We Have To Talk About AI Art...

What do you think about AI art? Is it fair to artists?
📞 DISCORD » / discord
🎥 LAST VIDEO » • Why Does The Online Ar...
🅿 PATREON » / subjectively
👾 TWITCH » / subjectively5
👕 REDBUBBLE » www.redbubble.....
🛒GUMROAD » gumroad.com/su...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
✧✧✧ SUBJECTIVELY ✧✧✧
We’re a group of friends and artists with a lot of opinions about our favorite media and character design. Now, we want to share our friendly, roundtable-style discussions and artistic misadventures with YOU.
Subscribe!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
✧✧✧ FIND US ON SOCIAL MEDIA! ✧✧✧
Instagram: @subjectively5
Twitter: / subjectively_5
Facebook: / subjectively5
Twitch: / subjectively5
Patreon: / subjectively
Tag us when posting your fanart to Instagram to have your art featured in our videos!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All content and characters discussed belong to their respective owners. Our content is covered by Fair Use for the purposes of polite criticism, artistic education, and/or satirical purposes. We want to share our enthusiasm for the media we cover, and also engage more people to be interested in the value of art direction and character design.

[@Subjectively]

Thanks for watching! If you enjoyed the content of this video and would like to see more content like this, please consider pledging to our Patreon! We have tons of cool perks available that rotate every month, plus you'll get your name in our videos. Check it out if you have a buck to spare and want to support independent creators! ➡ www.patreon.com/Subjectively

[@suzanacaetano7390]

What drawing platform do you use please?

[@wangelite5279]

the profession most threaten by AI are developers, even more so than artist. As an artist, it is a deep question into identity. Maybe artist will transit into curators or creators. There needs to a big effort into learning other stuff. Like how code and machine learning works. That could be the next tools an artist must master.

[@niaschim]

On one hand you're right. The way they procure the datasets is scummy and wrong. But on the other hand: the thing that pisses in MY cheerios is when people then go on to say that AI Artists "aren't real artists". It evokes the 1930/40s when Nazi Germans had museums of 'degenerate art'. To go even further and to say that anyone who uses AI image generation tools "is a thief" is just adhominem us vs them bs in my eyes. Because literally, if the output isn't a carbon copy of one of the inputs then it is transformative. So for some outputs where the output strongly resembles an input: it is like taking that input and passing it through a weak filter. But for most outputs that don't strongly resemble any of their inputs: it's more like an original song that weakly samples some other song or song. Furthermore, if something convenient exists people cannot (not willnot but cannot) resist. If you go somewhere that has a drought and you offer them endless free/cheap well water they will drink the well water, even if it was illegally aqcuired and contains endangered cave fish or whatever. Same thing here. Capitalism says that to succeed and compete you need to do more with less. So it's like a drought. Suddenly a tool comes along that lets us do more with less. The users and the art providers are both victims here. So stop us/them-ing it. I draw. I do different mediums. I've gotten worse at it. And I love AI art cos I can use it as a crutch. But that doesn't make me a slimey bastard for using tools that use art that maybe the tools shouldn't use. It's a tool. I'm using a tool. It's not my fault if the factory kills people and steals their ore from impoverished areas. I need a tool. And the tool is there. I'm not auditing the company. I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth. If you wanna do that fine. But more people will agree with you if you make less people out to be villains. That's my stance. It's not changing. Furthermore I have some pretty extreme viees about intellectual property and property in general. I believe in following the law. But if I could remake it in my own image: I would. The world altered by me would have no patents or copyrights, and trademarks would only belong to individuals, being part of their name on their birth certificate. Stealing a trademark would be the same as stealing a name. Two people can both be named Bob. That's not identity theft. But if you start being Bob with the same surname as another Bob and start to behave sus, then at some point it becomes identity theft. Likewise for physicial possessions everything would be a matter of adverse possesion weighed against good of the many. We'd have hoarder laws, people who just have too much stuff would be required to get it cleaned or recycled to a useable condition and given to people in need. So hoarders and doomsday preppers would become high output volunteers for the resources of their local areas. You're gonna build a bunker with enough food to last 5 years? You better build it for your entire culdesac, or else that's an illegal operation. Posession wouldn't be a matter of deed and purchase, it would become a matter of comfort and need. Would that allow for injustice and abuses? Absolutely, but so does the current system, and that hasn't stopped us before. Plus I suspect these abuses would in general be 'for the right reasons' more or less. Instead of this world where if Jane steals a wheelchair because she needs a wheelchair and is broke, we go after Jane because she didn't get a wheelchair 'the right way'. In my world we would go after John, for pretending to need a wheelchair until someone who kept their dead son's wheel chair as a momento of the life they had lived, to John so that their Son's legacy could be continued by his good deeds even after death. We'd go after John for faking a need he didn't really have and depriving that family of their comfort object and/or blocking someone further away from getting the wheelchair in John's place. So yeah, we'd still have criminal justice but I feel in my world the criminal justice system would more closely align with what true human values generally turn out to be. I'm just bringing up my hypothetical world domination, so that if you try to change my mind by appealing to emotions you can realize that my heart actually belongs to an alternate universe and I personally feel like the entire world is upsidedown and backwards from what it should be. Eitherway I mean you no hate. Peace☮️

[@LoreFriendlyMusic]

You come off as very self righteous and bitter. Your view on the matter is also very one-sided. I also don't think you understand how a blocmchain works. It actually is physically impossible to remove something from the blockchain once it is on there, unless a majority of users decide to fork the whole blockchain, which is not going to happen with Ethereum. As a fellow creative (songwriter and writer), I am sorry about your work being automated, but we are all in the same boat, here. Bitterness is a poison that the concoctor drinks themselves, and it's not going to change anything.

[@niaschim]

@@LoreFriendlyMusic exactly. I forgot where I put my comment or what I said. But yeah. It uses the same tech as a language model. Its just autocorrect for art. Which is a language by the way. Art isn't the real world. It's a mixture of perspective combined with human color perception and paradolia. It's a language of human visual expression/understanding. So yeh.

[@sushiroll3795]

One of the main issues I've had with the majority of AI art's supporters is that they don't portray it as an interesting tool that can be used by artists. Rather, they describe it as a potential "replacement" for artists, which is goddamn horrifying.

[@kennethsatria6607]

Also incredibly insensitive and arrogant

[@sirreginaldfishingtonxvii6149]

And it threatens to _be_ a replacement too. That's what lots of the dislike come from.

[@lololhiful]

This I think is the really insidious thing. It would be incredibly easy for studios to hire fewer concept artists & instead rely more heavily on AI-generated concepts because "it's cheaper" - or using the *threat* of relying on AI to pay the concept artists they do hire less than they should be. Or for publishers and record labels to pull similar stunts with the art (be it traditional, digital or photographic) that they need for book and album covers. Right now the goal is to normalise AI art and get it to a point not where it's better than artists, but "good enough" that it can be used by industry to push wages lower

[@Trecherousbeast]

I’ve honestly seen more of the opposite. Way too many artists I come across terrified that they’ll be completely replaced, commenting under posts where someone’s just showing a generation they made. Some Reddits I go to normally have even fully banned A.I art under the rule of “low effort posts”.

[@devinfleenor3188]

I'm not a "supporter" I'm just a realist about these things. Even if you were to somehow scrub a particular Artists work from the training, as the models get more advanced they would still emerge the ability to adopt any artists style. As in, an opt out system would only slow things down. It is horrifying, in every way because I think the artists are the canaries in the coal mine on this. They are the first ones to be robbed of their essence and to be fed to the beast, and they are also the first ones telling folks to close Pandora's box. Ultimately I fear those with noble convictions of boycotting AI art will be the ones left behind as the next generation of creatives will all be using this technology like a 2 year old expertly navigating an I-pad or a souless corporation using the latest tech to extract every penny they can. I want the good hearted and creative people to adopt it so they can clutch some sort of a victory from the jaws of this eldritch horror so I encourage adoption. But I also understand the fight.

[@tobiasfunke6284]

My main concern is that it makes an already threatened part of the pipeline, the concept artist, essentially 100% optional

[@minedantaken1684]

Unless You want something unique enough for the AI to go "what the fuck are You asking of me?"

