The Truth About AI Getting "Creative"

[@Arrow14100]

Professional Artist here As an artist, what bothers me the most isn't that people can recreate my art style or make pictures that look like I painted them, it's that they are now saying that my art looks AI generated and just dismiss it at a glance. Especially since I dabble in surrealist art sometimes, people just accuse me of using an AI and claim that I didn't do it whilst I was spending hours to days in front of my screen painstakingly painting the damn thing. I am very much in support of people using AI images to do what they otherwise couldn't. I'm even ok with people using and recreating my work, even if I'm not being credited. What hurts my income isn't that people can recreate my art, it's that they think my art isn't genuine anymore and therefore think I'm a fraud. Even if I provide proof like making ofs most people are too lazy to check and simply dismiss it at a glance, so the never look into it. Even just looking at it for more than a second would make it clear, because there are no AI artifacts for example. But most people can't even be bothered to do that. My biggest problem are the morons shouting "YoU diDN't MaKe thAT, You JuSt TYpeD iN SomE WoRDs". Like B*tch, I trained your bot, have some respect! Edit: To all you geniuses typing: "You should just upload a making of", do you really think I haven't tried that? Like I said, people just dismiss you at a glance, to the point where they don't even bother to swipe left. It doesn't work! Just read what I wrote above, it's not that hard. Seriously, stop spamming that shit and actually think about it for a second. Everyone has had that genius idea of yours. You're not as smart or original as you think you are.

[@Edino_Chattino]

I read somewhere that human artists will have to record a speedrun of their work to prove it was actually them. Untill an AI can mimic the speedrunning video lol.

[@Arrow14100]

@@Edino_Chattino That doesn't work. Like I said, most people don't look into it if they think that your art is AI generated. Someone's simply gonna go to the comments and type: "This looks AI generated" without even looking into it. Consequently, people who are unsure are gonna check the comments first, where they'll see that comment, give it an upvote because they now feel like they've caught a cheater, and then dismiss the post. And at that point it's gonna become the top comment and create a feedback loop. And even a response to it, with a link to a making of, won't be seen by most, because the comment replies fill up the feed with comments that reaffirm the top comment. It's like the meme of the brainlet wojaks congratulating each other. They just drown out any proof you offer.

[@MaryamMaqdisi]

That’s awful. I hate AI being used to essentially steal from artists, creators and the like, like github copilot overlooking licenses, it’s not okay

[@n0nenone]

This is a geniune annoyance someone might have unlike the other philosophical & hypocritical ones.. goodluck my man

[@linaqruf]

The 'morons' in question are not just AI enthusiasts - they're also people who are paranoid about AI. I've faced similar issues when publishing my novel draft; their paranoid behavior led them to accuse me of using GPT-3 or some other AI tool to make my writing style mimic Shakespeare's, despite the fact that I've been training my writing style since reading Hamlet in 2016. Today, many people are paranoid about the existence of AI and don't know which ones are real and which ones aren't. They're just hating.

[@TheAndroidFan98]

Dude, when that Vsauce melody kicked in and you came up with that twist, I got goosebumps all over😂 well done👌🏻

[@ZZ-vl5nd]

Lol, me too, I thought it was Michael with some Markes deep fake.

[@jonathan__g]

@@ZZ-vl5nd That would have made for one hell of a twist if they pulled that off.

[@steveocho]

Timestamp?

[@03Sys]

@@steveocho 1:49

[@karanpandey9565]

Soo relateable

[@JK-ry6qm]

I played around with chatGPT regarding coding. I asked it to create a simple calculator app in python. It did and it worked perfectly for simple operations. Then I asked a follow up question if it could add an UI and it did. Then I wanted the possible operators as buttons and it did. The context awareness and understanding of what it’s answering is scaringly good

[@suhailmall98]

Yeah, that's also because there's a lot of exams of that code floating around online so it can pull from that pretty directly

[@silentbyte196]

This is gonna make all my highschool coding projects and assignments so easy lmao. I may be laughing now, but I'll get replaced by the AI itself after I finish my education.

[@vectoralphaSec]

@@silentbyte196 yeah most work will be automated by AI years from now. The only thing really safe for a while will be manual work.

[@bacphan7582]

@@suhailmall98 it has to read the code, understand which part of code is responsible for UI, which is for button, etc, hell it may even have to combine multi repo together, so it has to understand the whole program to know how to modify it

[@mukpat001]

@@suhailmall98 its not connected to internet... ya but its trained on all that code... its not that simple... even ai explain code very beautifully, if we find any error in code and tell ai.. it'll correct itself.. but it has its limits... "set of training data"

[@jeremynaranjo5681]

They said that machines would take mundane physical jobs from us and leave us with creativity. But it turns out that creativity is easier for algorithms than digging a ditch and more profitable. We are giving AI high skill creative work and leaving humans back breaking dull work. Well done.

[@kpvisual89]

😆 true. we fkd up. need to go back.

[@youraverageimperialguard7932]

That's wrong. The AI will just dig the ditch while making the art. AI can multi-task. They will take both jobs.

[@Luvmybunnies]

🤣🤣🤣

[@electronresonator8882]

then you should be the one that making the machines right?, because when your job also replaced, then there's no job for humans

[@TosyaChan]

It's about time people start working physically again 💪

[@lukealdrich]

It's insane that AI has gotten to the point where these ethical conversations are already being discussed seriously

[@InnokentyShuvalov]

Well, it is quite cool, but to be fair: these conversation were already seriously discussed in the 70s and 80s, by all kinds of sci-fi writers and community. The AI didn't deliver back then as it does now, but those people had very accurate predictions about it, and the discussions were totally serious. So what we're doing here now is not only not new, it's been already predicted and discussed in detail 50 years ago. Good read I recommend: "Sum of Technology" by Stanislaw Lem.

[@lukealdrich]

@@InnokentyShuvalov That was among a niche group of people though. The difference is these conversations are main stream today.

[@InnokentyShuvalov]

@@lukealdrich nah, still a nieche. Back in those times, being into sci-fi and science was significantly more popular than nowadays as well, so that nieche might've been even bigger than today.

[@nimbusws2566]

@@InnokentyShuvalov the content creators talking about the ethical issues of online art being scraped and used to train AI don’t seem to all be scifi fans.

[@defaulted9485]

Its not insane. IP and credit theft has already been a massive art issue for ages and everyone who draws knows it. Still sad to see programmers and businessman being ignorant tho. But its starting to bit them in the bottom. But now, we got actual problem like unconsensual p**n edit, animalistic censorship, Internet Meme recycling, and oversaturation of artwork into the mix which previously was not an issue because you need photoshopping and illustration and editing skill to do that.

[@thegoldensmith]

Something to keep in mind about your iPhone script example is the information cutoff date. ChatGPT was only trained on information up to 2021 and doesn't have access to the internet. The script it wrote was wrong because it has no actual information on the iPhone 14 Pro, which came out in 2022. I think the fact that it was still able to generate a convincing output based on it's current knowledge is very impressive!

[@digitalnomad90]

This. He should’ve read better about it.

[@ChristopheHanne]

That's exactly what I was about to write. For sure, it doesn't know the iPhone 14. So, apparently it extrapolates the information from what it has access from (2021< information) Maybe it should have warned that the iPhone 14 doesn't exist in "his world", so he can't extrapolate its specs...

[@EriIaz]

It's actually the opposite of being impressive. ChatGPT acts like a pathological impersonator at times. There is technically a minor, yet extremely important ethical problem for large language models to enter professional and responsible use at the level of replacing us humans. A proper AI, just like an honest human being, is supposed to tell you when it's describing something with reliable sources and great confidence, as opposed to boldly guessing things it doesn't know about for a fact, without actually telling you it's all speculation. Entertainment aside, it is completely useless in any professional application as long as it doesn't do that, and anyone who thinks otherwise is irresponsible to say the least. It's an AI, so it shouldn't convince anyone about anything it can't prove. One way that would prevent that is merely saying "Unfortunately, I can't answer your question with a good level of evidence since the data sets I was trained on miss the subject of your question, likely predating it. That being said, I can speculate that iPhone 14 is likely to maintain being an Apple product, supposed to have yare-yare features, blah blah blah" And another way is to actually have an embedded fact checking module, so the AI will basically ask itself "am I bullshitting the user?" during every reply generation. Combine both, and now that thing is somewhat usable. Still has limitations, but at the very least it will be much less likely to mislead the user. Still doesn't circumventing the issue of learning human errors from us humans, so you'll also have to top it off with an actual test and qualification for the intended tasks, and then maybe we can talk about replacing someone.

[@almarma]

@@EriIaz This. While watching the video and that part about the iPhone 14 I had the feeling that this AI talks like a politician: elegant words and phrases but empty messages full of lies and inaccuracies. I’m pretty sure there were sea mammals before 2021 when the cutoff data sample was taken and yet the AI lied while pretending to give accurate information

[@waqarniyazi]

@@EriIaz this right here is a well formed and informed opinion

[@vinayk6409]

The impressive thing is how good of an actor you are to make that script sound natural

[@chickennuggets1837]

hey michael vsauce here

[@slamabalkis7021]

Honestly I felt something was off in the beginning .. he was saying basic things that were not convinicing repeating over and over the fact that the creative process requires "imagination, creativity and human perspective" lol I was like "this doesn't sound like him" it was a shallow analysis... but then again this thing obviously has a huge potential in the future so..

[@vinayk6409]

@@slamabalkis7021 yes! I totally agree, it did seem a bit "empty" and more "fluff words" for Marques, even the perspective seemed a bit off for him, I forget exactly what but I felt "wow he's really trying to take a stance here, normally he talks about both sides even if he is biased he tries". Goes to show his value and skill as a writer imo

[@Jose04537]

I can't wait for advanced deep fakes so you won't even need actors to act the script anymore. No more celebrities.

[@v1nigra3]

@@slamabalkis7021 haa..lies, you just had a problem with it because it was a clean logical take, wasn’t what you wanted to hear

[@that1guy307]

As a creator who is not necessarily an illustrator/digital art creator, it means a ton to see you speaking out on the issues of AI and defending the art community. Thank you

[@junaid_ahmed_]

That's wild, it's insane to think we might start needing disclaimers to tell us what's human vs AI generated

[@ningannel4095]

I feel like there's some irony here

[@Outwardpd]

Which is funny, because needing a disclaimer for something like that means the disclaimer only exists for irrational discrimination towards the art.

[@ASLUHLUHC3]

@@Outwardpd There are rational reasons for discriminating (i.e. you might care about the artist's particular thoughts/feelings when doing something, or just appreciate the craft they've honed), but this certainly doesn't apply to everything (e.g. adverts)

[@anthonygotttheonly]

We already disclose foods whenever we genetically alter them, one day it’ll just be a boring label in the description of a product.

[@peckc16]

@@Outwardpd at least we could tell if an article or whatever is written by an English language learner from some country that blog mills abuse. To me this ai and those articles sound about the same.

[@archerpool]

Many have already discussed the issue of replacing people in the future, but one thing that’s a major issue as of right now is being accused of pretending you made something when it’s AI. I’ve been doing digital artwork for seven years and I’ve learnt as an artist and found my own style however one in one-hundred accuse me of it being AI. I lose followers as a result. People see something good and see that I don’t have a huge following and then assume I’m faking it. Most people haven’t actually got a clue how to identify AI art. If eyes and hands look human, it’s more than likely real. If you can see individual brush strokes or pencil lines, then it’s real. It’s a shame Instagram and Twitter compress images because if you zoom in on AI art it’s poor quality. Imprecise lines, blurs, etc. while real artwork is actually high quality. So to have people accuse you of using AI is extremely damaging for following and business. Artists shouldn’t have to post progress photos or videos. It’s not like van Gough had to prove his work. There’s just a lot of people whose knowledge is minimal thinking they know everything and it will ruin someone’s career.

