe's idea of "consent". they are a company with highly predatory practices and have made it clear in recent cases, where they essentially forced all concurrent users of their software to consent to having EVERYTHING they made with adobe's software sent directly to be AI training data. they hid this form of consent in their terms of service, however by signing into your adobe account, you would agree to the terms of service. this meant that logging in to deactivate, delete, or cancel your account or subscription, would still force you to forfeit those rights. furthermore, because Adobe is an industry standard running a total monopoly in the creative workforce, many people quite literally cannot escape Adobe, as their jobs, schools, or whatever it is they are a part of require that you use Adobe. legally, yes, they can claim that they have full consent over all the training data in their system. but in every other way what they are doing is absolutely wrong and the idea of "consent" is absolutely stretched in their favor. the bad part is that Adobe isn't the only huge tech company doing this, but social media platforms where millions of users share their art have opted for training their own AI models on everything posted under them as well. Meta and Twitter are the biggest examples of this, as tech companies of this size are nearly impossible to avoid as an artist trying to get their name out there in the world or bring in work for themselves. they hide their acknowledgement of "consent" deep in their terms of service or settings, making it to where more people are completely clueless that their work is being taken for AI training.

[@peach_total]

i think the difference in how i see it is that i don’t think the “replacing jobs” and “unethically using intellectual property” problems are just a monetary/legality one. it isn’t just “artists won’t be paid as much with more ai art” it’s “the landscape of art, especially online, will become so saturated with ai art that actual art is drowned out” and following that, it’s the double-whammy of “it’s going to drown us out and it’s learning how to do that with our own art”

[@peach_total]

that being said, this goes for AI Art™ as in art that is fully rendered by AI. i have a somewhat more grey-area opinion on art that only partially incorporates AI

[@BernardoAmorim]

If I can add to the discussion. I want ai to do my dishes not my art

[@EolosMusic]

You don't have a dishwasher in the XXI century? Wth

[@livemusic200]

and it will eventually, we are in the early days. remember the early days of the internet? or are you too young??

[@SilverTao]

@@livemusic200 Personally I think that AI and the Internet are two completely separate things, but that's not important. AI is just a tool and every tool can be improved. To some extent at least. Saws improved a lot and we eventually ended up with a chainsaw. Hammers on the other hand were improved by just making different hammers for different things; they barely changed. Any further development of these tools would be completely useless as they've already reached their final potential. The same goes with AI, it can only improve to a certain point before it peaks. The problem is that we don't know and we are unable to predict how far this peak really is

[@tapeexperiments]

Yeah, I'm saying the same thing: Put AI on World Hunger, Cancer, Etc.

[@xn4pl]

@@tapeexperiments they literally do it, but not everyone is interested in working solely on these problems, some people want to make generative AI and it's their right to pursue their own projects. Also advances in generative AI bring new techniques and research that can be built upon to make "more useful" AI in the future.

[@AyeshaNadirAli.]

I am in Pakistan, not an electronic musician nor artist but my partner is both and follows you so we were discussing...I am shocked no one is commenting on the insane water-gargling hardware that trains AI that is not even 'life-friendly' let alone artist-friendly...AI is not sustainalbe like most things on the planet human civilization is relying on...not just any water, the machines use fresh water and tonnes of it , with the amount of energy consumption!! Totally insane😢

[@krsw899]

...and millions of people use far more power for mere entertainment (consoles, tvs, computers). You yourself are leaving a comment using electricity on a device produced under questionable labor conditions, mined materials, and polluting production process. This argument feels a bit pearl-clutch-y. Unlike gaming, AI at least partially is contributing to progress in medicine and sciences. This is such a specific thing to get upset about with many bigger issues globally. Look up how much energy is used, and emissions produced doing something as simple as manufacturing panes of glass, or welding metals, or treating water. Compare that to energy consumption for AI, a significant portion of which is produced using solar, wind, water, or nuclear sources.

[@ktreier]

@@krsw899actually per sqft data center consumes vastly more power and water.

[@averykyler9066]

i think it’s great how you responded with openness to this and i love that your funnelling the money made from this project into a local art org ❤

[@NorthGameStudio]

This is great comparison with music creation. As both a traditional artist and musician, Andrew is correct in his observation that Modular synth helps creative juices with creation of sound, as does using samples and loops. Art is becoming more mixed media with tech. It’s a new world and a new opportunity for artists

[@edwardwang6678]

Been watching Andrew for many years as both a musician and an artist, and personally cant believe how fast some people turned. If anyone thinks that he hasn't thought about this problem thoroughly or done his due diligence, they don't know Andrew. Great video, loved the nuanced take.