[@andreacastillo5030]

@@minedantaken1684 i tried to use AI for a certain character that had central heterochromia (having two different colors in one eye) and the IA couldn't get it no matter how i worded it, it got so bad that the ia made the caracter a girl many times (the character is a boy), so pretty much AI still not able to make too especific details

[@Stinkymoe]

@@andreacastillo5030it will 😅

[@pedroc3948]

​@andreacastillo5030 Couldn't you just ignore the heterochromia in then AI part of the job and photoshop it afterwards?

[@theonesithtorulethemall]

I think concept art is the only one to survive as you can better feed your ideas to the ai with concept art for it to work it iut

[@thevioletbee5879]

Good lord that is a cursed thumbnail.

[@MonsterMindEntertainment]

100% Agreed, that is not a anime waifu, that's an eldrith horror.

[@ShriveledSpleen]

The anime girl's face looks like one of a fish thrown in an analog horror and stitched onto her.

[@eviesanders1344]

It looks like something from Doki doki

[@zhoubot]

I'm scared

[@torterratortellini6641]

@@MonsterMindEntertainmentthat’s why it’s awesome.

[@BusinessWolfRay]

The only thing that I'd add to this conversation is that a lot of the images, especially paintings, generated by AI look "odd" because the consideration for light and form is being lost. It's very much a "putting lipstick on a pig" scenario, where the AI is just throwing bits of rendering together. The reason artists are needed is because we know these things, we can point out all of the mistakes and the oddities that lend to that "uncanny" feeling. I can always tell if something was made by AI because there are 4 light sources, where none of the colors match the direction they're coming from, and they're over-rendered, they look unfocused and amature. Even beginner painters I can tell their work apart, because they know roughly what is supposed to go where, even if they don't know how to capture it exactly.

[@montithered4741]

The issue is some ai art is indistinguishable from other art.

[@LudwigVaanArthans]

AI art is just an algorithm learning how to do it better and better. With time, most art made by real people will pale in comparison to generated art simply because the algorithm will slowly outperform most humans This AI learning thing should have been an issue for many years and years ago when it started to affect other industries, not now. But back then the "artists" weren't affected and would gladly shout "learn to code" to factory workers complaining that machines "took der jerbs". Now however, the tech has already proven useful in other aspects of human life, so it's a matter of trial and error until it gets good at this new aspect too. Too little outcry, too late

[@Mialikesthings]

@@LudwigVaanArthansYou do AI art am I right?

[@RunePonyRamblings]

@@LudwigVaanArthans Artists weren't the ones shouting "learn to code", that was you tech bros. For what it's worth though, people _did_ complain about the machines taking their jobs, and the industrialists killed them for it. People complained about corporations outsourcing and the corporatists ignored them. Automation isn't "proving useful in other aspects of human life", it's proving useful to corporate profit margins by letting them devalue and/or replace human labor. You could _maybe_ argue that it benefited consumers with cheaper goods, but that hasn't been true for 15 years at least. "This AI learning thing" has only emerged in the last, like, five years. It _wasn't_ affecting any industries before now, it sounds like you're conflating the current AI issues with the broader issue of automation in general. Also, the "they terk er jerbs!" meme was about illegal immigration, not automation, so frankly it sounds like you don't have idea what you're talking about and you're just predictively generating an argument based on a composite model scraped from different working class grievances.

[@CharlieNoodles]

Proving you can’t polish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter 😂

[@lokalcrow1470]

There seems to be this weird mindset with the people who support AI "art", as if the only thing that matters in creation is the final product, and not the thought that went into it. It's great to speculate why the artist destributed their elements a certain way, why they chose those colors, what it means, and what we THINK it does. In AI "art" there's no intention. The AI predicted how to recreate existing art. It's uninnovative. It's empty. It's against the very comcept of art.

[@MatiasBenavides]

Just for the sake of discussion: Should art have intent and be innovative? Is every person drawing their OC in the same pose NOT doing art?

[@shinystars2475]

If they cared about that stuff they would probably care enough to actually draw

[@devinfleenor3188]

The next model will have 20% more intention, 10% more innovation, 23% less empty, and 17% less against the very concept of art.

[@louzo5175]

​@@MatiasBenavides creators of ocs do make art, brcouse still a though and a prpcess went into the same base ones, even though small only bc of yet inexpierense

[@MatiasBenavides]

@@louzo5175 Of course it's art! My point is to avoid falling into snobbism regarding what constitutes art and what is not. "Intention" is not always present in art. "innovation" is not always present in art. And yet, they are art. I think in this case, AI cannot make "art" because it lacks the "will" to "create" rather than process or result.

[@SKy_the_Thunder]

I personally think the tech _could_ be a useful tool for artists - _if_ they were set up, handled and trained as such. Assuming they use ethically sourced data sets, it can be helpful especially for things like concept art, generating a ton of rough ideas around certain prompts, which an artist can then use for ideas. It could also be a tool for supervisors or similar roles to visualize their ideas to the team of artists instead of having to rely on a back and forth of iterations, caused by miscommunication. *But that's not the reality of things.* The community around these projects have created an echo chamber for themselves that somehow paints artists as "entitled elites", somehow saying that they hogged the right to artistic expression - by not wanting their works used without permission and potentially misrepresented... It's also common to discredit the literal decades of training any artist has gone through as an "unfair advantage" that they merely seek to level. These are incredibly disingenuous claims, and most of them know it. The concept of "inherent talent" is mainly an illusion. Those with artistic skills usually just never gave up on their crappy childhood doodles - and like with every skill they became better at it over time. Any artist I've ever met is happy to inspire others to get into art, and pretty much anyone will share tips and tricks, make tutorials, give feedback or even share their tools. And if these AI image-generators were created with respect to the artist community and marketet as a tool, I'm pretty certain they would have been received *much* better... But you can't just go up to someone saying "hey, I created this thing to make the job you enjoy superfluous" and expect them to be happy about it. And that's my main personal issue with this whole topic: *It's purely made to show off.* With the amount of brain power, resources and money that went into these projects, they could have instead helped automate the jobs no one likes to do. Instead they target occupations people actually _want_ to work in. Because it's flashy. It gets attention and is seen and recognized by everyone. You won't get famous for creating an AI that observes and predicts traffic flow in order to fine tune traffic signals, even though things like that would be infinitely more useful. But being able to show off pretty pictures on social media, and letting randos play around with it? Oh yeah, that gets attention! Which again targets artists, who _have_ to utilize the reach of social media that way to sell their product...

[@SubjectivelyClaire]

I totally hear your points. I think the 'show-off' aspect you mention is a big part of why that one viral AI generated image won a prize at the Colorado State Fair -- it made waves when it was selected. The headline was everywhere. Also, the Getty AI I mentioned that was built exclusively from licensed images could model the way forward. AI probably won't just go away, but Getty is planning to adopt a revenue sharing model to guarantee that artists and photographers will be paid when their licensed images contribute to an AI creation. If people are fairly credited and compensated at every step, AI definitely *could* be a useful, ethical tool for business people and creatives alike.

[@sushigivesmelife2131]

YES replace jobs like burger-making not ART and especially not art that is STOLEN from across the internet

[@Mrhellslayerz]

​@@sushigivesmelife2131How about don't replace jobs in the first place? Even cashiers and burger flippers need to eat mate, and automating food would mean stamping out the livelihoods of renowned chefs and the culinary arts.

[@LudwigVaanArthans]

​​@@Mrhellslayerzit's only bad when we are potentially targeted, if it's someone else eh, who gives a fuck, we're artists full of empathy, we got not time to care bout the idiots who didn't learn how [insert generic job artists think makes a lot of money here]

[@Mrhellslayerz]

@@LudwigVaanArthans Not exactly a good retort against artists when every NFT shoveling techbro unironically makes that exact same claim against whatever imaginary elite's club they think every artist is part of.

[@steampunk2194]

I hated ai even more after I found out people are selling ai adoptables. It infuriates me to no end.

[@Brenilla]

Yeah, it’s so scummy DX At least every time on Pinterest an AI adoptable pops up all of them have comments of Yoink or Thanks for the free character or the fact ai art is un copyrightable

[@humanbeeing4780]

@@BrenillaOk. Companies are still firing artists everyday and replacing them with AI. Cant wait for the entire industry to be 100% ai.