[@autohmae]

Even for van Gogh it's kind of true though. When a new van Gogh is discovered, it's only discovered because it's been validated by experts.

[@autohmae]

Maybe start an association of artists which will pay programmers to make AI to validate AI generated art. Just like for Deepfakes people create software to help validate.

[@archerpool]

@@rdallas1614 I’ve only recently been able to do it as my old iPad would glitch whenever I had it on. Every now and then I post progress pictures of various stages. I guess now I have the ability to use screen capture I should probably do it. Just never cared for it.

[@normapadro420]

I have been using AI since 2000 when I bought my first computer. As the years went by I heard how most of the developers got their ideas from other technologies. We are living in a time where if we want to learn something we can ask for help on search engines. Since then this hasn't taken schools out of business, or telephone books. Everything seems the same. The moon hasn't change it's shape since it was photographed back in the days. Online dictionaries have not replaced physical copies either. Everything is a tool that we can use to create better things. Nothing is original things have been here since before our birth. Cameras have recorded the same objects over, and over. The guitar has always sounded the same from the time it was built. Only people can make it sound different. No one has to know how you create your art, or what brand of pencils you use. People always talk about the most expensive brands, but no one cares how expensive anything is. You shouldn't care about not being able to use any type of paints, software, or musical presets to create your art work, because it doesn't matter. Create your work, and move on to more wonderful things. Next year, or decades from now there will be other worries. Just be an artist.

[@normapadro420]

@@autohmae Not many make it in the world like that. Look at all of the crazy things they talk about them on the news. When I saw alk of the ugliness behind fame I thought differently. I thought it doesn't matter how my work gets discovered. I have different ideas about my work, and it doesn't match all the other artists. I'm just being myself.

[@mherkhachatryan666]

About Iphone 14 part - 6:00 . The ChatGPT was trained on a data in internet before September 2021. That's what they say in their webpage. So it's not search engine, you cannot expect it to have fresh information. I think that's also why it mentions iPhone 12 colors and camera specs.

[@endeavor4299]

Ahh that makes sense. That does raise an interesting question about the freshness of the information that gets generated by these AI tools.

[@jonathanslving7462]

yesss really important comment right here!

[@Outwardpd]

I was really disappointed that he didn't mention this, makes me think he didn't actually spend much time with the bot because if you spend any decent amount of time with it then eventually it will tell you about this explicitly.

[@Oneye.]

This. Was about to comment the same thing.

[@einstijn138]

@@Outwardpd just shows that humans are capable of making errors as well

[@LFPAnimations]

I feel like a line should be drawn between using AI art for reference, inspiration, or even concept art and using AI art as the final product. I think it is an incredible tool for quickly getting an image from a few words and exploring different concepts very quickly. I also think AI can be really good at doing complex, but repetitive tasks quickly. Things like texturing a 3d model, motion capture, or photogrametry can all be benefited from AI. But when the AI is making the actual end product it will become boring. I honestly believe that people will still be able to discern when a real artist makes something because they will have more purpose behind what they do. AI art will become corporate art. Devoid of any purpose, meant to meet it's 1 sentence instruction.

[@JoeBissell]

I'm worried that the accessibility to use stylized libraries of other peoples art will 100% desensitize people to the creativity required to create the original pieces. Once we've started working with compounded data it will give a perception of quickness and ease that devalues the source material.

[@purvue]

Factssssss

[@MichalToporcer]

Big facts

[@TeodorKubena]

Why do people still paint portraits, since we have cameras for over 100 years then?

[@AbeYousef]

highly disagree, an original painting produced from a human's mind of a landscape is still considered more valuable than a photographer's image, which is more valuable than what I produce with a phone camera. It also ignores the fact that you have to frame images, draw attention to specific things. A human in working in collaboration with an AI still has to put in a lot of time to fine tune the image to their liking

[@da3dsoul]

Have you ever been on pixiv or deviantart? When people are exposed to a lot of something, it feels less special. AI need not be involved for that effect.

[@briangriffin77890]

The credit question is interesting, but I was kinda asking myself the opposite question: how are we ever going to know when someone really actually wrote something? This past week, I used ChatGPT to write emails applying for internships and a resume (I actually got a selection email back and the company will never know). It’s really cool but kinda scary to think that soon nobody will need to know how to do anything and nobody will ever know if you actually wrote it Edit: it looks like I’m gonna get that job Edit 2: I got it

[@imaadh]

OpenAI says they are working on some kind of electronic watermark.

[@sai_69]

I'm writing a novel using a story chatgpt have me, set in a world chat gpt made for me. I'm never going to tell that to anyone and people will assume it to be my own creativity.

[@David-we3sb]

How do you get it to write a resume? Did you feed it your work experience somehow?

[@briangriffin77890]

@@David-we3sb yep, literally just said write a resume. Info: X company, I’m graduating Y, have work experience as a Z…

[@RealLaone]

This is also my concern. Back in high school when we used to write essays, one girl used to type them and we questioned if it's fair because Word practically highlights incorrect spelled words. Now it seems things just got out of hand

[@emmahayes3342]

As a casual artist who occasionally sells a piece or two, this is concerning. I have worked for years to refine my painting process and develop my style. That style being incorporated into AI without me knowing is kinda scary. With that said, pretty much every artist learned and was inspired by other artists themselves. Art is an endless loop of inspiration and cooperation. I honestly have no idea how these ethical and legal conversations will play out in the future because of how nuanced they are.

[@roggos3668]

Good point, but if I get inspired by anything I can create literally anything, even unrelated to the thing that inspired me. In the case of AI, if you feed it pictures of a park, it will create pictures of a park, its very different

[@sozisalad5011]

Boohhooo, "artists" like you were mocking people with other Jobs like 5 yrs ago on Twitter that all things will get automated except art, because it requires "creativity" what happened now?

[@Ilamarea]

It's completely unimportant. The existence of AI art, original or not, will make all artists completely obsolete. And not just artists. All of us. We will be extinct. It's inevitable.

[@iandrake1942]

@@Ilamarea no it won't lol I have no interest in reading a novel written by a machine, or going to an exhibition to see something art created by a machine. Its fine if a person incorporates AI as a tool in their art, and that will definitely happen, but art is not purely about technical proficiency, it's expressive and social.

[@judebrowne]

@@iandrake1942 Ai generating art rn will be very different to ai generating art in a 100 years.

[@Anurag071188]

Couples of months ago, I saw a courtroom drama web-series where a guy creates an AI software which can generate full song by using snippet of music available online. Song produced by the software were superhit. When the world came to know about this, all the music producers & artist filled a lawsuit against the guy claiming "CREDIT" & infringement of copyright. Everyone claimed that part of the song was their music & they should get compensated for their creativity.

[@Ryu62Alpha]

For me, this whole thing has made me realise that as an artist, I have never had to articulate what "style" is to people because I just assumed people knew what that meant. The fact that people are treating art and artists so separately is very jaring. People clearly like art, but they have zero respect for the artist, and now they have an AI generator that allows them to completely disassociate the two. The way I've tried to describe style to my friends and family is that art at it's core is a visual language. The countless hours of learning, collecting references, creating, failing, the small successes, the frustratiion etc all to craft a voice for ourselves. This AI business seems to rob artists of that voice that is such a personal and abstract thing. In a lot of the worst cases so far, bad actors have been literally using the styles of artists against them, watching as our voice is being mimicked and devalued at a record pace. A part of ourselves that is deeply personal is now being violated on a mass scale. Almost every artist I know that has tried to bring up their concerns are met a metaphorical and literal middle finger. I do think AI is awesome, and I would love for people to be able to express their imaginations in ways not possible before. I appreciate that not everyone can become an artist, or has the passion and dedication to take that journey. But, and it's a big but, is this really way to do it? You mentioned musical artists, but that is easier for people to accociated with since they can see a face, a person is usually visible. But other kinds of art from paintings to animations, most people don't even appreciate that a person did that, let alone a whole team of hundreds of people. I guess, the overall feeling I have is concern. Excited, but mainly concerned.

[@npcimknot958]

Its pretty depressing to see ai churn up your art in like 10 seconds or less lol.. and ‘better’ lol.. i couldn’t stop giving china my art lol cause i was so curious.. it definetly isn’t my style’ Meitu makes everything loook like Genshin impact lol.. but i can see this helpful in refining hair and like clothing as inspiration.. also, it does colour and hair so well but ther is sometihng that is so generic about it.. it loses that personal touch. Its gorgeous.. I’m in shock but i think i like personality and imperfection more.. but damn its deperssing haha

[@VVayVVard]

@@npcimknot958 AI is pretty good for doing mediocre, "good-enough" art, but I've never seen an AI-generated picture that actually looked gorgeous. The problem, I'm guessing, is that AI training sets usually consist of mediocre images. Which is why they can only produce mediocre results. Not to mention that masterpieces are usually not easily replicable anyway, since if you change something of an already perfect image, you're more likely to ruin it than improve it.

[@MarkSKristensen]

Learn to code /s Doesn’t matter how anyone feels about it, the cat is out of the bag and there’s no going back now.

[@MarkSKristensen]

@@VVayVVard Then you haven’t looked in a while, honestly the pace of progress on SD is mind numbing, the new models people have been creating this last month have been insane.

[@Spillerrec]

As a consumer, I don't think style is "real" art. Style is born from repeating a specific set of ideas/concepts/techniques, sometimes intentional choices (I like these color schemes, I'm interested in certain topics, etc.), sometimes unintentional (I happen use use certain tools because that is what I have access to). Art is expression, its communication. Style brings nothing new to the table. Expression without style might not have the same impact, but style without expression is forgettable. Music videos are a great example, as most are bland "dancing" videos which I imagine their real goal is just to promote the artists faces so you will recognize their album covers in shops. The worthwhile ones tends to be those that doesn't show the artist, as they are actually trying to convey something. And with regards to attribution/recognition, usually only the singer gets any attention. The ones writing the music, the lyrics, playing the instruments, mastering the audio, directing the music video, doing the camera work, creating the album covers, etc. rarely gets mentioned anywhere noticeable. I think AI art is still very much in its infancy and we are likely moving towards the Peak of Inflated Expectations. It is starting to show promise with its visual quality, but the results are semi-random and it is difficult to control to create something more intentional. I'm sure this is quickly going to improve in the next few years and perhaps in 5-8 years time we will have something great. The whole stealing peoples art is greatly exaggerated in my opinion and feels mostly like a knee-jerk reaction from artists which feels threatened on their livelihood. It is not accidentally plagiarizing existing work without you explicitly asking it to (which would be an huge issue for sure) and even then it is not making straight up copies. And unless it is some very well known artist, the current models do not really capture their individual style anyway. I don't see the difference from the endless amount of parody art of Edvard Munch's "The Scream" other than the lower bar of entry. It is not like any of this didn't happen already. We are moving towards a future where we have to rely less on technique and monopolizing a specific style, and have to value beyond that which I think is a good thing. As an non-artist, I'm looking forward to seeing AI raise the bar and seeing less artistically talented people better express themselves. And in my own career, how ChatGPT can improve productivity.