[@v-1nce]

6:58 "ideas that come from other people, or from nature, or even from machines" there's a misconception here obfuscated by calling any of this "AI": machines *don't have ideas* this framing implies that generative "AI" has somehow "learned" an abstract notion of different styles, techniques, etc. and generates novel examples in a requested category. but really it's the "ideas from other people and nature" basically feeding into creating a giant math equation. it can't interact with/observe nature, people, or society and synthesize an expression of its own experience (because it doesn't and can't experience anything). it's this synthesis and desire to express something that's at the core of art (to be clear, this obfuscation isn't something Andrew invented, it's a deliberate act by the industry pushing generative "AI" to abstract away its strip mining of culture without compensating any of the humans whose works are ingested without consent)

[@Emariess]

out of interest, what do you think happens in peoples brains that is different from this? we observe the world around us, we draw our ideas from the information fed into our brains and come up with novel examples based on how we interperate that information. how do you see it as different? i see that we as artists can make more complex links between things and impart more meaning to them and develop them into concepts, but then that's where the human operator comes into any art generated with a machine, curation and selection and modification. in terms of visual styles tho, is that much different?

[@Brennsunn]

​@@Emariess to me, One word : Experience. It is through experience as human beings that we gather informations about one self and the laws of the universe, feelings, relationships, perception. We are the sums of all these circumstances that make us unique. Even two other people that lived the same experiences as me are gonna be their own individuals. Then art comes out through the lenses of what we processed as individuals. It's not as if at the moment we were born, there was a usb drive that got plugged into our brain, feeding us a lifetime's experience, which would be preventing us from learning, improving ourselves : That's how I view generative content right now. I hope it makes sense to you, i'm on a lunch break !

[@fil5864]

@@Emariess Machines can only regurgitate data based on data that it was trained on, nothing more. Humans can create based on our experiences with meaning and intent. Everything machines do is random, people put in dozens of prompts to get the right feel. Everything is unintentional. Meanwhile with an artist and their trained eye, everything is intentional, every stroke of paint, every note of music, everything serves for a greater purpose. I hope that adds to what @Brennsunn said. To me, art, in all its forms, is about the human experience, about connection, about feeling another human being's emotions or imparting experiences. Why would we ever want to distance ourselves further from the art we are making? What benefit does that give to anyone? In the words of Hayao Miyazaki: "I fear that we humans are losing faith in ourselves."

[@Emariess]

@@Brennsunn sure this is what I was touching on when I mentioned concept and meaning but in terms of visual style there’s a million photos or drawings or paintings out there that overlap in terms of style the ideas might differ but 6 watercolour paintings of a sunset all done in a similar style are all considered “art” but hardly have different intent or meaning. How then is that different from a machine being trained on the same techniques and visual styles? Each one is an image of a sunset in watercolour, I don’t think people are bringing all of their life experience into those images… how would you differentiate between them?

[@Emariess]

@@fil5864 I understand this. I work as a designer and make a living from doing “creative” work but most of the time it’s very process oriented and there’s a ton of following guidelines and branding and style guides etc it’s often hard to see where the creativity starts and the process ends. How then is that much different from working with a computer trained on a style of work? I’m pretty much taking an input from a bunch of previous designs and then outputting something similar with a new offer or product in.

[@yazuto]

recording and reproducing with pictures or mp3 are tools meant to spread the ideas of the original creator but AI does not try to share any messages, it just uses its training data to generate questionably different material. the problem is that even if you wish for the AI to give you something different and new, often it derives heavily from one source or the other. and if you come across that content normally, you'll find that creators often don't want their work manipulated and turned into a photobash or remixed in the case of music. but when you use AI, the source gets obfuscated. when it's a human learning from others, often they cite their inspiration sources and interact with them in a meaningful way. this is also why i prefer AI to search for things only if it gives me good sources. trying to code with bing AI (basically chatgpt) has shown me that the most useful things are the links it gives me to cite its sources.

[@SamtasticOnline]

Thanks for taking the time to put this video together. I think you did fantastically at addressing concerns and taking meaningful action. I trust that you'll continue to do amazing things for various creative communities and I'm excited to see these cards in person as well as the next set.