[@isaiahtorok7079]

What's an adoptable?

[@Brenilla]

@@isaiahtorok7079 an adoptable is a character design/character put up for sale by an artist. So an artist will design a character then will sell it, put it up for trade or what not.

[@steampunk2194]

@@isaiahtorok7079 an adoptable is an original character created by an artist with the purpose of selling or trading the rights to said character. The problem with ai adoptables is you can't copyright ai art so you can't sell the rights to it.

[@sesamebark5255]

Thank you for making this, it’s seriously such a huge problem. Like I’m terrified to post my art anywhere, because I don’t want it to be stolen for an Ai which sucks. Really hoping this as a whole becomes obsolete, or that at the VERY LEAST we can regulate it heavily.

[@NoESanity]

the question is, if AI wasn't a thing, would you still be terrified that some rando on the internet might see your art and either steal it or incorporate your concept or style into their own art? If you're not afraid of a person stealing your art, why would you be afraid of an AI stealing it? if you're afraid to make art because it might be stolen, then you should talk to someone close to you or a therapist about how your fear is getting in the way of your hobby. If you're more afraid of an AI stealing your art than a person, you might want to examine what priorities have caused that disparity.

[@slimetank394]

​@@NoESanity 7:51

[@sesamebark5255]

@@NoESanity Babe, I’m afraid of my art being stolen by anyone or anything, period. But at least when it comes to real people, it’s completely unacceptable and frowned upon(and in some cases illegal) to steal other peoples’ art, or to use it without their permission. So why does that not extend to AI? What about AI specifically makes it somehow morally appropriate or at all acceptable to literally steal work from artists? Why is it suddenly okay if a computer is involved in the process? Your logic is very flawed, friend. Please do research.

[@NoESanity]

@@sesamebark5255 that's a lot of strawmen you've built there. can you tell me where in my post i said it was okay for AI to steal or that it was appropriate for AI to steal for people? All i said, is you should talk to your therapist about your fear because it is, in your own words, getting in the way of your hobby. nothing about that is condoning or excusing AI. but hey, maybe when you learn to read what people say instead of what you wanted people to say, you'll be able to actually help yourself get out of your own head.

[@NoESanity]

@@slimetank394 has nothing to do with what i said, but do try again.

[@11nephilim]

Entry level jobs are already being decimated, kicking the ladder out from people trying to break into art careers (something that's already difficult as hell). We're looking at a potential future where 90% of creative jobs disappear in favour of soulless cr*p, it's completely dystopian.

[@humanbeeing4780]

Cant wait omg ❤❤❤

[@LudwigVaanArthans]

It's not a potential future, it's a guaranteed one. Algorithms need time and resources to get going, but once they do they're gonna sweep the industry

[@soursoulz]

Honestly this makes me want to quit art. Ai art has ruined how I see myself as an artist. I can't enjoy working on my own comic anymore.

[@heavenseek]

I think you should continue with your comic and i think you should identify as an artist more now than ever before. Real art is expression and a comic is a GREAT expressive format where you can say anything you want about society and these disruptive entities. This threatening stuff and these calloused failures known as "AI Bros" really need to be depicted by artists in a merciless way. @@soursoulz

[@elle3508]

@@LudwigVaanArthans Thing is, laws are catching up, talks about training rights belonging to copyright holders are on the table. Meaning AI companies wont be able to grab as they have done until now.

[@user-hs1xb9tv6e]

I already knew that ai art is screwing up artists, but the fact its apparently can also "inherit" its creators racist biases is... disturbing.

[@markcooperartcom]

What a scumbag thing to say.

[@Kurnine]

Source?

[@Aaa-vp6ug]

@@Kurninethe creators can limit the pool of samples it gets. Like if you want it to make all its pictures of disabled people look like turds, just only tag Turds as disabled people, or mostly. Well, there’s more to it, but you can control what it makes by changing the labels it gets

[@minedantaken1684]

​@@Aaa-vp6ugand how the FUCK is that the AI's fault?

[@greymane1994]

I 100% agree that there is an issue within tech companies that create unfriendly environments for non-white people. I don’t have a source for it, but unlike the government, or the police I don’t think racist is the right term here. I don’t know what it would be, but I think claiming that it’s actively hateful or disdainful towards people of color is potentially misleading. That being said, societally at least where I live, the US, there is a lot of passive racist bias. So it wouldn’t surprise me if when studies are done on this field that we find actively racist AI and AI developers/management.

[@sunnydraws2513]

Along with the problems you listed, what also scares me is the potential for AI-generated 'artwork' to replace artists that are trying to make a living off of their artwork. Concept artists, freelance artists, and environment artists in particular seem the most at-risk. A common sentiment I've heard from pro-AI people is that it's easier to just use AI instead of having to pay money to an artist. They don't care about the livelihoods and passions they are affecting because it doesn't directly affect them. Thankfully, there are still a lot of people out there who genuinely respect and appreciate the value of artwork, and I'm forever grateful for those people.

[@iamLI3]

just tech scammers chasing the current big tech forced trend to try and grub people out of their money....

[@haitaelpastor976]

If I were replaced by a machine tomorrow, you wouldn't give a single flying heck.

[@iamLI3]

@@haitaelpastor976 and what makes you say that?.....

[@haitaelpastor976]

@@iamLI3 I may have no proof, but no doubts either.

[@rat7791]

Subjectivelys new direction of discussing art topics like this one are genuinely such well put together videos. Like ya'll really know how to construct a fantastic and compelling video essay!

[@CapnTholaf]

If AI are is 'collaborative', then me breaking into someone's house and stealing their TV is just us collaborating on my living room :)

[@coopigeon619]

banger point 💯

[@githyanki1899]

Hey. Be nice. Your TV has already been stolen. It would be complicated to ask for permission now.

[@revimfadli4666]

​@@BigTime.Was the TV being duplicated or used to create a new one? No? Then how is that a good analogy? This view of equating it with stealing physical objects is surely "collaborative" lol

[@pedroslim2]

@@revimfadli4666 i'm sure you can figure out how none are collaborative and intrusive, it's not that hard, stop getting stuck in semantics

[@RabidDisposition]

Not the same thing, a better analogy would be you coming into my house after I invite you in, letting you draw inspiration from my living room, and then going off and doing your living room with that inspiration.

[@plagueamon9331]

Please keep discussing this issue, I think it’s important that people don’t forget about this

[@legosaurg7979]

My opinion on AI art has always been that using it for any sort of monetary gain is wrong, especially because of the whole problem with many if not most AI art programs being trained on art without the original artist’s permission. Even when it comes to AI art used for non monetary gain, there are only a few instances where I think it’s acceptable, such as with memes. The recent trend to use AI art to turn memes into optical illusions is a usage that I am partially ok with, as that’s something that would be too costly to do otherwise. Sure, you could set up an actual bedroom to look like Sans Undertale, but that would simply take way too long, cost way too much, and by the time you’d have finished it the trend might have died out. Even then, there is still the debate on ethics. I don’t know the full details behind the AI program used for the optical illusion trend, so maybe it also uses stolen art. That’s the big problem with this new era. You can never be sure about this kind of stuff.

[@ExclaimInc]

This is such a good video, it feels really great hearing someone I’ve looked up to word my own frustrations in a way that’s so succinct and well thought out.

[@mu4784]

I also recommend "The Consequences of 'AI' Art" from TB Skyen, so well put together!

[@mao4434]

I really really hope that it's just another nft situation, just a fleeting trend. If not, then i hope we as artist are able to put a halt to this together

[@IPS-bk2wr]

It’s not a fleeting trend. Unlike NFTs, AI art at least serves a generalized purpose even if the ‘art’ looks wonky (but I’d be worried about the future when the tech can create more accurate art)

[@strawberry641]

unfortunately, unlike nfts, regular every day people AND corporations have a use for AI. unless regualtions happen soon, or professional artists and animators all unionize and impose protections against AI replacing them (see: WGA strike and their protections) we might see artists go the way of the textile industry :,)

[@thealientree3821]

AI will replace more than artists I am afraid.