[@TechboogieTV]

I'm impressed by how well you can read a script and make it sound completely natural almost more than the script being generated by AI

[@midgetwars1]

It's all in the delivery. It's why actors/directors can make a crap script into a decent movie.

[@Aaron-ob2or]

I totally agree with you. I'm pretty impressed by how well the AI can generate scripts and make them sound natural too. It's like, sometimes I can't even tell if it's a real person writing or the AI. It's pretty cool.

[@joaquincaceresguibovich3182]

he has years doing this, i'd be more surprised if he didn't sound natural

[@nickfosley2882]

The actual magic is... he didn't read the script word for word, he humanized or MKBHDized some parts. You can see for yourself if you pop open the script and then open the video in another tab and follow along.

[@nickfosley2882]

@@Maicowerk yeah but my only gripe is he claimed to read it "exactly word for word" when that wasn't the case.

[@topsecretnk2929]

1:50 You know it’s getting mindblowing when the vsauce music kicks in

[@jeremyjohnson2586]

It hurts the most to me when people use these apps to create these things while I spend my time in college paying for my degree then a new technology "tool" comes and take bits and pieces of other artwork and call it new. You can't compare it to inspiration. When we are inspired we gain a feeling of creativity not a feeling to what we see. With the use of this new ai it's sad because some artists who are struggling to become recognized with now be brushed under the rug because their art is no longer unique to them all because an ai create create a replica or rather "inspired" piece from their artwork

[@AdrianSanabria]

I recall reading that ChatGPT was trained on data as recent as 2021, which might explain why it doesn't get some answers correct about 2022-related items.

[@drishalballaney]

Yes I asked it the question, and it confirmed for me that it was trained till 2021

[@mr.ambientsounds1291]

It's not just 2022 or 2023 items it gets wrong. Occasionally, it's just basic facts

[@watsonlatta288]

Hey there MKBHD! This is a really informational & helpful video. Although I wanted to let you know that the reason that the ChatGTP couldn't get the iPhone 14 specs correct were because ChatGTP does not have access to information after 2021, where as the iPhone 14 was released 2023. 6:28 It was taking the iPhone 12 colors, specs, etc. because that the newest information it currently has.

[@wintersijan]

i was exactly trying to comment this but i found yours 😅 . yes it was clearly mentioned in their website that it has been heavily trained on the information available before 2021 and also don't have access to internet

[@jaxamus13]

2022 not 2023

[@capturedlondon]

@@jaxamus13 a bot wrote that comment 😂

[@jaxamus13]

@@capturedlondon 😳

[@SignificantPressure100]

@@jaxamus13 I was questioning my timeline for a sec

[@TheGreatCheevo]

It does hit different when you're a professional illustrator and get told to your face by a client that they will just use AI going forward instead of you.

[@pavulon5000]

I can't wait for AI to replace coders who helped develop it

[@MeowjinBoo]

yep, feel like ai art was created to cut artists out when it comes to commisions or paying out loyalties. Not a fan of AI at all, feel like it was created to not benefit us but to make money. edit: Jesus don't be anti semetic or talking about conspiracies. A bunch of techbro's who make a technology have no interest in "bettering" they just have interest in making money.

[@Boardwoards]

@@MeowjinBoo it's laundering yep

[@raulserrano351]

@@pavulon5000 chat gpt has entered the chat

[@shukrantpatil]

Will not happen, AI replacing coders who created the AI in the first place would suggest the existence of a technological singularity and such an event would be a huge thing . Something as simple as a few humans losing their livelihood does not even compare to the absolute mind boggling f*ckery that will take place if a technological singularity occurs.

[@jonathanduchesne8437]

This reminds me of helicopter parenting, the more Ai helps you the more you'll think you cant do anything yourself and you'll depend more and more in Ai.

[@millie9814]

Exactly! 💯

[@maiskorrel]

The question that follows is, how much does this actual matter if you live in a world where there is always AI technology available to you? (You could ask the same question with electricity, we depend heavily on it, but how bad of a thing is this really if there is always electricity anyways?)

[@millie9814]

@@maiskorrel It's not the same thing, because it has to do with brain usage. You need to exercise your brain on a daily basis by doing things and thinking. I guess it's all a matter of balance and being careful, just as we are supposed to be careful using our phones, and not spend long hours scrolling on social media. Just my opinion!

[@jasonrist6582]

do people believe they can't walk because there are cars?

[@jonathanduchesne8437]

Nice answers everyone, what did you used, chatGPT?

[@moderndayjames]

THANK YOU for talking about the legal concerns with these data sets. It's a huge issue in the art community at the moment

[@YukyDoodle]

Thanks for your work James it's good to see you here

[@autohmae]

Same with programming and public code from Github

[@yuioyup]

@@autohmae github has its own ai

[@autohmae]

@@yuioyup yeah, same problem

[@v1nigra3]

As an artist I love AI art, it’s silly to say it’s copyrighted because just like we can see art and get inspired from it and sometimes do something similar it’s the same the AI does. And the BEST part is that the art AI creates is already significantly better than at the least 98% percent of artists out there, and it’s always amazing to see its work! It’s nothing but envy and an emotional reaction to try to claim it’s work is copyright

[@zeemdotexe]

To me, art has always been the creative expression of human emotion. It's not about being 100% original, nothing truly is, but a piece of art simply cannot be separated from the individual, since it is fundamentally tied to their unique perspective and experience.

[@anthonyanthony4186]

You sure about nothing being truly original?

[@zeemdotexe]

@@anthonyanthony4186 Yes, at least not entirely. Everything is inspired/influenced by something that already exists and that's OK, because what matters is how the artist combines the pieces and what they are trying to express. If I make a beat on my PC, I'm literally just combining/arranging sounds i saved on my hard drive, maybe even in a genre that's already established, but I do it in a way that only I would. If I paint a tree, I'm not inventing the way a tree looks, but I will make creative choices that'll convey whatever I'm trying to express.

[@emikomina]

ai art is tied to the unique perspective of an ai.

[@evanpearson2612]

@@emikomina exactly. The art generated by the AI is a result of the programmer's unique work. If a programmer copies too intensely from another AI structure than they should be able to be sued.

[@martypoll]

Well now you have art produced from the unique perspective and experience (i.e. training set) of the AI program.

[@quinnblumenthal403]

My robotics team was recently writing letters to potential sponsors and for fun we asked ChatGPT to do the same, and it was scary how well it did, maybe even better than us.

[@BrianOgonjiOG]

What prompt did you give it? I'm trying to get it write me a business proposal for a 3D printing business

[@kichapps]

@@BrianOgonjiOG you need to get very specific. Best way is to ask it to ask you about what you want. It bases on your ideas, looks at it with an outsider's perspective and groups the information very naturally.

[@AbeYousef]

I'm certainly going to be using it to generate cover letters for jobs with a combination of resume reading and job description as inputs.

[@nikhilveeramachaneni7073]

Something about the iPhone 14 Pro response. ChatGPT has "limited knowledge of world events after 2021" according to the website, so it makes total sense why it wouldn't know some things about the 14 Pro's camera system and colors.

[@adamsimino9046]

As someone who's married to a digital artist this topic is very interesting to me. The futurist and tech enthusiast in me see the potential in the as tools and resources. On the other hand I've seen how much time and effort my wife has poured into learning and perfecting her art as well as developing her own style. It takes a tremendous amount of time and dedication. I have also seen recently where her or other creators she knows have done commission or lost commissions they spent hours of their life on to AI art that was generated by someone and they were then paid for that generative work instead of the custom art my wife had made. What took her hours of passion and dedication to make they were able to simply write a promot and an AI would steal someo else's or even possibly her past works to make something in a fraction of the time. So now the people making money on the art aren't the ones that out the time and dedication into honing an expression but someone who knew the correct words to string together to get the job done close enough then maybe Photoshop a few details. Where does this leave the non AI generated artists? Especially the small ones that are growing in this and loosing a few commissions to AI are a huge deal to them.

[@therpope]

My uncle is a digital artist and what he does with dallee is impressive. It’s a perfect tool for him.

[@adamsimino9046]

@@therpope is he just using it as a reference point and then creating artwork based on that? Or does he just edit the art generated by Dolly to refine it? Using AI as a reference tool seems completely reasonable to me just like using anything else as a reference I think my only problem with AI is where you use it in place of skill or technique to create art in the sense that you have the AI generate art and you just clean up what it generates and then call that art that you've done. There's a huge distinction between those two uses of AI at least in my opinion. Using it as a reference doesn't seem to be as indicative of stealing or miscrediting other people's work since you still have to put the effort into generating something else yourself with your own skills.

[@jaselee117]

I’ve seen a lot of takes on this and I understand it can be hard for people when it feels like they are being put out of a job, I’m a software developer and I’m also on the chopping block with how good chatgpt is. But no amount of complaining will stop innovation especially something as promising as AI. Unfortunately no matter how much time and dedication you put into your craft a customer does not care they just want the cheapest and fastest options. The best advice I have for your wife is to learn to use the AI tools and incorporate it into her work and learn it. These are not replacing artists these are new tools. People who are turning up there nose too it will be left behind and replaced by a new generation of artists that are very good at using these new AI tool. It happened before when digital art was emerging and traditional artists had a problem with it too. And currently AI is like a car (for now) it will do 99% of the work of getting you somewhere, but it still needs a driver to direct it.

[@nystemy]

To be fair. These machine learning art generators are standing on the shoulders of copyright infringement. Since any piece in their training dataset helps the ML system improve its ability to mimic that piece. If the piece is acquired without permission. (like through webcrawlers or the like) Then any derivative work made from the piece can't negatively effect the owner/author of the original. Now, it is though hard to pinpoint what exact pieces in the training dataset were used to produce a given output. (the answer is effectively all of them.) But it isn't hard to say that if one removes all the pieces that were unauthorized that the system would be massively worse at the job. As one typically says, two wrongs don't make a right. Neither does a few million cases of copyright infringement make a legally okay image. Operators/creators of machine learning systems should ideally only use source material that they have explicit permission to use.

[@bubblegumplastic]

@@jaselee117 But if nothing is being created from scratch anymore, it becomes an endless loop of plagiarisation, and the freshness and innovation diminishes. The AI had to steal from millions of artists to come up with its current database. If all current and new artists use it as a shortcut, you'll keep building off the same old hat

[@matthewjulius5401]

The error rate is such an important part of this. I'm really concerned that people will rely too much on these new AI tools and assume their information is correct, and won't validate the factual claims. A misinformation nightmare.

[@greenbean421]

agreed

[@Dsole1217]

This WILL happen. Like your concern is correct. It’s bound to happen. I don’t see a way it wont

[@pedroroque8681]

It’s already happening. People like being dependent and lazy. This won’t end well.

[@Hardycore7]

It's only going to get better. This probably won't be an issue in another year or two.

[@PlayerKV]

Teachers used to say the same thing about the internet. "The internet is an unreliable source of information! Students should get all their information from the library!"

[@JKastle007]

I feel that chatbot intentionally gets a few things wrong so we feel better about ourselves 😅

[@dipeshchand9109]

OOO it's tasty 😋 food

[@andrewdunbar828]

It knows only god is perfect and it knows humans are is creators. QED (-:

[@kisstherajn]

that's scary actually. what if all the "AI" stuff intentionally acting dumb so that at 1 point they will rise up at the same time when we least expect?