[@TamaraLynnchambers]

Seeing you work online and off, it is so clear how much you value art and artists. It oozes from your pores. It is also extremely obvious how seriously you take into consideration so many aspects of this work, this video and these cards being no exception

[@TamaraLynnchambers]

Also your hair looks gooooooooooood in this video

[@BenCaesar]

Only thing I don’t agree with is the storing of data take, it’s a technicality but in light of red teaming Suno and Udio where there are literal producer tags in the outputs. Or midjourney where artists signatures were in the outputs. Whether it stores data or not the consequence is the same.

[@grindstoneii]

Technically the data is stored but in a more abstract way. The AI doesn’t really know what it’s looking at in the same way a parrot might not really know what theyre saying. If an AI sees that lots of art in a style has a signature in the corner, the model will just put one there because that’s what’s in the data

[@AnimeUniverseDE]

@@grindstoneii Yeah the AI is not intelligent at all, it just sees data. And its creating legally distinct copies of its training material, nothing creative

[@PureJadeKid]

​@@grindstoneii Exactly, AI art tools make up bogus signatures and put them in the corners of AI images all the time. The signatures aren't real or even legible. People act like this is a smoking gun but it just reveals more ignorance and fear-mongering.

[@DanknDerpyGamer]

@@AnimeUniverseDE IF it is distinct ... how can it be a copy? At least when we talk copy of the work on the whole (vs certain elements, or expression of said elements)? This is probably a really dumbassed question.

[@Eye_Know]

one of the most unfortunate things about this video is that, likely, a large amount of people that were outraged in the first place, won’t even see it

[@OctaveIndustries]

The worst receiving end of all of this anyone who has continued working "by hand" in their own unique style and are wrongly accused of integrating or replacing their entire process with AI. I cannot imagine how someone who has spent their entire lives building up a traditional drawing or illustration skillset would feel in this situation.

[@Luttii]

One of the (many) issues with AI not mentionned here is the power consumption AI use a lot of power and need a lot of cooling, both for training and generating, and in the world facing climate change, even if the training is ethical, the using isn't I know there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, but that doesn't mean we have to ignore everything, we can make our work a little less unethical by using tools that don't kill the planet (on top of killing artists by taking their jobs away)

[@rclaws3230]

Commie.

[@Greennoob2]

As someone who still doesn't agree with you on this, I must say you did a great job of explaining your perspective on the matter. thank you for that

[@essengerbionicle]

The issue I think is that all pretty pretty much all those stock images are pre-generated with AI:| this is gonna be a big problem in the future

[@PleasantDiversion]

I look back at the time I read "The Inevitable" by Kevin Kelly that was released in 2016. "This is not a race against the machines. If we race against them, we lose. This is a race with the machines." AI gives me yet another context to reflect on that.

[@RJFerret]

Separately I want to add, the model of some countries who provide stipends to artists to create on a societal level would be a wonderful aid for up and coming new artists who haven't made their names yet. Or just a UBI, so those who wish to feed AI can afford to do so...I mean create their own artwork.

[@PureJadeKid]

UBI would help with a ton of these issues.

[@Cyrribrae]

​@@PureJadeKidexactly what I was thinking. The problem with AI is not some deep human-level creativity extinction like some seem to think. No. It's financial. It's the fact that there will be industries where it's no longer financially viable to spend so much time training when a machine can do it. UBI, especially if driven by the savings realized by using AI (and perhaps that will incentivize some companies to retain human labor), can change that equation.

[@marksteinemann4063]

You made some extremely strong statements. Thank you for that. You have my utmost respect for trying to start a civilized conversation about the topic. Keep up the good work.

[@JonzieBoy]

Fantastic video! I really like your take on this quite difficult topic!

[@stefevr]

I appreciate the breakdown, it's a very important and complicated thing to do As an artist, the example Scott showed was indeed a traditional collage method but does NOT represent most of the cards. There are many cards I saw that are clearly not a collage but a single AI image, and THAT is an issue to me. I am 10000% sure you do not have a hint of malevolent thought or intention with your pack, it's a shame there are people like scott who take advantage of situations like these to take shortcuts. I know there's a chance I'm wrong and he genuinely made every single image, but I'm quite convinced the example he showed is an exception, and most of the cards are a single AI image with the card info slapped on top, I hope I'm wrong, I really do

[@alexcant2310]

Handled like a champ

[@Lewious]

I may not have known that this was the case with the book of chances and even further that it was getting backlash due to it but I feel that you tackled this in the best way possible. I hope that any backlash you were getting due to this stops as you posed very valid arguments on both sides. I wish you the best of luck for the future.