[@nawabifaissal9625]

nope sorry bud AI is nowhere near NFT's, it's potential is limitless with iterations, i guess drawn arts will still be a thing somehow but clearly not within companies

[@mao4434]

@@nawabifaissal9625 yea guess you're right, but seeing the surge of indie animation and stuff really gives me hope y'know

[@theodorehodbor5080]

The fact it took a massive half-year long strike of the entire entertainment industry *just* to mandate that AI doesn't literally replace the entire industry tells me AI needs to be government regulated.

[@haitaelpastor976]

Nothing of value was lost during that strike.

[@Mind_Crimes]

The Concept Artist Association has been fundraising an effort to raise a lobby on behalf of visual arts industry at least within the US. There's been a Congressional hearing regarding the use of AI violating copyright that is available on KZbin. Don't give into doomerism; artists are bucking the trend that they'll take another loss on their best interest again.

[@SubjectivelyClaire]

That would be interesting! If we had negotiating power akin to the writers guild, I'm sure the industry as a whole would feel much better about discussing the future of AI as it relates to arts.

[@artman40]

Do NOT support Concept Artist Association! That's a monkey's paw right there!

[@montithered4741]

AI can’t violate copyright because ai art isn’t able to be copyrighted in the United States.

[@Mind_Crimes]

@@artman40 Care to elaborate?

[@artman40]

@@Mind_Crimes More draconian copyright laws.

[@mauriciomorali5392]

Let's stop calling that "AI art", those are AI generated images, we must call things for what they are, and not by that which the merch department of unethical corporations want to call it, also prompters are just prompters, they're not artists by any means. Anyways, great video, I totally understand you and support what you're pointing out.

[@SugarThyme]

I usually call it "generated images" because there's really no "intelligence" behind it. Calling it "AI" gives people the idea that the computer is somehow thinking, which it's not.

[@ethanstyant9704]

It's not art because there is no intention

[@SugarThyme]

@@ethanstyant9704 It's not intelligence because there is no thought. And yet they try to label it "AI"...

[@LondonMoneyCashEnterprise]

@@ethanstyant9704a lot of human “art” have no intention as well

[@rosevee4600]

@@LondonMoneyCashEnterprise I'm pretty sure people draw and create for a reason. You can't say there's no intention.

[@hueheist1290]

I ordered a bunch of tapestries online and didn’t look close enough before paying, they showed up and all three of them are very obviously AI generated. It’s inescapable and I hate it

[@RubyGalaxyYT]

I just can't stand AI art. For all the reasons as stated, it's going to, if not already, create barriers for the new comers to the creative fields having to now deal with flipping machines stealing art and jobs that they were dreaming or planning to create genuine art for a lot of thier lives. The positive note that I can think of is that hand crafted art is going to be more valued with thier being disgust towards AI art from the public and creators, but we also need new laws on locking down the AI stealing jobs.

[@revimfadli4666]

On the other hand, newcomers to game design etc might have less skill barriers(and ironically, the barrier come from artists who denounce them for using crutches)

[@TheSerperior]

Yeah I have a real problem with AI art, and the same issue stands with AI voices. As someone looking to get into the field of voice acting it is terrifying that my or other's voices could be used to fabricate us saying horrendous crap.

[@Dave102693]

Yeah I hate voice cloning too. At least these fakers could of used the Vocaloids business model of voice banks, but that would involving compensating people and those voice banks don’t replace actual people.

[@Jimoshi1]

Hmm i dont know mb if you looking to get into a field and see that its not promising mb dont go into a field? Welcome to capitalism and why should we care that YOUR prefered work dasnt make YOU money?

[@synthellaart1587]

​@@Jimoshi1 are you okay? I hope you'll feel better soon.

[@CoralReaper707]

I hate the idea of Ai art replacing artists. No thank you.

[@Possumbreath]

People don't realize AI is only as smart as the person who trains it. It can't think for itself or make informed decisions or come up with new takes on themes or concepts. Its like taking a bunch of slices of pizza from the pizza hut, putting them together in a dominoes box, and saying you made a homemade pizza.

[@revimfadli4666]

Sadly that's enough for most people, even before ai generated stuff were a thing. Ever heard of OEMs?

[@Possumbreath]

@revimfadli4666 the comparison is not the same. A oem is still in a contract with the companies it works with and is presumably being paid for its time and labor. In this case, the comparison to an OEM would be an indie game developer COMMISSIONING an artist for assets, used with permission as part of a mutual deal, with the rights leaving the artist and being bought by the game creator. Love you whiteknighting for scummy shit all over this comment section, VERY cute.

[@ethanstyant9704]

It's like pushing down the lever on a toaster and saying you're a cook

[@uturner]

@@ethanstyant9704 No we call ourselves toastmasters!!!

[@kennethsatria6607]

You'd think it should be incredibly obvious especially to the people who actually appreciate art that its not supposed to be randomly generated.

[@Jimoshi1]

Tell this to "artists" that make art by literrally shitting painto canvas even more artistic if using cunt or dick.

[@cofagrigusfan24]

as an artist myself but one who doesn't do background, lighting and barely any effects i feel like AI art should *only* be used for inspiration (every artist has artist's block from time to time) and jokes/memes, not ment to be taken serious

[@flibberfrogman5508]

That's still theft and still smuggling the AI developers bias into the art.

[@Verystoic]

@@flibberfrogman5508 what is still theft, inspiration? if im reading you correctly then no thats not the case, you can find inspiration in just about anything.

[@itsanotherhomestuckfanwow9350]

Anyone who says that ai art is a disability tool for disabled artists have never actually spoken to disabled artists who have already found ways to work around their disabilities to create art. EX: All the artists without arms who painted with their mouths or feet.

[@gondoravalon7540]

I mean, how would that invalidate the potential, at least, for it to be an assist to those with disabilities? I'm not sure I understand - certainly feels safer than holding a paintbrush in your mouth for a plethora of reasons, for instance (and also misses that not all disabilities, or even subsets of disabilities manifest themselves in the same way).

[@LoreFriendlyMusic]

No one are stealing from artists. You can't own an artstyle. The AI just uses what already exists to make new, original pieces, the same way a human does. Is it "good" that automation is taking jobs away from artists? No. Is it inevitable? Yes. This is just automation doing what automation does. It is a process that has been going on since we had the first cart and wheel, taking the jobs away from the people who used to carry goods on their backs, and it will not stop until you can order everything in the world with a thought and have it instantly 3D printed by nanobots, like magic.

[@OakenTome]

You can however own individual art pieces that you create. A company using those pieces as training data for a generative algorithm is not analogous to a human brain.

[@Brorca]

A.I. can be used to generate, say, a visual or text prompt for your art, but trying to post it as though you made it is something that should be admonished or punished. A.I. should be used as a tool to aid in your work rather than have it be the entire work. In addition, A.I. can't legally copyright something, as there is legal precedent that only humans can produce copyrightable work. All in all, A.I. is a useful tool, but it should not be anything more than that. Final note: I'm writing this comment before I watch the video. Edit: as a final note, this is NOT me saying that A.I. art is okay, but I feel that text-based A.I., such as ChatGPT can be a powerful brainstorming tool.

[@kermitbutworse]

I agree that it can be a good brainstorming tool, but currently there are many instances of AI stealing from websites such as Ao3 (Archive of our Own) and using that to feed its generative capabilities, without credit or permission. I hope one day AI will be advanced enough to create its own stories and ideas, but right now it's best to use caution. Very articulate comment, though! You clearly put thought into this :)

[@Dave102693]

ChatGPT is engaging in author thrift right now too.

[@Mokiefraggle]

Even text-based A.I. is an extremely slippery slope. It's already being contested by published authors for sampling their work without permission (folks like George RR Martin, for instance), because of its ability to basically learn to spit out something that is a mirror of the author's own work. Also, while it _could_ be a powerful brainstorming tool, people don't use it as such. People use it to cheat the system the same as they do with art-based A.I., plugging in prompts before posting the end result and saying "look upon my works!" as though they did anything of real skill. I've even seen articles about how it's becoming a massive issue in academia, because unlike pure plagiarism, it's harder to prove a case of "Your essay was literally written by an A.I." It's a tool that needs to be controlled, and it currently isn't being given the level of constraint it needs to prevent abuse.

[@Jimoshi1]

it sounds like you used CHatGPT to generate this post wtf is this bs?

[@Jimoshi1]

@@Mokiefraggle lets go deeper and stop using words that someone else used! how dare you repeat!