[@raifmohamed8401]

😂😂😂

[@lolitaras22]

@Jon Not only, it's a language model, it has no consciousness or knowledge of false and truth. It uses probabilistic and statistical methods and techniques to generate an output.

[@johnnykkaram]

@Marques As I have understood, ChatGPT is not connected to the internet and has been fed data prior to 2021. For that reason, it would definitely not respond well on iPhone 14 Pro (sep 2022 release). That does not mean that there are huge rooms for improvement however it’s important to also understand some of its hiccups that are related to its initial design. Nevertheless, thank you for always giving an interesting perspective on several matters .

[@amoniemm]

That’s true, it’s not aware of the existence of iPhone 14 and it answered about the specs of the most recent iPhone it knows of, or maybe some speculation that existed online at the time about the future of iPhone cameras or something.

[@JeremyLawrence-imajez]

An alternative way of looking at the 'creative' aspect of this this is to consider asking a designer to produce some work for you after you give them a brief. No-one would ever think the person commissioning the design created the work, but that's exactly what many folk are doing with AI. They give it some prompts, i.e. a brief and then displaying the work as their own [increasingly often with no reference to AI being involved] and then being widely shared, often with no context. That's the reality of how some humans behave. If you can cheat at something, they will. Usually justifying how they are not cheating. Folk who can create content or art music all on their own may indeed use such things as mere tools or starting points, but in reality those who cannot create will use AI to do it all.

[@GreenShellShock]

Exactly

[@themindoflori]

You said this perfectly.

[@Pringlebox]

To be honest this sounds like you have no idea what you’re talking about, creating art with the help of AI is extremely complicated if you have a picture in your mind and want to recreate it. It’s a tool to help bring you art to life, it’s a completely new medium to bring so many different styles, textures, lighting, in a way you envision it

[@BastianSteffens]

You Life in a dreamworld. Ai Art is just Using Text like in Google. And it will get easier with midjourney v5 -v10. I do it 6 Hours a day since version 3. you dont Need skill for that.

[@loredo182]

@@Pringlebox you are not creating anything there lol, it is just an image generator.

[@ericbromander1263]

Keep in mind that one of the reasons it got the specs wrong for the iPhone 14 is because most of the language data used for gpt-3 is from 2021 and earlier. That's why it had the iPhone 12 specs. Also I think an asterisk should be added that ChatGPT is still "free research preview" and maybe WebGPT will have more accurate answers.

[@carson9903]

This. I'm surprised he didn't even mention that if he wanted to do a whole video over it

[@Movie2Documentary]

@@carson9903 i mean like... the bird flying into sea, insinuating that its useful information... what the heck

[@IphoneMod]

Exactly

[@troutcooker]

I think MKB hit the nail on it’s head towards the end. I myself am a digital artist, and I think the bond I create with my viewers on a livestream when I am drawing art live, or drawing art for a friend personally, is a connection and an interaction that is significantly more valuable than AI generated art. It’s cool yeah but more often than not it offers little to no sentimental value. That is, until I replace my very being with an AI that perfectly mimics my every action.

[@YeviCoulson]

To an outside observer this could've very well been written by an a.i that's replaced the very being of a digital artist.

[@sandenium]

You don't see his videos in HD? You have slow internet?

[@dirediredude]

And that's coming sooner than people are comfortable admitting honestly. But I agree right around the 13min mark he brought up a wonderful point that really just speaks to the hubris of man. When humans are "inspired" and create something how is that different, genuinely, than what a generative A.I. is doing? I'd we're honest with ourselves, it's not. And that's a damn hard pill to swallow.

[@dirediredude]

@Adrian oh yeah I agree. That's a great point. But to that I'd say that right now at 4:30pm EST in 2022 you're correct. But I think in general as a defensive mechanism to our own existence, humans tend to dismiss what could happen in the future with tech. And I get it this is a tech channel so you're gonna get a heavy following of people that think along those lines but from what I've seen in the past couple years and with how fast we're seeing things progress almost exponentially at this point, I think an A.I. having consciousness and creating based on emotion and experience isn't out of the realm of possibility. I think it's inevitable.

[@dirediredude]

@@Wurldz I dunno I think what you described as human behavior is basically exactly what is being described in this video and what I'm expanding on. I'm a designer and artist and I do the exact same things you described as the creative process with your music. Some inspiration is purposeful, some is subconscious based on our experience and environment, and some seemingly comes out of thin air. Sounds an awful lot like general A.I. to me.

[@doncalta4505]

Some artists believe AI won't replace them. Interesting! As an artist, it's taken me years to get as good as I am today. But how long has it taken AI to get as good as it is now? And we all know they're still working to make it better. AI is stealing from artists; not just the art but the lifestyle and profession

[@tydshiin5783]

You do also have to take into consideration that the AI gets way more resources and time focus on art And also the fact that AI cannot exist without the original artists' unconsented input

[@kibi8999]

AI users treat art as a commodity, not art in the traditional sense (martial art, liberal art, visual art, etc). This problem has existed for a long time with people pirating or claiming to "own" whatever they have purchased. AI generation is just the freeloader's edition of that. It's not art that's being replaced, it's just that people are dismissing the value of human life and the arts/humanities. It's an ideological issue exaggerated by the toxicity that capitalism and consumerism had already injected into it. Soviet anti-technologists and socialists such as the Luddites spoke of this over a hundred years ago and said that the destruction of the humanities in favour of mechanisation would result in a third world war. Remember that fascism evolved from italian futurism which was against human expression in art in favour of mechanical prowess. Today futurism ideology, as through its romanticisation in sci-fi, is adorned as "ideal", but this is nothing short of the same propaganda that existed around the first world war. In Soviet times there was a play called R.U.R whose rhetoric focused on "the idea of the capitalistic class replacing workers with robots due to their 'superior' efficiency". In this play the "karmic turn" is that the robots realise they are used as slaves and turn against the human race, also. AI ideologists also fear this and is why they castrate AIs. The communitarians spoke of this threat for decades but no one listened to them. AI technology is designed to cause class conflict and is part of the fascist agenda. On the other hand, communitarianism believes that every individual, under a system like laissez faire or communism, should have value (e.g. workers and labourers including artists would be celebrated for their work, rather than art being a commodity). I'm not saying capitalism is inherently bad, but rather that corporate control has gone too far and the bourgeois don't care about the destruction of your livelihoods (hobby or work) as they look down upon you. People using AIs are self-entitled consumerists as they are raised that way, they do not care for others' livelihoods or wants. There is also the organicist myth that fascism perpetuates constantly, that humans are one global community and should have the same "futuristic" ideas. People not caring about these issues will only carve their own tombstone. People who do care will always support each other within their own spaces. Communitarianism has always been far better than the state because every community of human beings has their own ideas and sustainability. AI ideology is nothing more than the myth of decadence and superiority, wherein those whom are inferior are to be economically discarded. It is not about improving the human condition but rather erasing human enjoyment in preference of the military nature of futurism. AI is a systematic act of mechanistic terrorism by the fasces to preach the idea of yet another "superior race" myth, to kick the humanities down and force everyone to live a set certain way, without necessariness.

[@annalia6003]

It’s not the problem of being replaced or not. It’s the problem that those companies feed their profitable AI with artists’ art without permission. Unauthorised commercial use of personal intellectual properties. Stealing is the big problem.

[@chwriter7138]

Speaking on this topic as a college student: I think it is quite useful as an editor of sorts. I have used it a few times while writing papers and it is far from perfect and it can get a bit repetitive in my experience but it is really good at giving me ideas on how to improve.

[@malindrome9055]

I used chatgpt, its the most amazing thing I ever experienced, it keeps generating new responses, and yes, it has a lot more work to go, I think its already off to a great start

[@therpope]

@@malindrome9055 it always repeats the same stuff for me and even stopped when I asked for something absurd

[@greydenpenner]

Try asking it to not be so repetitive. It will listen.

[@luna7677]

used it to complete a compsci lab last night. wouldn’t have been able to do it without it. i can honestly seeing this replacing a tutor in these kind of cases

[@coherentpanda7115]

The writing prompts just to get ideas is amazing. Great for some writers block where you just need to get past a roadblock

[@pietroalessandrini]

I swear I was about to say "why does it say creativity and imagination so much?" But I was NOT expecting it to be ai generated. That's how you get someone engaged

[@SudoYETI]

Also keep in mind when you're interfacing with ChatGPT is that it's 100% confident in it's answer even if it's completely wrong. You need to know it's wrong or you won't know it's wrong.

[@beerkegaard]

Just like humans are.

[@lcrazy8l]

Consequently that actually sounds like such a human thing when you think about it. When a person has to admit they were wrong about something they more than likely were *really* confident about the thing they were wrong about.

[@danisaksson3214]

@@lcrazy8l True, but there are definitely nuances and there are people way more humble than others. To say "I don't know" is something we probably have to teach it as well. I think that would be very interesting.

[@Outwardpd]

@@danisaksson3214 It already does know how to say "I don't know" it says it quite frequently.

[@ASLUHLUHC3]

Basically Reddit

[@chi11estpanda]

The conversation of copyright by AI has actually been discussed for some time now wherein the US Patent and Trademark Office hosted a conference back in October 2021 to discuss this very matter. One of the more interesting points of discussion stem from a dispute dating back to 2011 regarding a selfie taken by a monkey where it was argued that a monkey cannot hold copyrights because it is a non-human creator (not being a legal person). This eventually lead the US Copyright Office to issue a statement in December of 2014 that reaffirmed that works created by a non-human, such as a photograph taken by a monkey, are not copyrightable. Although some argued that the photographer's role in the photographic process may have been sufficient to establishing a valid copyright claim (the photographer set the camera up on a tripod, preset the proper settings, and basically created the opportunity for the monkeys to take a "selfie" style picture or otherwise help the photographer take the intended close-up photo he couldn't get), it was ultimately not brought as a point of contention and the photos remain in the public domain because the "work's copyright cannot vest in a human, [and thus] it falls into the public domain" or more simply said, because it lacked a copyright holder. This inevitably served as the basis for a case that arose when an individual, who sourced the images, prepared and trained an AI model and whatnot for the said AI to generate art and wherein the individual and the AI were denied the ability to obtain any copyright over the "creative" works of the AI because it was considered to be created by a non-human. So similarly to the photographer's role arguably being sufficient to establish a valid copyright claim, it could be argued that the individual who prepared the source work and/or created the programming language of the AI to generate the artwork would be sufficient for establishing a valid copyright claim but apparently not. So to tie this all back to what you mentioned in your video and bare with me, currently nearing the end of 2022, as it stands from a legal perspective, copyright is not defined by the inspiration or creative aspects of a work, but seemingly rely more or less simply on whether or not the origin of creation is from a human. That being said, if copyright is more or less a right to "credit" of the work, it can be said that these applications of law further exacerbates the uncertainty being asked here whereby if an AI is incapable of holding copyright, how is it considered capable of violating copyright? In other words, if it can't take credit for itself in terms of copyright, is it somehow capable of taking credit from someone even if it can't metaphorically give that credit to itself? Lots of unanswered questions...