[@rabidL3M0NS]

Haven’t watched the vid yet but the art in the thumbnail looks like photoshop and not AI lol

[@rosumparat]

Using text prompts to generate an image is not art and the prompter is not an artist. Period.

[@jayisasalad]

kind of a shame where people be getting put on blast bc of anti ai sentiment when they really be making some awesome work legitimately

[@PureJadeKid]

Another comment called it recreational outrage. Andrew stepped in the wrong pile. What's a shame is the anti-AI energy and time in the comments could have been used to create AI prompts and generate some images instead of logorrhea 😆 People not making art and not making music spending time reading and writing comments about someone making art. Irony completely lost on these folks.

[@rockblade_e]

something new that recently has been brought to attention in the morality of generative ai is the environmental impact, please do look into how much energy and power gen ai uses up as that is an entirely different related problem many people don’t touch on. otherwise respectable reasoning

[@benjazeman]

This is a really big deal that we should be paying attention to instead of going after other creators. It takes a lot of power, and water for cooling systems, to train LLMs and other models at the size of ChatGPT.

[@thedevilsadvocate5210]

The Internet takes far more power than that

[@gavcanflip]

​@@thedevilsadvocate5210the point here isn't comparison, it's about knowing and understanding the costs and making informed and responsible decisions. Yes, the internet requires a lot of energy, and we should be aware of what goes into powering it. Generative AI takes a lot of energy, and is nowhere near as fundamental or necessary as the internet

[@thedevilsadvocate5210]

@@gavcanflip we use a ton of energy for the Internet and that's ok but using a ton of energy for AI is not worthwhile. The Internet was not fundamental at one point. It used little energy and now uses a great amount. It is comparable to ai which uses little energy now but in the future could your greater accounts as you suggest It doesn't appear most people consider what energy the Internet and ai uses. We should all make sure we use low energy using AI

[@gavcanflip]

@@thedevilsadvocate5210 totally agree it isn't worthwhile. Generative AI is already using a lot of energy though, and the environmental costs are pretty well-known

[@AsianPopStop]

I'm impressed that you mentioned how the idea that AI just copies and pastes elements from existing work is a common misconception. AI has its problems and it's not surprising it's so controversial, but it's nice to hear a nuanced opinion rather than a reactionary one based on misunderstandings of the technology for once.

[@rcbirdy3758]

There used to be a paint color called "mummy brown." It was named this because it was made out of human remains removed from Egyptian tombs. There were many famous and beautiful paintings that included "mummy brown" along with other colors of paint, but the existence of those paintings do not justify stealing human remains from their burial place and grinding them up into a powder to be mixed with resin and sold in little metal tubes. I think a lot of people have a similar argument regarding today's options for generative AI. It only works if the model has a TON of reference material, and as it turns out, pretty much all of it was thrown in without any acknowledgement, consent, or even informing the original artists. And there's currently no generative AI model that cites its sources or credits those artists, and no way for us (the end users) to know whether any particular model was trained ethically or not. Maybe in the future, ethical generative AI will exist, but we aren't there yet. Anyway. This was a very mature and reasonable response to something a lot of people not only have strong opinions on, but also feel like they NEED to have strong opinions on, even if they don't fully understand it yet. Thank you. (And thank you to Scott for providing the video of his process.)

[@pseudobeast4653]

There's no stopping our dystopian future. Just try to enjoy yourself while you can.

[@skibbyskib13]

17:37 THAT is what AI should be used for. As an artist its insulting to put decades of time and effort into a craft just to see people benefit from using a tool that takes no effort. I'm sure i could recreate my own work with AI and print it on a canvas much faster then I can with a brush, but that just takes the humanity out of something that is uniquely human. There's probably something to be said about being a collage artist in the first place and how the ethics of AI play into that but that aint my rig. End of the day unless its being used to for go the menial bull shit parts of a job I dont fuck with AI. Everyone will have there own line in the sand with it though and thats something we'll always have to deal with going forward.

[@jarlsparkley]

I would love it as a person who studies art philosophy, for people who are opposed to AI art to really study the work of conceptual artists like Sol Lewitt, and more broadly the philosophy of conceptualism in the visual arts.

[@chuntoon1]

My grandmother was a switchboard operator and when computers were able to use artificial intelligence to route calls automatically ... my great great grandfather built outhouses ... we need to stop the march of technology to preserve peoples feelings

[@simply_ember7526]

I have had the cards for some time and never thought they were AI generated, they are really pretty and super useful at the same time and I like them the way they are.