[@Yuri-tk1oi]

I had many debates with my boyfriend about AI, and as a artist. I have to say the AI itself is not the problem, as its a great tool artists can use for things such as inspiration, sketches, and so goes on. The problem itself is the people who manage the AI, using work without permission instead of using only art that are copyright free, there are AI that are like this, using things with permission, but because of the extremely lower amount of images they can use it will simply learn slower. Which is not a problem, but a excuse. So no, i have no problem with AI itself, but instead i have a problem of who manage these AI.

[@artman40]

Here's a thing: Most people like fanart and many draw fanart. That's not copyright free either. So using copyright as a metric...not a good idea.

[@Yuri-tk1oi]

@@artman40 thats part of my point tho?

[@artman40]

@@Yuri-tk1oi I see. If one is against, AI-generated images, it's not the best idea to use copyright, low-effort content or even the "without consent" argument. That's something almost everyone violates anyway.

[@cloud_and_proud]

I think something that's very important about the 'inherting biases' idea, is that they also inheret much more subtle biases. What if the dataset lacks tags for some important aspect of art, and it's therefore not carried into the generated "art"? What if biases are inherited which we don't even know exist? We'd be trapping ourselves in an echo chamber

[@ethanstyant9704]

That already happens in some softwares as the ai images have become so common that when AI scrapes for art it gets some AI images too and it basically results in (for lack of a better term) inbreeding

[@cloud_and_proud]

@@ethanstyant9704 no you don't get it this happens in ALL GENERATED IMAGES. By definition. That's how this software works. I know that using machine generated stuff for training algorythms is degenerative, that's not what I'm talking about. That's a different thing from what I'm talking about.

[@tarazzzs]

As an artist, I personally dont hate AI, I even see myself using it for references or for LOLs in a future. It mostly just people who treat art and artists as coal miners. And who cant wait to replace everything with robots just to stop paying living wages and social securities. Those people want to run successful businesses yet they scared of risks while wount stop talking bout opportunities and said risks. Plus all that fascination with new tech feels like gold rush, where 95% end up broke while the smart few leave the game with huge pockets. Im looking at you, Blockchain. We need to learn to not jump on shine new junk, thinking that is gold, only to find copper. Again, I dont hate AI. But I rather not to see same story with NFTs repeating, it would be such a waste.

[@stormillion5002]

Good video, I just wanted to clarify that the "programmers" aren't the ones responsible for the biases in the model; Instead that would be the people (and the algorithms they employ) that scrape the web for images, and also the underpaid outsourced workers that tag these images. Just having a diverse crew working on these models would do nothing, since the data they cram into the model is based of of the gendered and racialized internet content they gather. The first step would then of course be to employ some sort of selection of the data, not just use whatever they can, problem being that this, just like using licensed art, would be expensive.

[@Jimoshi1]

i suggest you visit a doctor. but then again there is no pills for racism.

[@NexusbornofGeminis]

So AI "artists" are just the British museum of artists

[@Vaati1992]

It's also very frustrating for people who want to work with artists and other people's art. So much art released into the public domain via the CC0 license is AI art. As a hobby I tinker on TTRPG systems and I frequently look for new CC-BY and CC0 artwork. Most sites are now overrun with CC0 AI art, and occasionally you even get people selling AI art packs. You really have to look multiple times because if someone offers a massive art pack, even for free, they usually put the "best" pieces on the thumbnail, potentially getting folks to download it. Plus a bunch of TTRPG creators have started using AI art, both indies and famously a recent D&D book featured AI art from a legacy digital artist who had worked with WotC before. It's super frustrating...

[@Dj-Parralax-Aphelion]

Here's one thing about AI Art. AI Art is LAZINESS.

[@jf_kein_k8590]

It's funny to watch them trying to scramble any justification for that shits existence together. Deviantart just had everything on "steal right away" setting. (Leading to one artist I follow to jump DA, good thing they have Patreon) It's also highly frustrating when going through Pinterest for nice stuff, but the comments pointing out its AI, as it doesn't get tagged in any way.

[@humanbeeing4780]

It’s also funny watching you all cry about it, as we laugh and continue to generate even more ai art than before.

[@EEErmine]

@@humanbeeing4780 Hope you get replaced first and end up homeless

[@quentin7670]

The things that pisses me off the most are the people who consider them artists because they’ve typed 3 words in a software

[@ethanstyant9704]

Yep just like I'm a master chef because I used a toaster to burn bread

[@pawcanada]

As an artist, I sometimes feel the people who proudly promote AI art and denounce any criticism needs to try and view it from the perspective of AI coming in and taking away their hobby or career. For me, I liken AI Art to someone using an electric bike to enter a prestigious cycling competition and winning, then wonder why the people who've spent years training are unhappy with them.

[@sirreginaldfishingtonxvii6149]

Art should be the last job to be automated by Ai. I mean really. Basically no one goes into art to make money. Not really. There are jobs that are way more likely to earn you far more money with far less effort. People go into art _because they love art._ Because they are passionate about it. They love creating, some even _need_ to do so. And in an ideal society, the most amount of people should be able to do fulfilling things that they love, no? Even better if they can do it for work of course, since then they can live off it and do it full time. That'd be the ideal, shouldn't it? So to take that away? To replace hundreds of thousands of artist jobs, livelyhoods, passions, hell, in some cases _their very reasons to live?_ I can't see how that would be a positive. It'd create a small amount of capitalistic growth through not hiring artists anymore, but would in exchange decrease overall happiness and good in society immensely. From a simply utilitarian standpoint, it'd be a horribly stupid thing to do. It'd just make society worse.

[@riotkitty]

I’ve seen a lot of misguided assumptions about generated images. It is never the same as making art with your own blood, sweat, and tears. Not even remotely similar to digital art. That and even straight up lying if there was generated images, and if they can be copyrighted, which they cannot.

[@forsakenwolfshadow]

I really hate AI its over taking art searches and hurting artiat. They are wealthy for a reason, they take from others without a care. Anything for money right? #eattherich

[@heckell4181]

The problem I have is calling it AI. It is a collection of algorythms. BS. No intellegence necessary. It needs to be stopped.

[@Tazer_Silverscar]

Please continue to discuss this, it's a huge issue that not enough take seriously

[@AIWARAS619]

Somebody mentioned it in one of the comments and now I cant unsee it, your face slipped a bit to the side from your skull under it. Please readjust your human mask.

[@AZTECMAN]

Bias datasets are the reason for biased AI results. ITS NOT THE BIAS OF THE PROGRAMMER. It's just unclean data.

[@NikFishStix]

I did a whole essay on this topic in my composition course!! It was before there was a ton of information and awareness from artists POVs, so it means a lot that you're presenting the information in a way that's easy for people not necessarily in the art community to understand! Also, I really love this video format! I would love to see more!

[@JcibA113]

Thank you for putting so much research into this, there were some articles you featured that I hadn't read before and were very informative.

[@MatiasBenavides]

This is a very interesting topic to me! I work on development (Not AI, general). Before everyone yells at me, I'm against the idea of how corporations handle art in general. I remember when DeviantArt had a similar issue in the past, which is tied a bit with copyright and copyleft discussion. IMO it's not the AI itself that is the problem. Algorithms are that, just that. Sometimes they are problematic, then you adjust them. Amazon had a particular case around it when it was hiring only white dudes because of how it was coded (To find "look-alike" on what they already had) and they had to refactor it. I want to make a point about the people working behind making AI, because tech works in a very different way than art (As it seems). For tech, it's perfectly normal to share code and the concept of copyleft. Every developer will use collective knowledge and copy/paste something to adapt to their needs. With different degrees of success and understanding of the actual problem, but in the end, it's very natural to use that knowledge. Constructing from composition is normal. I believe that it was that idea that drove most of AI, at least their devs. I'm also sure that the idea of a corporation is just to be evil, don't get me wrong. But I have read a lot of people making an "us vs. them" situation or "AI vs. art", even "tech vs. art" (As if they were opposites) when in reality is "people vs. corporations" that I believe should be the center of the discussion.