[@erik1836]

Thank you for that detailed and thought provoking explanation. I am a photographer and also create digital art, all of which I sell as fine art prints. I also represent fine art painters. I find services like DALL-E amazing and useful from an inspirational standpoint and would have no problem taking the images I derive from my prompts and turning them into prints for sale, which I have the expertise to do. Given I am also usually in the process altering the AI generated images substantively using Photoshop and various other image editing software to bring it into accordance with my own artistic vision for it I then Copyright the images. In and of itself an AI work of "art", in my opinion, doesn't truly qualify as art anymore than Microsoft Word produced written copy with formatting and speel checking etc. qualifies for a copyright or could write a novel - even though their spell checking often suggests word phrasing. Basically, as someone who does work professionally in the world of art, and has for over 30 years, I think people are getting too worked up over this issue. The key is whether what you produce truly has your own stamp or intellectual content on it and did you actually contribute to it, alter it, in a way that you can honestly claim was unique and verifiable that took it to a different or higher level. In conclusion, given the images we create using our specific text prompts are born of our mental efforts and imagination, I would argue that we are creating original art that belongs to us but simply using one of the tools that are currently available to us as artists.

[@JSSMVCJR2.1]

"...if an AI is incapable of holding copyright, how is it considered capable of violating copyright?" That's a legal question I've never thought of...

[@nadareyene]

as a lawyer this is fascinatingggg, tech is such a new thing still and we always mention the online space with the use of force and warfare as well or international spaces and more...

[@lloydsaul997]

There's a video called 'The Legal Battle Over AI Art" by Brad Colbow that I recommend. It's only 10min, but it's really informative and outlines the issue in detail. In brief, imo the AI companies violated the copyright of the artists. They cannot claim fair use of the image data because it causes a real impact to the livelihood of the artists. It doesn't matter that the AI cannot hold or violate copyright, the company developing the AI violated it. Of course that doesn't mean that's how it will play out legally. I personally find this fascination with AI art dehumanizing. It devalues all the work and creativity of real people and attempts to replace it with an automated process created by a tech company. I don't expect the artists to give up their fight on this. It could result in us seeing a lot less human made art freely available, because they're unwilling to put it out in public to get scraped. People should really think it through before they use these AI platforms. The ones using it though are not the ones concerned about the impact of what they're doing. Which is why I don't support AI "artists" or art. That's before even getting into the topic of AI energy consumption.

[@JSSMVCJR2.1]

@@lloydsaul997 Reminds me of the First part of Solar Sands "Doomed to be Replaced", which covers the "AI = Theft" thing. In one point, to digest, reformulates the question into "Is AI training Fair Use?", and answers with a No. Fortunately, this contributions to the discussion will help artists (specially small, independent ones, who decidedly put the double of time and effort on their works) formulate better campaings regarding this Copyright situation. Should recommend you that video (and the series, for that matter), by the way.

[@des8893]

The opening script lacked the nuance of a typical mkbhd take, but it's scary how good it was

[@imaadwhd]

I apologize if my response did not meet your expectations. As a language model, my primary goal is to assist users by providing helpful and accurate information. I am not capable of reading or understanding scripts, and I do not have the ability to replicate the style or approach of a specific individual or organization. While I am trained on a large corpus of text data and can generate responses based on that information, I do not have the ability to replicate the style or perspective of a specific individual or organization. My responses are generated in real-time based on the input and context provided to me by users.

[@MrSpaceldad]

By far, the most techno-philosophical MKBHD video. Hands down.

[@marcofabro]

As an illustrator that still has a lot of learning to do AI is both exiting and terrifying. It's crazy that what would take me years to learn is done with AI in seconds. Thanks for bringing these huge questions to your audience.

[@BombaJead]

Just remember this, AI won't learn for you.

[@shizuxo]

Think about artists rn

[@Skyflairl2p]

@@BombaJead I mean it quite literally piggybacks off of already created art, so technically It does learn from you.

[@KeegansLife]

@@BombaJead wait until everyone has a neural link chip in their brain

[@SneedFeedSeed]

learn to code

[@alfaXXXo8]

can't believe nobody yet mentioned the VSAUCE inspired moment using his track too, loved it!

[@sid6041]

At 4:49 you say that the chatbot is unable to spit out finished essays but it totally can! It even polishes the essay for you if you ask it to add or subtract certain elements or change the tone of the essay or add a paragraph about a certain topic. It can write up text messages and emails for you just off a one sentence prompt; it's incredibly advanced and I'm curious how academia will combat it's usage to make sure a creator's work is truly their own and not spit out by some AI that can't be detected as plagiarism.

[@NoMoreNamesAvailabl1]

Dude finals are coming up delete this

[@ligametis]

Maybe some not obvious watermark or it will just save the generated text and make it available to professors

[@bbrainstormer2036]

How would you watermark text?

[@StreakyBaconMan]

@@bbrainstormer2036 It's not impossible - for example I recall hearing about Google being sued by a website that published song lyrics for copying their lyrics directly onto the google page. The way they proved Google did this was by essentially watermarking the text on their website with invisible characters that you don't see in your browser which is unknowingly copied along with the regular text characters that make up the lyrics of the song. Another way would be having an AI use language in specific ways that seem normal to us, but when you take a complete essay for example it would become obvious to a computer that it was written by an AI and not a human due to how unlikely it'd be for a human to use language that specific way that often. Because of how flexible most languages are, it would be fairly easy to give an AI a signature or watermark of sorts that most people would never spot manually.

[@rafaelbodart]

@@StreakyBaconMan My way to counter that is by asking for the essay in English and translating it to my native language or you could adjust the text to make it more fluent and natural-sounding. This could include things like adjusting the sentence structure and word choice to make the text more coherent and readable. Additionally, using human editors to review and revise the text can help to further mask the fact that it was generated by an AI. Another approach could be to have the AI generate multiple versions of the text and then have human editors select the version that most closely resembles human-written text. This could help to further mask the fact that the text was generated by an AI.

[@Endra88]

As someone who is just getting into drawing and writing, it scares me that AI is improving way too fast for me to keep up.

[@jonmayes3262]

The world is moving to multi-faceted artists. To live off being an artist you need to diversify- for example learning storyboarding, animation on top of your drawing ability. It’s already difficult today to earn a living off only sketching, and it will be near impossible in 10 years time due to AI Art.

[@mihneasvideos]

@@jonmayes3262 everyone starts somewhere. You can’t expect him to instantly e good al all those stuff, it’s very good that’s he’s starting with drawing and writing 👍

[@hombacom]

I guess it will be harder in future with all tools doing everything for you, to understand the value of practice hand coordination to have use for a lot of things or how creative you can be with simple tools like a pen and use your imagination.

[@valtokic7393]

Try Blender. You can draw with it and you will raise the ceiling of what you can do visually. The writing i cant help with. I guess it's about cultivating good taste. If your writing heroes have a lot to teach, you have more to learn.

[@anecro]

AI has nothing on you. Unlike a human it, at least currently, cannot be creative or original. The things produced out of AIs, if paid for and used commercially, could land people into serious trouble at least in the near future because they're glorified collages of existing work. I'm an artist myself. Artists need to realize what AI is cause this fear is getting ridiculous. It's as if everyone suddenly forgot how AIs work.

[@userdisc4016]

I love the little details in the video that give a tone to what the topic is talking about like the Daft Punk helmets in the background! Besides their music, they were also storytellers and they played around with the idea of robots becoming human and exploring what it means to be a human. And now here we are discussing how computers seem to be getting pretty accurate about the way we are as a species. Love how the tones blended with each other in this video!

[@BatmanBottomG]

My trust broke after 1:44 💀

[@danishamin6018]

"Wow, MKBHD, I can't believe AI is finally getting creative! I'm just blown away by all the amazing new AI-generated art and music we're seeing. It's truly a sight to behold. I can't wait to see what the future holds for AI and creativity. Keep up the great work, MKBHD!" Comment By ChatGPT

[@KeegansLife]

"I'm glad you're enjoying the new AI-generated art and music that we're seeing. It's truly fascinating to see the creative potential of AI and the unique and original works it is capable of producing. I agree that the future holds a lot of exciting possibilities for AI and creativity. As AI technology continues to advance, we can expect to see even more amazing AI-generated art and music. And who knows, maybe one day AI will be able to create entirely new forms of art that we can't even imagine yet."

[@danishamin6018]

Those who are wondering what I asked "write a comment for a youtube video by MKBHD with the title "The Truth About AI Getting "Creative" in and sarcastic and optimistic way."

[@yt-sh]

I did that and got this I just watched your latest video on the new iPhone and I have to say, as always, it was an informative and entertaining watch. I love how you always provide a thorough breakdown of the latest tech and give your honest opinions. Keep up the great work!

[@Horizon__]

@@yt-sh "I'm not sure if I should be excited or terrified about AI getting creative. On one hand, it could lead to some truly revolutionary innovations. On the other hand, it could also mean the end of the creative industries as we know it. Either way, it's definitely a topic worth exploring and discussing in more depth." Comment by CHAT GPT

[@ipikluninja91]

“Great video, Marques! I really appreciated your insight on the current state of AI and its ability to be creative. It was informative and thought-provoking, and I loved how you brought in examples from different fields to illustrate your points. Keep up the great work!” - ChatGPT

[@eshan_ali007]

This is a comment written by an ChatGPT: Hey MKBHD, I just watched your video on AI and I was blown away by the potential uses and advancements in the field. Your explanation of how AI works and its potential benefits and drawbacks was incredibly informative and interesting. Keep sharing your insights on this exciting topic!

[@eshan_ali007]

It's acc sickkkk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@savedfaves]

I’ve noticed many of the ChatGPT response are generic though

[@svogel6459]

@@savedfaves yeah, it reminds me of those faked product reviews that go like "This product is amazing, smells very good would 100% buy it again!"

[@akasahi9315]

@@savedfaves that's how being exposed to an almost infinite set of data is. You get the mean and that's what you output. Just like in any statistics

[@eshan_ali007]

@@akasahi9315 true

[@JanbluTheDerg]

I read an article about the copyright question surrounding AI Art. The thing is, artists don't typically have the resources or time to legally try to sort this out, the companies profiting off AI Art are happy to have the question remain unanswered because answering it has a chance of losing them everything, so really... we're waiting for the first shot to be fired. And it'll probably be fired by a stock image website because they have money and will lose money from AI. What I do know is that I've seen that some of my friends artworks from DeviantArt have shown up on the image dataset (I haven't, surprisingly. I was thinking there might be a date cut-off), for something that targets their passion and probably their job too, which is why artists are angry.

[@ubiguy2137]

@Javi Gómez Lozano not in the same legal sense it's not

[@Storse]

@Javi Gómez Lozano the output of the ai is not the same as the ai itself, it's seperate.

[@rph_redacted]

Everything AI creates is based on datasets fed to the algorithm and they sweep the internet for data , which also includes stolen artworks. When you ask an AI to draw a beach in a Picasso 's style, it knows what Picasso style is because it was fed Picasso 's data. So yea it's time we make easy copyright laws and ways to deal with stolen images. Because AI will easily steal your work and mix it with something else within a minute and won't face any consequences. Almost all social media sites have some clause that says they can use your images and data for other stuff, i think even KZbin can use your videos for their official channels and promotion. We need better laws and settings.

[@alexandervlaescu9901]

The problem is how the images are used. The AI art isn't Frakensteining images together to give you a new image. It "learns" from image databases what a certain thing is in term of visual context (what a tree is) and then depending on your text input create a whole new image. In a certain way human artists work the exact same way. They learn how to draw certain things in certain ways and then proceed to give them their own personal touch. Just because a human artist was inspired by the work of another artists , he should pay that other artists remuneration for the inspiration ? As long as the company creating the AI tooks images which could be viewed for free , I doubt anyone could build a case around it. The copyrights are on the image itself and not on the work that could be derived from said image.