[@vanMrMann]

The problem with *generative* AI generating graphical art and music isn't just that it can generate parts or a whole track or artpiece, like yeah, that's not Art and making it out to be as your artistic creation is despicable, no question, but that it steals from real artists, without consent, and *isn't even able* to *at least* give credit. Non-generative AI is not even part of the problem to begin with. Isolating vocals using AI is awesome.

[@bronsoncarder2491]

It's art, made by an artist. Can you make an actual argument that it isn't? Calling people despicable for making art in a medium you don't like is despicable.

[@pearshapes7757]

So, 'stealing' someones creative expression by generating artwork through a text prompt is problematic, but 'isolating vocals' to use in your own creative expression is cool? Sounds like you're just manually doing the work?

[@twendos833]

The specification here is awesome, and I'm gonna do that in my comment as well.

[@Liza.Wharton]

It's not stealing. If it were, there'd be legal battles all over the place. Adapting styles from creative work isn't stealing. That's how humans have been creating art forever. There's nothing new under the sun.

[@PureJadeKid]

The ML model use to isolate vocals was trained on tons of real music.

[@asynchronicity]

Ableton Live (just one example) is full of AI type technologies but no one can spot them so we don’t care.

[@andresito957]

Andrew, we appreciate you. You're always so level-headed and can discuss difficult topics with nuance. You know how to listen, how to be respectful, and how to communicate your own point of view clearly and eloquently. Thank you for everything you do. We need more of your qualities in our society.

[@jamescruz8678]

It's unfortunate that people are 100% gonna call you a fencesitter on this. "Two contradicting things can be true at once" really hit home for me. Thank you Andrew for addressing this issue with such maturity and showing us that nuance isn't quite dead yet.

[@CinemalecularFilms]

I think there's an adjective missing to make this actually true..."Two SEEMINGLY contradictory things can be true at once". What's always missing is the nuance to make this actually true. Orthogonality is a thing.

[@sidtinsley2493]

Just because he's a nice guy doesn't mean he's not fence sitting. This video is textbook fence sitting. He even suggests that at home recording took jobs from session musicians, which is an absurd comparison to AI.

[@bronsoncarder2491]

@@sidtinsley2493 In what ways does it fail as a comparison?

[@nomoresaul]

He’s just seeing it logically rather than emotionally is all. AI is a tool that can be used for good, used for bad, and even just plain misused. You can’t NOT “fencesit” if you’re being honest and logical. AI can be extremely detrimental when used the wrong way, and it can be extremely helpful when used the right way. Both are true.

[@PretendPassing]

Yes, there is no black-and-white Disneyland when you begin analyzing for the sake of logic rather than for the sake of your own perceived opinion.

[@LP-zn8sc]

The only real issue with ai art is that it's often trained on stolen work. On top of this what's more dubious is the labour used to train ai is usually underpayed foreign workers that tech takes advantage of. Think global south clothing sweatshop type labour regulation. That matters to me a lot more than if ai art is good or not(i think its a mute point when its just generated output anyway).

[@modestrocker1]

ai images - calling it art is tech bro propaganda

[@martinjakab]

How do you define art? ​@@modestrocker1

[@Sora_Beats]

I really don't get the "stolen work" stuff. If I can see it for free on the internet because the OP put it up on Pinterest or Instagram or something, I am then free to use that work as inspiration for work of my own. Why is A.I not just considered an extension of this? Is something stolen if it's observed and used as inspiration? If I were to go to the Louvre and spend enough time there observing all the works in great detail and then use that knowledge to create new works of art from what I learned by observing and taking detailed notes, am I stealing? Genuinely curious. I'm by no means an A.I bro but the ethics of it all do intrigue me.

[@TheHipOneMusic]

Keep in mind there's also the massive issues of pollution these AI companies spew into the atmosphere, as well as becoming mass-produced to the point where it's genuinely difficult to find a google search that isn't filled with AI slop

[@artemiswallace8716]

@@Sora_Beats well theres a difference between inspiration and wholesale copying. i think you dont understand how ai works. it isnt creating anything, its copypasting a ton of different works together.

[@PLFMM]

Much Respect Andrew, you are one of my favorite KZbinrs. I will be working hard to fundraise and bring you to my school!