[@MadXDax]

people always have something to complain about im an artist that uses my own thoughts in my head but i also use AI art and i see nothing wrong with it i think people should start talking about the more important things in life to be honest its really quite sad seeing so many people so upset about it smh

[@mr.plasma.c3455]

Its really sad how people complain about things that dont matter really , like one of the only things that bring them peace, make them feel like being able to communicate without words, the thing they have been passionate about since young, their passion work, their most imoirtant hobby , really people complain about anything these days

[@MadXDax]

@@mr.plasma.c3455 as artists we should be able to be even better than AI, ai art just gets insperation from others work and mashes it up which is pretty much what humans do anyway so is it really all bad? on top of that it allows those that dont have an artistic side to open enjoy art just as much as you and i. artists act so snobby and and entilted purly because they are the only ones that can do the art, now an oppertunity has come for more people, and yall cant stand not having it to yourselves, im not sure when humanity got to be so selfish and disgusting.

[@Creighty]

No.

[@MadXDax]

@@Creighty nice

[@haitaelpastor976]

@@mr.plasma.c3455 sorry, but I don't pay for "passion" nor for your peace of mind.

[@Scoonga_Doonga]

Yeah I can fight AI art *Gets pummeled to shit* Damn AI art got anatomically incorrect hands

[@Asm0d3u5]

@BigTime233 The hands ALWAYS look uncanny. Too many fingers, unnatural poses, etc.

[@GUSYROSA-qj2pk]

It’s so frustrating when people don’t really get why you hate AI “art” and even worst when they defend it comparing it to tools like Photoshop or saying it’s a new evolution like digital art was without knowing what they’re talking about at all. And even worse is AI users claiming to be artists.

[@sunnydraws2513]

using AI to generate an image and then calling yourself an artist is like going to McDonald's and buying a big mac and then saying "look at this burger i made"

[@gondoravalon7540]

> *comparing it to tools like Photoshop* Logically, could there be ways to utilize it as just a tool, or part of the workflow?

[@user-jn1qw5xp7v]

Simple it's the fact that's inhuman it's soulless no passion behind it plus it's weird nobody likes a soulless and non passion art work and I'm a noobe artist

[@juliettev.6309]

I think AI generated images can be art if the person behind it actually has an idea to convey and the artistic knowledge to go through with it, in the same way that a random arrangement of rocks and leaves caused by nature and animals can be art if a photographer knows how to capture it in a way that shows its value. But the way most people are using AI right now indeed feels soulless and superficial. A tool to get art in seconds instead of learning how to make art yourself, completely ignoring the process, the joy and enlightenment it can bring. As someone else put it, "why should we care enough to behold something that no one cared about enough to actually make?" Just saying AI cannot make art is missing the point, I think. It can make art (and in fact I thoroughly enjoyed the weird pictures earlier models would put out, the ones that didn't really represented anything recognizable, where you could infer a lot of different meanings, much like looking at clouds). But all that doesn't matter right now. What does matter is how artists are once again being used against their will to make money to already wealthy scummy people, how our will and creations are being trampled upon, how some of us are already being laid off because companies think they can replace us with AIs, and how the majority of non-artists still see art as a commodity, a product to consume, without any concern for the people who are ripping their soul out to produce these incredible pieces, and barely getting enough money to live in return.

[@johanadormeo4170]

im just thinking about how i used ai art as a base for a fakemon for the mazah region contest. It was Empanaduck. I swear, I didn't know it was like this, i just needed a base

[@partymantis3421]

Ai image generation is essentially art theft, (with the image sets they pull data from often including art withouut permission) only it is stealing art from tons of artists at once (watermarks & signatures included)

[@carultch]

Stealing from one person is plagiarism. Stealing from a million people is artificial intelligence.

[@vaccinialgore9641]

It COULD be potentially useful, but there is just as great a chance of that usefulness being squandered

[@gondoravalon7540]

I feel like one means of squandering that is if people take the misuses, and issues as a reason to not work towards making it useful as a tool Now, I'm not saying you're making that argument at all, don't get me wrong. I have seen that sentiment from others, though, and it is troubling because those misuses and issues (again IMO) don't seem to negate the potential for usefulness still existing.

[@vaccinialgore9641]

@@gondoravalon7540 that's true

[@TheImmortalIvan]

This is such an important topic to talk about that I don't see often enough. I feel like knowledge truly is power here, and I commend you for tackling the subject, especially when the ai art supporters can get a little frenzied. If you decide to continue talking about these subjects, you have my support!

[@frealish6622]

Was into the video until she started talking about racial and gender bias. Thats NOT the problem rn about ai art and spending half the video on it is taking away from that

[@babel_UV]

Something to point out is that Image-generating AI is "objetively biased" what I mean by that is that if more art in the internet featuring women compared to men is sexualised, it is more likely the ai image will be sexualised. Unless is an AI specifically developed to make porn, it's not made with any personal bias from the developers. Except the obvious money hungry bias.

[@babel_UV]

I find it strange how this video ended up sounding as if it the supposed racist bias somehow as important of an issue as the fact that companies are now finding the technology to cheapen art work to an extreme never seen before. That is the main problem and the reason AI is even as popular as it is. Capitalists just want a productive society and rake up those benefits. I understand it can seem like a good thing to defend small business or minorities taking over those business, but the solution comes from questioning the entire notion of having business in the first place.

[@githyanki1899]

Here is the interesting thing. A lot of people suggest that AI art is a tool, and to that i would suggest some regulations to make sure that "tool" cannot be used for theft.

[@Jimoshi1]

Copyright laws exist you know if you find your work stolen then go sue. What else do you want? Using pre cognition so we can arrest someone before they stole your shit?

[@The_PokeSaurus]

Literally got an Ad for an AI program while watching this. Clicked Block Ad.

[@humanbeeing4780]

Ok. I’ll generate some ai art in ur name dw

[@The_PokeSaurus]

@@humanbeeing4780 Did you just call me Dora Winifred?

[@EEErmine]

@@humanbeeing4780 🤡

[@vghr6100]

Don't bother arguing with thugs who commit mass art theft and copyright laundering. Work on software like Nightshade to combat them.

[@luckaugustin5123]

I just wanted to point out something about what you said at 11:00 - 12:30. Keep in mind that you may not agree with me, but please try to take what I say with a grain of salt and keep an open mind. Anywho but what I want to say is that AI isn't just objectifying Woman; it's objectifying men too but in a different sense. There goes a saying that's along the lines of, "Woman are viewed as sex objects and Men are viewed as Success objects" (which to be fair, you did somewhat point out) and AI seems to be following that to a tee. People idolize and objectify men like Michael Jackson, The Beetles, Kobe Bryant, etc and note that the AI is still being sexist but it isn't being emphasized that it goes both ways. And let's be honest, it's not showing your average girl or guy, or people who are fat, or people who work at McDonalds unless you actively type that in like you said (another point for you🎉). To reassure anyone who reads this comment, I'm not trying to spread some red pill bullshit so much as I'm trying to point out that people aren't noticing that AI is just a symptom of a much larger problem which is that people are viewing each other as a means to an end. And if we weren't we wouldn't have Onlyfans and porn, we wouldn't be blindly loyal to celebrities or influencers, we wouldn't have a stereotypical black guy AI picture showing up at 11:15, we wouldn't be mindlessly reference diving on social media and the companies that are making these wouldn't feel the need to make them and replace the middleman IE: The average Joe and/or Jane or people like me and you. But anywho, TLDR: There's more than one way to objectify something or someone but that doesn't make it okay either way, AI is doing it because many people out there are enabling it, I still agree with what you're saying and something needs to be done about regardless but the question is what.

[@LEGObowserYT]

I’m firmly against the use of AI image generation for anything but shitposting but i feel I should note that the developers really have nothing to do with prejudice popping up in their AI models unless they hand picked each reference image(which they obviously haven’t been doing, hence the stolen art thing), the issue stems from the prejudice of… well artists, really. As you mentioned, developers use a blanket scan of everything they can find, and if there’s a bias of what can be found, the reflection of that bias is inevitable.

[@elcatrinc1996]

i think the part of a recently deceased artist having their work stolen to keep making content with their style is the greatest insult that human are capable of, is like enslaving the heart and soul of a person, not even letting them rest in peace

[@coralfishnt7663]

The excuse of not getting the consent because of time is shit as soon as a single artist ask them to stop using his art.