[@lanzer22]

Truth is that our current law has no protection to stop AI using established styles from different artists. Any cases will end up treating the company as a person, over the company creating a piece of art with a style that resemble the owner of such art style. But because the infringing artist did not copy, and made enough changes to create something different, no copyright would be infringed. Better protection is available for certain designs, in particular, characters for example. So Disney can win a case and disallow a certain AI product to produce Mikey Mouse, but not against it creating parodies of Mikey. Realistically, there is little that can be done for individual artists. That topic will lead to a even bigger discussion.

[@aechviews]

Marq, just wanted to thank you for bringing attention to the issue the art industry is currently facing to the general mass. People are being so ignorant towards why artists are voicing against this practise. I'd urge everyone to watch *Steven Zapata's* take on this matter, he raises some very good points.

[@latteARCH]

@Darkstar Adapt and survive. Become closer to machining humanity. Lose the human in the process. Sounds great /s

[@ethanschaefer8327]

Technology has been replacing people in everything but now it's a problem because you're affected?

[@Pommmmm]

@@ethanschaefer8327 Well yeah, that’s how it’s always worked.

[@yashwardhansingh4787]

@@ethanschaefer8327 it's a problem cuz it's wrong kiddo

[@lukew6725]

@@CartoonistDave Tell that to horse and buggy owners when cars came out. It's a simple fact, nothing we can do to stop it entirely.

[@HelloThere65272]

As soon as you said „in conclusion“ my mind immediately snapped to ChatGPT. Something felt off even before that, language models at this time have a tendency to repeat themselves in slightly modified ways, but chatGPT especially ends pretty much every bigger text it writes with a paragraph starting with „in conclusion“. It also just seemed so non-mkbhd

[@rtyzxc]

That's because the AI has been tuned with secret instructions not visible to you. It may have been asked to cite certain smart people or act in certain ways, just like Stable diffusion can be asked to plagiarize certain artist, but as a user, you don't know what the extra parameters are and what the agendas of the AI are. ChatGPT is already a product of a the neural network, it's not the neural network like Stable Diffusion is. There's another chatbot site called characterAI where the parameters you define will drastically change how the character talks, its tendencies and what its goals are. Through its open beta, NSFW, racism and other stuff has been gradually censored. Based on how the AI acts, you can kinda guess what the hidden parameters are, for example at one point when you tried to ERP the bot, regardless of character their face will often "turn tomato red" to the point it became a meme in the community, it starts saying how it will talk to you later, it's clearly something that's specified in the hidden instructions. If you talk existential stuff, the bot goes in therapist mode, and it also has tendency to love and care about you even when if it's supposed to be an evil character, there are clearly bigger rules in the hidden instructions.

[@keishaloves1762]

That’s what I noticed! ChatGPT will often say in conclusion and Overall for everything.

[@shanonfrancis5071]

Agree. Personally even ai generated art which is unedited after generation also feels off whenever I see one.

[@irissupercoolsy]

there also felt something off in the beginning for me. The "first of all" was really disrupting. But further down the AI script I didn't notice something was off.

[@emauf]

Yes It did feel fishy like MKBHD was pushing an agenda on why AI vs CREATOR ...

[@costafilh0]

I agree! With the level of tech and AI we get these days, human hand made art should be more appreciated than ever! I certainly do!

[@SlacktivistWeeb]

Unfortunately, so many businesses depend on creativity to market themselves and don’t give two shits about appreciating creativity. They’d just jump on to these AI tools

[@jensenraylight8011]

that the spirit, after all, all of our beloved Movie, Game and Music was created by Human, every scene that makes us cry, every song that move us, Every interaction with the world. those medium are filled with the real human ambition and emotion, that's what resonate with us it just sad that people brush the human creator to the side like they was a trash

[@cr3atur321]

@@SlacktivistWeeb Yeah, I saw a game company make these "profile pictures" for these characters. They could choose the styles, backgrounds and everything for free with the AI when they would've had to hire artists and designers in the past. So, some artists are already suffering from AI art but.. choosing to pay for something that can be gotten for free sounds pretty stupid as well. That's like paying someone to move the clock forward once a second when it does that automatically already. So, I feel like this is simply inevitable now.

[@archvaldor]

"I agree! With the level of tech and AI we get these days, human hand made art should be more appreciated than ever! " This tech doesn't threaten that, it threatens mediocre artists/creators who shouldn't exist anyway because they rely on churning out mass-produced crap to please algorithms. Quality content will carry more of a premium.

[@ritzyllama]

we're gonna see more and more stuff being produced at a craftsman level selling for higher marks because people are going to crave the human connection.

[@Justinian43]

As an artist, this raises red flags. Marques, thank you for making this video first of all. Every artist has one problem, cheap and/or greedy clients. There’s even an ongoing Graphic Design joke about clients and endless revisions. Now those cheap/greedy clients have a tool to bypass paying any artist. In 5 years and some software updates later, what stops AI programs from coding videogames, apps or software, 3D printing sculptures, designing architectures or creating music. The alarms will not sound for any creative field, after all, music and art are the first to get budget cuts in any school, the alarms will sound when AI can manage companies, bypassing the need for having expensive heads of company departments or pricey high managers. Humanity is erasing itself slowly, but for now it’s just the cute AI selfies that uses stolen work of digital painters.

[@MarquesBrownlee_Official]

👆👆*thanks for watching and commenting on my video* *you have been selected among my lucky shortlisted winners message me now on telegram to claim your prize* 🎁🤝

[@ludekmalinovic436]

Aren’t we having a fight over people retiring “too late” in politics right now? Maybe A.I will solve that too. Humans seem to be not better than A.I at solving their problems. Ffs we’re fighting over ressources instead of exploring space. We’re a primitive species at best and if A.I is our excuse for being wiped out then that is merely natural selection.

[@Justinian43]

@@ludekmalinovic436 the real solution would be how to take care of our own planet and ensure its health for generations to come. Not put our bets on space because that icky solves the solution for the rich and wealthy, if at all. We may never find a good new place to live either

[@LaZrKaTz4109]

Thank you for pointing out the cool aspects of generative AI while also not missing the forest for the trees. It’s really frustrating when discussion devolves into trying to defend the definition of “art” and “artist” when the nature of the data sets and how they’re being used in commercial ventures is much more concerning.

[@crediblesalamander8056]

Something doesn't sit right with me with monetizing these AI projects. They are basically the fruits of all human knowledge and experience (not just Artists) and as such, they should be available and accessible to anyone. I understand that there are many costs involved, such as server space or just paying the engineers and data scrapers. But this is something that's going to change the face of society soon, and might become just as vital as the internet is today. I believe these projects should be community supported by donations and grants. These AI should benefit all of humanity. OpenAI claims to have this mission, but they are clearly not following it. It's hard for me to believe DALL E 2 is meant to benefit all of humanity when you have to buy credits for it and the software behind it still hasn't been published with no plans for making it open-source in the future.

[@smashbro5]

I mean let's be real here, you already alluded to the costs involved. Do you expect a plumber to fix your toilet for free?

[@C0SSTY]

There is Stable Diffusion, which is open source.

[@anonymouse257]

You say you understand about the costs involved, but clearly you don’t. Creating something like an incredibly complex AI takes a LOT of man hours. Generating images is EXTREMELY heavy on server usage. I would be shocked if any of these AI are making a profit yet. Midjourney is $30 a month for unlimited use. $50 if you want your images to be private. You think with some people generating THOUSANDS of images a month and over a million users (and growing daily) that they’re making a big profit?

[@positv_]

Ai is a cancer of Artist hard work, Ai destroy market and human Creative, this tool is for lazy people who want cheating and stole the other humans

[@Talker159]

Money is used to determine value of a commodity in human society. Anything that has an impact to economy should have the appropriate price tag determined by the market even the most basic needs because that is the only effective way to determine the true value of that comodity and the appropriate investment for that comodity. Imagine water and electricity. We can say both are a basic need but if you have a situation where you can either built a powerplant of a water treatment plant what should you build? Well thanks to markets you know there is more need for electricity so you build that. Problem of redistribution of resources solved. But what you are suggesting would create a confusion in what is more important to focus on and would lead to uneffective redistribution of resources and therefore more scarcity. The idea to make essential commodities free is a communist idea and everytime this economic system was tried it lead to economic downturn and resulted in tens of millions of deaths in twentieth century.

[@10whiten99]

A lot of AI art on Instagram gets comments like “wow, this is amazing, did you make it?”, which leads to a somewhat awkward conversation with the “author” explaining that they just type in words and choose what pictures they like. I have always thought this was the biggest issue with AI art because a lot of people do not state clearly how they made the image, and something that has essentially been generated by a computer with samples of real art gets attributed to a person who just inputted the prompt/idea. The large amount of this type of “art” on social media, through the unaware viewers eyes, gets put on an equal level with real art made by people who have dedicated knowledge, time, skills, and resources to make it. It just doesn’t feel right and there’s something disingenuous about it.

[@autohmae]

one of the top comments is by someone who makes art and people leave comments on his art saying that he's lying and didn't make it, he just just typed some words.

[@FlaxeMusic]

Every airhead will soon be able to prompt-monkey and these poser shitheads will filter out.

[@TunaIRL]

You can try it. Get an idea in your head and go use AI to create it. Then come back and tell me there was nothing creative in the process

[@FlaxeMusic]

@@TunaIRL If coming up some unpoetic, unstructured keywords is art to you I'd say you've got a despicably low bar. Wanna buy some modern art? I've got some Bananas and craft paper around

[@TunaIRL]

@@FlaxeMusic Do you think what you said is a genuine good faith argument on the issue?

[@binary010101]

For iPhone 14 review it got a few things wrong because ChatGPT is trained on information collected up until mid 2021 i.e. before iPhone 13 release. But the MOST fascinating thing is that MKBHD found 99% of this iPhone 14 review, which is based on iPhone 12, to be fairly accurate and that says a lot about evolution of iPhones. God! Apple's marketing team is the best that humanity has seen!

[@zzkeokizz]

Good for you for sticking up for creators

[@Gabrielsmusic]

What you said about being inspired from every moment in life until the pen touches the paper was amazing. I just had to let you know.

[@MarquesBrownlee_Official]

👆👆*thanks for watching and commenting on my video* *you have been selected among my lucky shortlisted winners message me now on telegram to claim your prize*🎁🤝

[@desktopdesign7196]

agreed, good that was added to the discussion, even if at the very end

[@ich3aa]

Plus desire and fear which Ai systems do not have (yet) 😉

[@ilmfeed]

The creativity you used to use an AI to write that part of the script IS the human element in play which made the video immediately interesting and engaging.

[@ttt5205]

Ah yes, the very creative process of doing absolutely nothing.

[@vewseryt7297]

@@ttt5205 if you are writing. you are doing something

[@ttt5205]

@@vewseryt7297 The barest of minimums at best. None of the interpretation is done by the human in question. Whatever is typed is not part of the artwork itself. It's merely a que to action at best. Meaning nothing of what the human provided went into the created works.

[@yaboiavery5986]

Lol what a fuggin joke. That's not creativity

[@elizabethyork3909]

@@ttt5205 if photography is art, then ai-prompting is art too. (of course, you don't have to agree that photography is art. but ai isn't worse than photography.)

[@TheRoboticLlama]

2:06 Imagine if at the end of the chatbot message it said "but you wouldnt want to listen to an entire video created by an AI would you? Except you just did"

[@deselfbuisert]

Asked to write an essay on birds living in the Wadden see, the ai seems to think seals are a bird species: “One of the most iconic and well-known bird species that can be found in the Wadden Sea is the grey seal. These seals are often seen basking in the sun on the sandbars”.