[@MicahHarperr]

Not andrew being the most pure artist and human on yt

[@KINNZ94]

I forgot the name, but one of the big tech CEO said that AI won’t replace humans, but humans who use AI will replace humans who don’t. I think this might be the reality soon.

[@CutTheVioletWire]

Thats... still ai replacing humans. Instead of humans hiring other humans, humans are now using ai. A human is removed from the equation either way.

[@urproblem]

Great so when is UBI coming? Or I guess France 1789?

[@vitalepitts]

Keep in mind that means humans who use AI and also have marketable skills and know how to integrate those, if AI's doing the bulk of your work then you aren't an important factor.

[@KINNZ94]

@@vitalepitts Totally agree 👍

[@tazerrtot2095]

Tech CEOs are not to be trusted. AI is just another tech bubble like crypto and the metaverse. Generative AI is about to hit a wall- they're running out of training data on the internet to implement, and data isn't geing created fast enough by people to meaningfully improve it- not to mention the big models upkeep is extremely expensive and corporations are *losing* money keeping them live. The AI bubble will pop within a few years and it will be reduced to small scale private use- it will not permanently take hold in creative spaces. and to be clear on how much data is needed to improve it- the difference in quality between gpt-2 and gpt-3 was significant, but the difference between gpt-3 and gpt-4 was very little despite the massive increase in training data; gpt-5 is supposed to have 5x that data and I doubt the growth in quality will be significant. After that they have little data left to play with, how much data will they need for gpt-6? Will tech companies want to keep funneling money into AI when line stops going up? To summarize: GenAI is nothing but a way for companies to attract investors with a shiny new toy until the next fad to latch onto pops up.

[@jacoL8]

while I respect you for responding... I still think this very much is not what I want to buy or support... while yah the main concept is of the deck is not in any way situational to what the art depicts, I just cant shake the idea away of how AI harms a lot of artists... especially new ones

[@Phill6000]

The ironic thing is that we harm the artist who used AI as a tool to create, not as a shortcut. And not just that specific one, but every artist that just looks like he used AI, no matter if he did or not.

[@SamBsound]

You're not wrong. The challenge is... living without AI in the future will not be feasible. It will be like living without electricity today. People who opt out will become the developing world. I know that might be a terrifying thought, but as far as I can tell... that's just reality. But that doesn't have to be a bad thing. Discovering electricity changed the world and people lost jobs for it. But we are better off despite all of it. Imagine a hospital without electricity. Our job is to figure out how to use AI as a tool for good. Because getting rid of it isn't a real option.

[@PureAsbestos]

@@SamBsound wrong. generative AI has not done any actual good. generative AI doesn't save lives

[@ghostAFsky]

This sounds like how people use to talk about digital art killing traditional art/artists, when really it unleashed a new world of art and new kinds of artists. AI might also be inspiring a generation of new artists. It's just a tool and it's still in its infancy.

[@jacoL8]

@@SamBsound yah when the current market is scrambling to put AI into everything and failing to do anything useful… thats when I want to be fearful of the future of AI /s Comparing generative AI, a souped up recognition/autofill algorithm, to electricity is insane…

[@No.0.o.0]

“I think i’ve been in a bit of a bubble” at least you didn’t say that while the modular is the background. Good optics

[@PureJadeKid]

His mention of the bubble is that the creators he is around happen to have been early adopters and think that AI art tools are very interesting. I think other people have formed their opinions never having seriously used the tools. (Typing a few prompts one time months ago is not attempting to seriously use the tools.)

[@Cyrribrae]

​@@PureJadeKidyep. And I wish we could hear from more of those creators. They can explain just how flawed the technology is - but also just how interesting it can be to incorporate something novel. But eh. The lines in the sand are all philosophical, theoretical, and fear-based. It's a bad place for discussion.

[@mwright80]

We all need to grow up. What will be will be. Eventually we WON'T be.

[@georgewhite1972]

So your idea is basically the same idea Brian Eno had with Oblique Strategies way back in the 1970's

[@noahboss9618]

or Tarot or the I Ching (Book of Changes, which is what I suspect inspired the name Book of Chances)

[@mkuc6951]

Sorry but the backlash is uncalled for. If you won't want to buy the cards, don't.

[@glazedyeti2993]

Thank you for following up on this. I think this is a well made response and a good perspective to take on the matter. I love your work and look forward to following you as we move beyond this issue! Be blessed

[@locky_y233]

got the cards from china and never regretted it! Huge respect to scott to creat all those amazing art and all of them looks fantastic!