[@MASKEDB]

“We have to talk about AI art” AI art is being talked about by so many people! Channels covering the new tools and breakthroughs post content multiple times a week. AI is leading us to a new renAIssance!

[@zenderdravnn4421]

AI art KILLED my motivation to do art, I bought my draw pad and everything and even had my friend give me some pointers, AI art became main stream soon after and I lost all hope, because at the time i thought it was just going to replace me and that i was just wasting my time, i truly lost all hope, now I'm beginning to see I was wrong and that I should pick back up the pen. I'm starting back to feel the passion I once had because i refuse to make "art" with AI and i see a decent amount of ppl also share my thoughts and I'm too broke to commission an artist so the best thing to do, would be to continue learning and make the art myself.

[@btuard]

Lol, thats such defeatist view ai art generation can be used as a tool, don’t know why people keep thinking it’s going to skynet all artists, the worst case scenario is walmart uses your art without consent via ai art.

[@fdwr]

It actually actively encouraged me to draw more because it can create dozens of various inspirational poses.

[@minyaw1234]

Going through the whole video so I don't look like I'm just posting something without listening to you: 2:22 The algorithm doesn't make predictions based on the dataset - the dataset doesn't need to exist after the training is done. The algorithm makes prediction based on what it learned (for the lack of a better word, I'm using learned) from the dataset. The algorithm is after training on 2GB and doesn't need a connection to the internet to work, so the dataset is at that point not necessary. I'm just clarifying this because unclear formulations often lead people to believe that the Software is constantly scraping the internet for images, where in reality it's separate companies that create datasets and separate companies that do the training. 3:12 Datasets are made of more things than just art, and the gathering of information is in certain use cases legal - for example Google does this and can do this without consent so that it can create a database that their clients can use to search things on the internet. It does so with not only with text, but with art as well. That is downloaded, analyzed and labeled so you can search for images. 3:40 The labeling is mostly done by the website the images is found on and there are no programmers, whose time is far more valuable than labeling billions of images. 4:01 It's not an excuse - it's how the internet works. That's how Google exists and any other services on the internet. And Google won the cases around it. 5:50 It's a real concern, especially in the EU where there is only an opt-out in the law. LAION, a database creator successfully fined a photographer for asking them to remove him from the database in the wrong way. 7:02 It might be a non-issue for you - but the law sees it differently. The biggest database, mentioned above, LAION is located in the EU and LAION only has databases of links and not actual images. The EU explicitly gives machine learning the opportunity to learn on the databases as long as the downloading of the images is only done for the learning aspect and the images are later removed from the server. There is no law that would allow the usage of a database while creating an image. The lawmakers clearly see a difference here. 7:29 Claiming that the AI learns like humans is wrong. I don't disagree here. But this is a semantic argument in its core. It does learn but not like humans. If we can agree to a different term other than learning, I would use that - it's not really about the term. 8:00 The study was conducted on an old unused version of SD and has never been peer-reviewed since the authors never released their methodology - as in no seed number, no cfg, no modelname, nothing. It is basically not repeatable. And even than, you didn't quote their results. They found images that "could" violate copyrights in 0.18% of the images they prompted for when they specifically searched the fine-tuned library and copied the text it learned on. And that was with an older non-widely used version. SD 1.5 was a leap ahead and deleted duplicates in its database. A comparable study hasn't been made about it yet and is very unlikely since the amount of duplicates that could lead the program to be overfitted is way smaller. 9:40 That is simply wrong concerning AI image generation. The only biases that can be found are the biases made by the one that uploaded the pictures and labeled in on the website. That has nothing to do with the IT tech leaders race and gender and with how random people label the pictures they upload. 11:30 Blame what people upload on instagram. 12:22 The signatures are made entirely by the AI. They make no sense and are not part of someone's real signature. The AI simple learned that a scribble that looks like text is put somewhere in the corners of images and tries to replicate that. But those scribbles that the AI makes are unreadable and not part of someone's specific signature. You can for example tell the AI to make a comic, and the speech bubbles have completely unreadable things that look like letters, but really aren't. Image generators don't do text, they just know what text looks like, like they know that images have a signature and try to replicate that - you can circumvent this, if you have backend access to the AI, by telling it not to look for things that look like signatures and not implement it into the picture. - Hope I was able to help.

[@dcbandit]

The easiest way of identifying AI generated art, as I've found, is that the details will always be very wonky and off, like fingers or text, even eyes on occasion, usually just resemble what they are supposed to be from the side of your eye. Fingers end up just floating where they could be, an extra hand materializing on couples shoulders, or text not even made of letters or numbers but just vague letter like shapes. Personally, finding any image of a woman that isn't overly sensual or borderline anime is difficult at best, let alone with AI gen art. I never want it, but it is never escaping. The exception for me, is with models in suits, they always look so dapper, sometimes even dashing at times.

[@danhara]

The irony of getting an ad midway through the video for AI art...

[@DanodrawsArt]

I’m unsure where to put this but as an artist I’m struggling with marketing myself. Will you cover marketing and branding a bit? I’m so at a lost for what to do with my social medias, business cards, etc.

[@patrickcarter2829]

Like in all entertainment businesses: build a network; find people to share your work with and get feedback, even doing homages to other artists in your group can bolster notoriety. This is based on observation.

[@Wolvesbane39]

Hi, fellow artist here and I'd like to add on an excuse/argument that pro-ai people have been using recently that I find is detrimental to the art community and even worse, people who have disabilities. There's an argument/excuse being made to basically try and stop those arguing against ai that "AI finally lets those who have disabilities create art" and for me, that is a blatant falsehood as disabled artists have always been here. I believe that this is just an argument to try and derail or distract from the ethical arguments, using disabled people as a shield because their ethics argument is already proven to not work. I feel this is erasure of disabled artists. Completely ignoring that there are many artists with disabilities that exist right now, that found ways to create despite whatever limitations they may have because of disabilities.

[@gondoravalon7540]

> *disabled artists have always been here* Absolutely true. I do wonder though if what some who argue about disabilities might be getting at is that it can help people with certain kinds of disabilities, or can be used to help make it easier for people with other types of disabilities?

[@modestrocker1]

you mean ai images? cause a neural network makes images not art. calling it art is tech-bro propaganda lets please move past the marketing scheme.

[@PuppyLuver256]

Hell, it's not even AI, we don't have true AI yet. I prefer to refer to this seedy tech as machine generation, myself, as rather than being "intelligent" it's a machine that generates things based on what it's been "trained" on.

[@Brydav_Massbear]

I really don’t like generated art. It is essentially a collage pretending to be a drawing or a photo. Sure it matches the description, but the thing about art is that it usually comes in different styles and different flavors. A machine is guided by logic, not emotion. It has no imagination, and thus no creativity. Sure, it isn’t uncommon for someone to imitate the work of someone else, but when a machine does, it just feels wrong. Because it was made by something that isn’t alive.

[@DrLoaky]

In the end, it all boils down to results. If someone uses AI to create art that is less expensive and still visually appealing, a company will likely choose the AI-generated art. They are not concerned with the effort and time an artist invests, as these factors contribute to higher costs. If the cost of your work is higher and not significantly better than what AI produces, you may struggle to find employment. This is the harsh reality of the industry.

[@heavenseek]

What do you think about counter techs like Nightshade (which i believe might be partnering with Glaze)? I wrote this in another video, but i think it's relevant here, too: Tools like Nightshade are great counter measures and their technique of 'poisoning' the scrapers is very fitting. What non-creatives fail to understand is: An artist's creation is like his child. These scraping/diffusion models are like a molester who steals your child and melds them with their many other victims, then hands the results to lowly users who post the afterbirth with pride and arrogance, and call it their "Creation". My deep hope is that counter tech like NightShade can be used retroactively as well--- to poison this affront to it's origin. This is more than just an art issue, as there will be many people cheering on the destruction of all forms of insidious ai and it's repugnant grifters.

[@therealOXOC]

so dramatic

[@crimsondragon1794]

we hate the scummy practices behind AI art, and that people generate art then call themselves artists. an artist implies you can create art without AI. typing a few words into a prompt does not make you an artist. an artist can tell a story with their pictures, weave an entire narrative into ONE image. ai art simply can not do that. it comes out souless and devoid of emotion. art is and always will be first and foremost an expression of emotion. machines can't feel emotion. so even though it looks nice at a glance. it will never have the same emotional depth as something created by human hands. also Ai "Art" has been ruled not to be art at all. as art is classified as being made by HUMAN hands. hence why AI "art" is immediately in public domain and can not be owned by any individual as ruled by the US supreme courts.