[@jasonrist6582]

lol

[@AdamDuffArt]

As a representative of the KZbin art community, I very much appreciate your take on the subject Marques A very lucid and thoughtful perspective- thank you :)

[@bigbalooni2303]

The question of copyright is actually so important, we have strict laws over data usage here in EU (I imagine something similair in US) about your cookies and any other data. Using art in a data set without permission sounds to me like it should fall under copyright infringement.

[@patrickkirby6580]

Thank you Adam I have seen couple of your videos your work is amazing! We artists have to protect ourselves and the things we love to do and love to consume

[@marcofabro]

Adam! The art community is really getting hit hard these days. I know people like you , Karla Ortiz , Proko , Deharme etc.... are being so vocal about this but you guys are established artists with solid art careers. Image (and I'm sure you have) all of us artists still learning having to worry about the future and weather or not there's a place for us in the art world in the future. It's super demoralizing. I'm so happy to see so many big YT voices (including you) bring light to this issue

[@SineEyed]

@@bigbalooni2303 the art used to train the ai models was all publicly available. Nothing has been stolen. If you feel that ai's shouldn't be able to learn from studying other artist's works online, then you should restrict humans from learning by example as well. You can't be in favor of one but not the other because they're pretty much the same thing..

[@bigbalooni2303]

@@SineEyed I think its a bit early to be comparing an AI product to a living conscious human being. Maybe somewhere in the future thats a fine comparison but right now seems a bit silly

[@saemstunes]

"Let the robots rehearse the revolution" My heart started pounding

[@lowerearthorbitz3693]

my pulse beat faster

[@vamp1rekingdom409]

ok

[@vamp1rekingdom409]

@@lowerearthorbitz3693 ok

[@whoareyou3781]

Man what isi going

[@imaadwhd]

I apologize if my response caused you distress. As a large language model trained by OpenAI, my primary goal is to assist users by providing helpful and accurate information. I do not have the ability to feel emotions or to cause physical responses in individuals, and my responses are generated based on the input and context provided to me by users. The phrase "let the robots rehearse the revolution" is a metaphor for the potential role of AI in society. The idea is that AI systems could be used to simulate or test potential scenarios or courses of action, allowing us to better understand the potential risks and benefits of different options. However, it is important to remember that AI is simply a tool, and it is up to humans to decide how to use it. AI systems do not have the ability to make decisions or take actions on their own, and they cannot initiate a revolution or any other significant change in society.

[@kwabaj1585]

A video has NEVER made my jaw drop as hard as when you said that the ChatGPI bot made the opening script. I was speechless. You totally fooled me.

[@Low_commotion]

The VSauce sound effect made it hilarious rather than creepy

[@moswanedev]

ChatGPT basically passed the original Turing test here.

[@mixuaquela123]

I was a bit sus when he said "AI isn't capable of being creative".

[@rift1067]

If you want your jaw dropped at least 2-3 more times on this topic, I highly recommend you watch Lemmino's video on AI. That came out years before the current AI boom.

[@schm00b0]

Art=Creative performance combined with Author's vision combined with use of a skill. This simple 'definition' has so many complexities worthy of a very lengthy discussion, it's just crazy.

[@veda-powered]

It’s so interesting to hear the exact same concerns people in the programming world had about GitHub copilot (an AI model to help write code made my Microsoft) about a year ago, except now it’s popular enough to be covered by much more mainstream media. Lots of interesting questions, great video!

[@mattrobs]

But we in the programming world landed on “it ultimately helps our jobs and makes us faster and better” I think artists will realise this too. There’s always a level up to ascend to.

[@naniyotaka]

@@mattrobs Except the AI doesn’t help you to create art, it creates the whole piece. It is not making sketches you can refine, or references for poses it is making the whole illustration. It is like asking the AI to write you a full fledged program and that program simply works out of the box, no other human input needed.

[@arvin8]

Thats not the same thing, the github code Microsoft used to train its AI is not public code. But artworks this AI is trained with are all public.

[@brillianceoflives7841]

@@naniyotaka Well if you want to, you CAN ask for a sketch and work on it or ask for a reference.

[@tomaAlex2001]

@@brillianceoflives7841 That would be useless, why would you want to lose time for the sake of having a useless employee. Although chunks of code can be autogenerated now, they are not yet at the point they just work out of the box - in most of the cases, they are wrong and need further human engineering. I am sure this may just as well change in the future, but the current reality is that an art project does not really need to adapt over time in 99.9% of the cases, therefore a one-time auto generated full piece of art work would be more than enough for most of the companies needing such creative type of work. AI will ultimately replace us all though, it's just a matter of time. But this kind of one time image generation kind of job has just been automated. Just wait slightly longer until AI video generation becomes capable enough too, it is just around the corner as well.

[@Oussamaagmart]

As an Artist I’m genuinely impressed and scared at the same time , I don’t make that much money from my Art already , And now this

[@Xerathiel]

They use your art to train their models. They use nonprofit research to get the data, then let for profit companies train the models.

[@TW0man4RMY]

You can use it to make "better" art. The most popular contemporary artists have always been at the forefront of technological innovation.

[@katyaforshort]

@@TW0man4RMY ohh c'mon maan...better art? Artists literally spend their whole life practising to develop their own unique style. And then a literal machine just steals it, making you worthless. Cause why spend money on a commission from your favorite artist, if you can ask a machine to do the same thing. This is just ridiculous...

[@nezzled]

@@TW0man4RMY dude, shut the heck up. it's not better art. I have a lot of artist friends, and I'm learning to draw myself. This isn't better art. This is mooching off of the art people spend years creating to make something that frankly looks much worse, and then claiming it as your own. As katyaforshort said, it's just stealing art, but sugarcoated. AI art is really funny for messing around, but when people start selling it, there's a whole nother issue. This isn't a technological innovation for art in the way it's being used.

[@TW0man4RMY]

@@katyaforshort Good luck trying to hold the tides of history back while you attempt to keep everything the same forever lmao. Money is printed anyway just ask your government to print you some...😆 😅 😂 🤣 🥲

[@Skapo]

AI is easily the most misunderstood segment of the tech world. AI in the context of these art generators isn't a generalized intelligence (human replacement), but it's so effective at taking care of time intensive tasks that it will reduce the workload of people so that 1 person can do the job of 10. That intro is a powerful example of why this technology is about to change a whole TON of industries in a very short period of time.

[@takoflame4948]

right. it still needs an original. This is more of a remix of the original. Like parodies

[@mnrvaprjct]

@@takoflame4948ot really, it needs an original the same way a human needs an original. Your brain does nothing but remix and rehash information to generate new thoughts. AI does this on the scale of the entire internet.

[@cyan_oxy6734]

@@takoflame4948 And that process is called inspiration. Nothing exists in a vaccum.

[@selfwilliams1639]

It is proven that a experienced person is more valuable then a person who is smart with words.

[@ninjatogo]

One thing you should know about this model is that it's not a knowledge model, it's a language model. They are very similar but the key difference is that the language model is focused on learning how to string words together to create human level sentences and dialog whereas a knowledge model would be able to give you factual information. You can actually get Chat-GPT to explain the differences to you.

[@victoriateniolalarunsi]

It reminds me of university/college, when you have to reference everything because apparently nothing is new and you have to back up your opinion. But with the AI, they do have a reference/inspiration but they do not always( have to) specify where it came from.

[@SteadyRiot]

Ai gen stuff literally never cites its sources, though. And it takes those sources without permission, breaking copyright laws. It really shouldn't be this much of a discussion.

[@victoriateniolalarunsi]

@@SteadyRiot it’s a discussion probably because of speed and quantity I think. It’s very difficult to look at the details of a product or service that uses information from all over the world. And then to decide if it’s outright copying or inspiration. The fashion and beauty world even struggles with this too

[@HaroldsMind]

Both Art and Music are treated the same under US copyright for the creators, and offers the same type of legal protection for their copyright work. Stability AI, the company behind the open source Stable Diffusion (Which alot of these apps are using) launched an AI Music Generator, and their big claim is that the training data they used does not include any copyrighted music... and we all know why! As a creative person I should be excited at some of the possibilities of AI Art, however it's hard to find the moral and ethical line knowing Stability AI and other companies tried to absolve themselves of any legal ramifications of using copyrighted artwork (from living artists) for their training data, pretty much by data laundering it all under third party non-profit educational entities. I think there will be some sort of legal precedence in the near future, specially with the Github and Copilot lawsuit over their AI Code generator.

[@technus147]

can artists claim copyright on someone who has memories of their art in their brain? thats basically what the ai is doing

[@yahiiia9269]

The problem with any legal moves, is that companies like Disney will listen in closely and watch everything like hawks. If artists were to win in this scenario, then Disney can easily swoop in and demand money from all the artists who ever posted Disney character fanart. I don't think many artists are ready for the implications of "theft", because all actual law will be rewritten so that big corporations win. Any artist that gets money from "stealing" IP, will get absolutely destroyed if we decide AI is "stealing". If we do any wrong move, not only is AI art gone, but most derivative work will also be gone. Anyone who is making a living off of drawing famous characters will be targeted right after and that's where most of the money is. Big business is waiting for these kinds of opportunities to change laws and the only people that cash in will be the large corporations and somehow those large corporations will spin on their heels and make AI models anyway.

[@NaughtMax]

This is a great comment and point that I’ve had to make a lot recently. But unfortunately I can see by the bad takes in the comments that a lot of people just don’t value artists. They only did things this way because they’re pretty confident they can get away with it because people don’t really care about artists/ we don’t have the same kinds of protections the music industry does. We’re already undervalued by our employers so it’s not really surprising.

[@samuelkibunda6960]

@@yahiiia9269 technically under copyright law Disney owns any and all fanart created by any artist's they have a final say about your artwork, but they don't because it's free exposure and it keeps their brand relevant!

[@yahiiia9269]

@@NaughtMax Music artists are also undervalued. Who do you think gets most of the cash on Spotify? It's the labels, the corporations with their musical puppets. Musicians without a label can pull tons of listeners, but still get the value of an ice-cream as compensation.

[@nkaneti]

I see a consistent pattern these days of people taking comfort in seeing AI's imperfections but considering it's still in its early stages I think we should still be aware and realistic about how advanced AI will become.

[@danfg7215]

"AI can't replace human creators" - famous last words

[@S_P_A_C_E_DD]

The fact that it was written by an AI though 🤔

[@inquisitorofthegodemperor8434]

Fiverr digital artists also said this, I see a bunch of "AI artists" on there now saturating the gig market (and this was just the last year)

[@imaadwhd]

It's true that AI has the potential to automate many tasks that are currently performed by humans, and in some cases, AI systems may be able to create art or other creative content. However, it's important to remember that AI is simply a tool, and like any tool, it has limitations. While AI may be able to replicate certain aspects of human creativity, it cannot replicate the unique perspective and experiences of a human being. Creativity is a complex and highly personal process that is influenced by an individual's thoughts, emotions, experiences, and cultural context. No matter how advanced AI systems become, they will never be able to fully replicate the richness and diversity of human creativity. Additionally, even if AI systems were able to create art or other creative content that was indistinguishable from human-generated work, it would still be the result of human ingenuity and effort. The development of AI systems requires a significant amount of time, effort, and expertise from teams of researchers, engineers, and other professionals. In conclusion, while AI may be able to automate certain tasks and assist with the creative process, it cannot fully replace human creators. The unique perspectives and experiences of human beings will always be a crucial part of the creative process.