[@DanielPradoBurgos]

And my head was singing "video killed the radio star..." 😅

[@demzionmain]

Saw AI talk and had to jump on to hear this. Edit: Didn't know this was addressing a controversy. I'm glad you're addressing it! (Even though I didn't know it happened)

[@aleedersart]

Most of us use a tool that AI will NEVER have use of in our art.... an imagination

[@grindedfranz]

The only good thing about this situation is that I discover old art more frequently because new stuff simply doesnt touch me anymore. I discovered some music which at first it was hard to listen, because it sounded (qualitywise) like shit. After a while i realized how all these imperfections in quality due to old recordinggear gave the whole music so much character and emotion. It brought me to tears how beautiful it was. I am very thankful for that. Also that there is so much art out there I couldnt consume in a lifetime. I am very scared of a future in which everything will sound perfect.

[@zbsfm]

Not trying to be confrontational here, but isn’t “it sounds too clean” the same complaint people have had since the 80s, or even earlier? I think we just don’t know what flaws to look for yet. When i was a kid, i didn’t know how to listen for mp3 compression, but now it’s super obvious to my ears. Earlier AI art tools looked amazing when they came out, but looking back, it’s easy to see the common thread between all of it. Ya know?

[@ShallieDragon]

Thank you for having a nuanced and thoughtful perspective on this. I appreciate it. Personally, I'm staying away from generative AI tools (non-generative AI is fine in my book) until the ethical concerns can be figured out. I'm positive that they will, it just may take some time, and I don't want to get involved until it's in a better state. I don't think this technology is going anywhere, and I do think it will become more ethical and fair with time. But it's just not there yet.

[@PureJadeKid]

You may be waiting many decades. Hopefully you are a lot younger than me.

[@noobynoob138]

The root problem is capitalism. Artists should not be required to sell their art in order to have enough money to not starve. In the case of a m*rderer pushing a victim into a woodchipper, the wrath of the m*rderer is the root cause, the m*rderer is the creator of the problem, the woodchipper is the method of causing a problem, and the d*ath of the victim is the symptom. In the case of artificial image generators being used to displace human artists, capitalism is the root cause, corporations using artificial image generators is the creator of the problem, the artificial image generator is the method of causing a problem, and the loss of income for the human artist is the symptom. Using someone else's art to train an artificial image generator without permission is unethical even if they don't lose money through that, just like copying someone's digital art and reposting it without permission is unethical even if they don't lose money through that. Corporations will never stop doing such unethical things unless they're stopped, because that would go against the profit motive.

[@PureJadeKid]

Just like going to an art museum and looking at art to learn how to sculpt and draw people instead of just looking at people to learn how to draw people would be unethical. Glad to know I am not the only hardliner. /s The root cause of the problem is black and white thinking.

[@hhwilly-ng]

We live in the very beginning of AI taking hold over the Internet, of which we have been the adventurers. Let's not stop the voyage here to settle down for being grumps.

[@Avliv_Satan]

Just started this video, but I'd like to say that I admire your transparency on this, not all artists would have the guts to do that.

[@mdblorenzana]

I think being open to using AI for art does make you pro AI. The bigger negative effect AI happens because it is welcomed. It seems strange to agree to all the issues with AI and yet be open to it. You’re already aware of the repercussions of AI on artists. Most of the artists affected by AI feel this repercussions immensely.

[@jamestaylor5417]

Coal miners had the same beef when gas gained in popularity. The world moves on. Artists can still create art, but maybe their motivations will have to change.

[@TheRenegadeHamster]

​@@jamestaylor5417 "Just be happy about having your art stolen by tech companies bro, because coal miners or some shit"

[@mdblorenzana]

I'd love the know what you think what the motivations of artists are.

[@PureJadeKid]

The working artists who complain about this are complaining that they were fired for being human? Can you post links to stories to this effect? I genuinely want to read more about this. (I read about Hasbro. There were also the Hollywood strikes in 2023. Are there more stories like this?) If the repercussions have been felt immensely, I would guess there would be a ton of substance to this and I could read more about it. Thank you.

[@mdblorenzana]

@@PureJadeKid The repercussions I'm referring to aren't in the perspective of these layoffs.You're referring to big companies, I'm referring to freelance artists, designers, or artists on social media who have a medium-sized following. How AI is affecting them isn't something you can read in those kinds of articles. I've experienced this personally from my own circle of artists. "The working artists who complain about this are complaining that they were fired for being human? Can you post links to stories to this effect?" - A very misinterpreted view of how artists are reacting AI if you ask me. Try to talk more with artists on a personal level.