[@NoESanity]

"being an artist implies you can create art without a widget, wiggling the mouse a few times and clicking different affects doesn't make you an artist, an artist can tell a story with their pictures, the smell of the medium on the canvas is an irreplaceable experience."

[@sunnydraws2513]

@@NoESanity Your analogy makes no sense. There's zero effort behind an AI piece. Digital art and traditional art are both skills that take a long time to master and have heart and passion put into them.

[@NoESanity]

@@sunnydraws2513 because it wasn't an analogy. do you not know what the words you are using mean?

[@crimsondragon1794]

@@NoESanity that is entirely different and you know it. art is the creation of something from an expression of emotion. typing a few words into a bar is not an expression of emotion. and digital art is so much more complex then "clicking a few Effects and wiggling a mouse." I still have to move my body and interact with the work on an emotional level. it's not just made by clicking a few buttons. I still have to compose and create the emotions myself. I don't get a machine to create for me. I create things myself. unlike so called "AI artists." besides it's a LEGAL definition that art is created by the hands of human beings. not machine algorithms. maybe learn how to do art instead of quoting old farts making claims of ignorance, and trying to imply we are doing the same. we are not. we are simply stating facts. typing words into an AI does not make you an artist.

[@crimsondragon1794]

@@BigTime. because it has no Soul. the only way for an art to have depth is for the depth to be included by the passion of the one creating it. without that passion to drive yourself, it all falls flat and feels utterly lifeless.

[@cronical246]

AI bots creators not asking for active consent bc they knew that artists would decline or ask for compensation, really getting in the way of the $$$$.

[@blinkspacestudio8892]

I tried AI art and it got old really fast. Its so boring I forgot about it real quick. I much prefer physically drawing with a pencil and actually learning new styles too. Its good for your brain. AI ANYTHING is making everyone dumb. Anyone learning properly these days will be ahead of the crowd.

[@DustyMusician]

christ that thumbnail is scary. in its current state, seeing it makes me physically itchy. of course, the strains on real artists and replacement of entry-level art jobs + data theft is real regardless of how advanced the tech gets, but it still makes me itch when I see it and now if something looks off to me I start itching pre-emptively....

[@evelynroo9450]

It’s unfortunate that this video won’t get as much traction as your other videos because I think it’s really important. I enjoyed watching it :]

[@IndigoEuphonium]

If art isn't worth struggling for, it isn't worth doing at all. A toddler's crayon doodle has more value than the best AI art

[@sunnydraws2513]

100% agree. One thing I love about art is that I can often see the love and passion that went into it. AI 'artwork' is just soulless pixels.

[@sirreginaldfishingtonxvii6149]

I'd honestly rather look at crappy pencil drawings that someone with no skill did than have them use Ai art for a project. Like, unironically.

[@humanbeeing4780]

@@sirreginaldfishingtonxvii6149Ok. That won’t stop companies from using it.

[@mayuwu4408]

This video is well made and well edited, and well researched too! I hope people in favor of ai art reconsider it a bit more now. I'd love to see all of the other video ideas you suggested. Also, I'd like to see your take on the argument of accessibility that comes up a lot. I see where they're coming from, and at the same time I don't think it makes any of the issues with ai art outlined in this video and otherwise okay. I'm curious how you would address the argument, as I'm not sure how I'd go about talking to someone thinking that way about it and I think your perspective would be helpful. I didn't realize ai art could take on the biases of the creators, that is very disturbing- your art could be used by ai to then make bigoted art because some person asked it to. And the fact that what was an artists signature they put on their own art can be generated with ai images too is incredibly ironic and ties it all in a perfect little bow. (the rest of this comment is random interesting thoughts about ai and ai art that I have/have heard. The bottom paragraph is the most important one, but if you've got a sec read what you can!) I saw a really interesting tumblr post (dunno if I can post links here) that compiled some conversations about ai that talked about how it's a "a poor choice of words in 1954", and that if we picked a more accurate name for it (it isn't intelligent) then a lot of modern confusion could be avoided. It's scary because even with the best-case scenario of ai art being regulated and consent needs to be provided to be part of an ai's dataset, it'll for sure slow down ai's development but what will eventually happen is the big rich companies will start paying/buying out people in exchange for their art/content to be used in ai datasets to then 'ethically' train them with, which then eventually will replace artists/creatives/etc. One of my best friends shared the idea that we're inevitably going towards a future where all necessary/common products are machine-made, and that human-made products are more of a luxury/commodity, and that ai will be what breaks capitalism and we'll either have lots of worldwide depression/war until we decide on what to do next or we'll see it coming and adapt towards a new system, and I agree. We've just got to delay it for long enough so we can prepare for it as a society.

[@peripatches]

Thank you for making this video! It's great that so many artists and creatives are speaking out and presenting multiple points for why ai models used to generate these images, as they are right now, were not made in an ethical way. Hopefully with more and more people speaking out about this problem, those who aren't in our shoes can come to understand why there needs to be pushback for how these new ai models are being created and used.

[@CleverFoxStudios]

I've been mentally referring to it like building a prefab house. Buying the kit of pre-cut, measured and delivered material with an instruction booklet to them build a house out of does not make you a contractor or architect and telling everyone you are because you managed to piece together the supplies you were given invalidates the ACTUAL builders who have made their own plans, cut their own wood, drive their own material on site, etc. Using AI doesn't make you an artist just like building a prefab doesn't make you an architect. It just means you can follow instructions and make use of ready-made material, and probably not very efficiently or correctly. Building a prefab doesn't mean it's built to code if you don't know WHY it has to be made a certain way.

[@ccordyceps]

who tf said buying prefab DID ever make one a 'contractor/architect'? trash argument tbh. no AI artist is calling themselves "artists". and the artist that are WISE enough not to complain about the new tech are simply adapting and using it to enhance their workflow.

[@maximumdinosaur]

I HATE the use of ai in artist workspaces so I appreciate you talking about this

[@matheuscastello6554]

as a computer science student learning about ai, and an artist myself, i completely agree with all the points here. computers don't know the difference between "take inspiration from" and "copy", at least not with the way they're trained

[@SeaHorseOfYoutube]

Commenting for the algorithm. Let's hope laws get passed to prohibit any kind of AI training on unauthorized material.

[@haitaelpastor976]

Keep dreaming. The Machine is unavoidable.

[@polymori]

Would absolutely love to hear about the expanded topics on this subject and absolutely wonderful video!

[@murphyvuyk9533]

All of those topics interest me, I’d love to hear more! :D

[@twanbijpost9050]

Please continue making videos on this subject, the more out there the better!

[@neonmole9453]

And since this video, Wacom has even used AI art in their advertising. How stupidly counterproductive are they trying to be?

[@Dany-rx7rs]

Because it's AI generated no one owns it, an less it's intellectual property.

[@IVeryMuchHateYouTubeHandles]

There's nothing we can do. AI art also can be used for good, Ya'll just need to cope. And... Not brag about how it's not art.

[@ulzrintheswift715]

Its not art but its also not stealing. I'm hoping that will click with artists along their new job search

[@Justin-wj4yc]

@@ulzrintheswift715 It is art. Art is very broad. Stop gatekeeping.

[@OakenTome]

The problem is, especially commercially, it is by and large not being used for good. It exists primarily to put artists out of work so corporations can cut their bottom line.

[@drefranks691]

i wrote my essay final about AI art and how it is literally against the definition and histroy of art. teacher was very impressed how clear i was able to define the definitions and human history and why art is integral to being human

[@ethanstyant9704]

A key feature of art is intention. Whether that be through photography, painting or sculpting If it doesn't have intention it's a generated image

[@NoaLindsey]

AI art is taking over and the main reason why I don't like it is that clients may start to choose the free non sensible low effort Ai than the high quality more effort artists. Its really sad to see

[@wheatthins4565]

If you made more videos on the topic I'd love to hear it, knowing about the art world and what artists want/need/deal with is v important to me