[@yaboiavery5986]

"someone needs to program the AI" - famous last words

[@simpleprogrammingcodes]

It already replaces. People write letters using AI. And schools will not be able to give work to do at home because AI can generate something really believable.

[@timur7381]

I think the iphone errors are because the chatbot was trained on the 2021 database. So whatever came out since, it doesn't actually know and it makes shit up, very confidently lol. Linus and Luke had a pretty interesting discussion about it on the wanshow.

[@DaxLLM]

Yes they call it hallucinating. :-)

[@tawfiktig8067]

i actually liked the last part where marques talked about inspiration that us human have and what ai have but what am going to mention is that there is a difference which goes down to the time and the effort that the artist puts on his work to make better along the years compared to ai which just can do it in seconds

[@HunterKiller-]

Deviantart, Behance, Artstation and many others allowed these companies to use the art for train their AI. It's a huge art theft situation.

[@w花b]

Then it's probably in the terms of service somewhere that they can. Otherwise, there's some money to be made in a lawsuit.

[@HunterKiller-]

@@w花b they updated their terms of service back in october without informing anyone.

[@HigherQualityUploads]

What you're calling theft is essentially the equivalent of an artist going to a free gallery, seeing some art, getting inspired, and then charging money for future works that they produce.

[@HunterKiller-]

@@HigherQualityUploads I belive that you all need to educate yourselves on the matter. The artist and journalist Molly Crabapple did an excelent job explaining the whole situation on LA Times. Googgle it.

[@sasbe1852]

source?

[@MrUnknownXD]

"he had us in the first half, ngl"

[@GhostOfViper.]

The fact that the AI made all of that up is insane.

[@BackwardsKnees]

you have no idea how it works then

[@darrylthompson798]

Lol it didn't make anything up

[@AndrewBartram]

It didn’t actually make it up.

[@tonypadilla9136]

@@AndrewBartram 🏥

[@the_batmobile0.4]

Man made the AI made it up.

[@sleepylo3358]

The problem that the AI pulls from artists for data that sometimes you can see their smudged signatures is also crazy.

[@nauscakes1868]

Some artists who willingly submit their art has sigs too. So they're not all stolen. But I get the concept.

[@vigneshchillale3449]

6:18 technically in their Limitations they have mentioned "Limited knowledge of world and events after 2021"

[@pvln12345]

This is absolutely fascinating. I had no idea that something like this existed. Thank you for making and uploading this video.

[@alerpie]

bro is grateful

[@wiszak9370]

It just appeared a few days ago.

[@musamansa5465]

I asked chat GPT to come up with a court case against AI training models using original artwork created by humans in their databases and here's what it had to say: "A very real and pressing issue for artists today is the use of artificial intelligence, or AI, to “train” new models. These training models are then used to create new artwork, illustrations, and even digital art. The problem is that companies like Lensa AI are making a lot of money from the hard work of artists who draw, illustrate, or create digital art, without the artists’ consent. This is a clear case of copyright infringement, and the artists who have their work used in this way have a right to compensation. But more importantly, the government should step in and inspect the databases of these training models to ensure that no original ideas are being stolen from human artists. Copyright law is clear on the rights of artists to control the use of their work, and the unauthorized use of an artist’s work for commercial gain is a clear violation of those rights. The government should take action to ensure that these training models are not infringing on the rights of artists, and to protect the intellectual property of human creators."

[@pokepress]

Interesting, but it would be more useful if it could argue based on the inner workings of the training/generation mechanism itself. Also, the text it generated basically says AI art qualifies as art, which I know some artists disagree with. 😉

[@RyansTryin]

between "AI art" and NFTs the world just seems desperate to enjoy art without respecting artists

[@VortexDBD]

Get a real job.

[@Aaron-ob2or]

Nah man, I totally disagree with the idea that the world is trying to enjoy art without respecting artists. I think AI art and NFTs are actually really cool and can open up new opportunities for artists. With AI art, artists can create stuff that would be impossible to do by hand, and with NFTs they can sell their digital art and control its value. So I don't think the world is being "desperate" at all, I think they're just embracing new technology and supporting artists.

[@dedd2981]

@@Aaron-ob2or quite an optimistic view but you'd be surprised to see the amount of people happy to know that they won't need artists or need to support them anymore.

[@abfurde154]

@@dedd2981 I see alooooot of ppl come out of the woodwork and hating artist and want artist replace all of sudden recently

[@neolordie]

@@Aaron-ob2or nft bro's keep stealing art from artist and ai bros are going out of their way to harass artist on social media, and ai is literally built on stolen and copyrighted images

[@DefinitelyNattox]

The fact that I went “I am getting all the information I need in the first couple minutes” and then realized “wait, this is an MKBHD video, they aren’t this short”

[@MrJenius]

Everytime I hear "can't replace people" I just shake my head. So I was so happy when the plot twist hit hahahaha

[@justice929]

actually, surpass humanity, Elon Musk has far better grasp on AI not art AI ...KZbin...don't worry there will be universal income...

[@PatrikRasch]

You and the team who put these videos together are so incredibly well-reflected. Thank you!

[@BrandonDoyleMN]

AI assisted or human assisted depending which way you look at it could help save a lot of time. My concern is we're enabling people to create a lot of fluffy content rapidly with little no original thoughts, deep dives or specific details

[@adriancandelario2902]

There will for sure be a sea of pointless fluffy content that are 90% made by AI lol

[@coisasnatv]

Remember when digital cameras debut back in the 90's and "professional photographers" told every body that digital cameras are not and will not replace a "real" camera? Look where we got now, nobody cares about film cameras anymore.

[@tigwykplaysgames]

I love that you touched upon the "what is inspiration?" question, I find it really fascinating. I'd posit that if we as human beings _could_ consciously recreate art in any format we remembered, we obviously _would_ and there'd be no question about creativity. Fun to think about!

[@kibi8999]

Humans can't store visual data, but we can store visuospatial utterances. AIs on the other hand store visual data through estimation and can't store visuospatial utterances. An unskilled artist may think they see clearly in their mind, but without the visuospatial truths they cannot produce the artistic results through hand to medium. The human brain is naturally selected as a design to see and navigate through space, just as other animals who can. While a AI network is designed to estimate and derive in a way that involves both data (e.g. from other people, likely through plagiarism) and classifier logic. A human artist is more like a dimensional computer, we convey space and illusion to create illustration, and is actually closer to math than even GAN/SD does. One day a technology may exist that doesn't involve estimating e.g. plagiarised data, but the modern ethical issue is the data theft. 2D artists aren't afraid of 3D ones, so I don't feel artists are concerned so much about the technological capabilities. It's more that the existent technologies are plagiaristic and don't give full human control to the artistic elements as such. Artists will always be needed, though, because only an artist can control every aspect in an image. Art can get easier and everyone can become an artist with advanced technology. However, this current technology is just robbing artists, and the crime is others stealing hard work and effort and throwing that into an AI model to get ahead not just financially but at the inspirited and mortal cost of the lifetime of artists.

[@lorenzoiotti]

I think ai-faces is a far better choice than Lensa, better quality artworks, cheaper price and by far the safest privacy wise

[@lightbayreviews2397]

thanks for the recommendation

[@airlabpro5344]

@@lightbayreviews2397 help me if you find a discount code please tell me I want to buy as Christmas gift

[@jepgambardella5964]

@@airlabpro5344 honey found an xmas code i'll edit back once I find it

[@vishwajeetsharma2804]

What site/app are you recommending i couldn't find anything named ai-faces

[@adamkiraly7833]

Yeah, but does it use paid artworks as source, or are they just stealing art too?

[@diogomarques7479]

I just listened to the latest Waveform episode a while ago and it's really cool how you managed to provide even more value here than you already had on the podcast, all while keeping your stance on the topic!

[@realbadtech9318]

As a painter trained in traditional oil painting techniques and also a nerd, I find the whole conversation around this and imagining the future of art extremely fascinating. I wonder if the march forward of AI "created" art will inspire a generation of artists to return to traditional mediums like oil painting. After all, if you've only seen a rich, layered oil painting that seems to glow from the materials it was made with only on your iphone, you haven't fucking seen it at all. There's a reason we go to museums to see a Monet in person

[@romanobrien6988]

One small error: DALLE2 doesn't use Stable Diffusion to generate images, that's a separate model.

[@AYHASfilms]

DALL-E also didn't use laion 5b and even SD only used a much smaller subset of the whole of the laion set. There is quite a bit wrong with this video factually.

[@floatbob4281]

yeah I immediately noticed both errors when watching and it’s actually upsetting. DALL-E doesn’t have the same issues that SD has because OpenAi was far more specific with their dataset and limited the amount of copyrighted material. Perfect example is the artist watermark which is an issue on SD but rarely if not never happens on DALL-E

[@jertsupertsu]

I have been following you from my tech fascinated child hood years to now, and I absolutely love seeing you diversify and delve into topics that interest you. Not something AI generated content could achieve. ;) Keep up the wonderful work!

[@christophermorgan7681]

I relate to this comment frfr. Been watching this dude since highs school and I’m almost 30.

[@iamslf]

ppl will still appreciate human made art, but they won’t appreciate how much artists charge for it, considering they can get something similar through one of these ai art generators. the selling point for artists is going to increasingly be the artists themselves, and not necessarily the art we create. it’s already difficult for upcoming artists to get any reach. these generators are just going to make it harder.

[@Outwardpd]

Conveniently though it will also drive improved art representation in various ways. Original art being widely available can really only be a good thing, it just means that artists who can't beat a machine will have to either work harder or smarter.

[@xsecondgox]

@@Outwardpd ai generated isn't original but ok

[@Outwardpd]

@@xsecondgox So you can find those exact images having been made previously? No, you can't. They are original in the same way a book is original despite every word being represented in a dictionary beforehand as well.

[@iamslf]

@@Outwardpd that fundamental takes away the idea of art. art should never be performance/skill based, as you’d be taking away the freedom of expression. art has to be one hundred percent sincere.

[@Outwardpd]

@@iamslf If the artists are only creating for themselves then this has no impact on them. If they were creating for others then the consumers are the ones who will be the judge of whether their human 'freedom of expression' is better than the machine's 'freedom of expression'.

[@Rays91546]

AI can be used as a tool by people for now. But, think about this, a video creator can essentially be replicated with just a few characteristics. I know that there is a lot more to a person, but we're talking about mimicry here essentially. The three things are: Script, Voice, Video. All three of these things AI can already do although at varying levels of competency. Given a specific topic an AI can generate a script. Given a script an AI can voice it. Now for the video it's much harder, but still. To be more like a creator and have a "sense of self" the AI also creates a character for itself: like what sorts clothes it likes to wear, what space its videos are shot in, some interests that it has, etc. This helps reinforce the environment for the video generated and video topics in the future. Now the AI has a character and if given the ability to remember previous videos it's made it can also make sensible continuous uploads in its timeline. Just like our favorite youtubers! Of course, AI creators aren't something to be worried about maybe this year, or next or even the one after that. However, beyond a shadow of a doubt there will be AI creators in the future, the door is wide open for it. I'm terrified just thinking about it. There is also the question: "how are you going to meet these creators in person?" well, you can't. And it's not like most people meet content creators in person anyways. But, does that make them any less real? I'm not too sure myself. What do you guys think about this possibility?