[@roadkillwaffle9847]

As an artist, I really respect your decision to talk openly about this when called out, and your choice to not profit off the sale of the cards. However, I think you're missing a lot of perspective on *why* people are so against GenAI. For one, it's very important to keep in mind why these AIs are being created in the first place. You seem to view GenAI as a completely neutral thing, an un biased effect of progressing technology, when in reality it's being made *specifically* to exploit and replace artists. AI and NFTs are championed by the same people for the same reasons. You seem to think that the fact that AI steals from artists as a core function of it's existence is more of a "feeling" or "concern" than anything real. It absolutely isn't. The narrative that GenAI "only observes patterns and doesn't take anything" is incredibly incorrect, incredibly harmful, and intentionally spread by the grifters profiting off all this, to make neutral people like you think it's ok. As you briefly touched upon, GenAI is specifically designed to be able to replicate specific artist's styles. This proves that it doesn't just learn how to make something from analysing human works, it instead "learns" to copy each and every possible aspect of a work in every possible style. Which is only possible through the scraping of billions of real works, all done completely without consent. Again this shows the intent behind the design: to exploit and replace artists. Meaning that the explanation you wrote off as wrong, that AIs keep a database of scraped images to then re-arrange into whatever is prompted is much closer to the actual truth than the one you say. That layer of abstraction, the saving of concepts and patterns rather than raw data is an intentional trick to exploit a loophole in copyright law. That's not speculation, messages between AI developers got leaked a while back with one dev saying about the abstraction: "boom, copyright issues solved." Again: exploit and replace. But the legality of this all isn't as simple as "boom, copyright issues solved." Virtually every AI company under the sun are getting their pants sued off them as we speak. When tech grifters find a loophole in the law, you don't just sit back, see it as inevitable and let it happen. You change the law. You also conflate all types of AI a few times. As far as I'm aware, AI tools for rotoscoping footage or de-noising audio are just that, tools. There's no inherent exploitation, no intent to replace, they're just a useful way to speed up a menial process. (I might be wrong about this, I haven't heard much discussion on this sort of thing.) And acting like this and GenAI are the same thing and come as a package deal is really manipulative. I don't think that was your intent but it's true. By mixing those two things together you go from having one awful creation and one relatively benign one - an easily identifiable and possibly fixable problem - to one murky grey bog, something easy to be neutral and complacent about. Again, I really respect you being open to change your mind on this, I hope you understand this isn't something that can be fence-sit about, it's a scam, an incredibly harmful one at that. being neutral and fine with it is, in reality, supporting it. And I hope you can see that it's not the natural, neutral progression it's sold as.

[@spanzotab]

Do you have any reading about the way AI retains real examples of images for it to then copy later on when someone types in the exact prompt?

[@roadkillwaffle9847]

@@spanzotab I'm by no means an expert on how GenAI works *exactly* (I'm not sure anyone really knows considering how it's developed,) but it doesn't. As I said, that's the loophole: images - or whatever it's trained on - aren't directly saved, nor recreated 1-1, so with current copyright laws, it *technically* isn't infringing.

[@thegamingfrontier3079]

@@spanzotab Getty Images vs Stability AI. RIAA vs Udio/Suno. Each of these cases they prompted the AI to give up the ghost.

[@DanknDerpyGamer]

@@thegamingfrontier3079 At least so they claim - how much tinkering went into it, how much work using tools like img2img went into those results? And how many images on Getty's site that are in dispute here were actually public domain images with Getty's watermark smeared all over them (which is a thing)? IMO since we are talking court cases, those little details do matter quite a bit in terms of the accuracy of the claims being made. (obligatory "I am NOT a laywer")

[@Trick1e]

as long as that AI doesn't steal someone's work without permission or a paid agreement - i don't see the problem. human creativity and novelty will always be in demand. the fact he had to make a 20 minute video about it is crazy. honestly - what the fuck world?

[@false-set]

Remember when the same arguments were made about digital art?

[@ventikoi_]

the difference is that digital art often doesn't steal data from other artists

[@false-set]

@@ventikoi_ The arguments fit AI art way better too, “the computer does it all for you” well, now actually yes lol but it’s just interesting to me that these things repeat word for word.

[@ventikoi_]

@@false-set true, at least now the claims being used are valid lol