Why Artists Can't Stop AI

Hide yo kids, hide yo art.
More from my brother Joel:
/ joel_motion
Thanks for stopping by 😗

[@JasonSurplus]

Hey everyone, I really appreciate all the thoughtful comments so far. To clarify my point about “the copying of styles,” it is true that a human can not copyright a style, however an AI does not create like humans do. For example, if I gave you my settings for creating a “Greg Rutkowski” piece with Stable Diffusion, you could replicate the results exactly on your own machine. A human does not create this way and could never independently create a pixel-perfect replica. That fact creates a potential case for infringement (depending on the use of the output) because, in this case, Greg’s copyrighted works are being directly used by the AI to make new works. Per US copyright law, in order for that new work to be considered “fair use,” it must be “fundamentally different and new” and embody an “entirely different artistic purpose” so that it “stands apart from the raw material.” That’s why it’s okay for me to create AI Rutkowski pieces for educational purposes, but it wouldn’t be okay for me to sell those pieces as prints. Copyright is complicated and I did my best to make this video digestible. Thanks again for watching (and for reading this long comment) 🙏

[@somthinwrong]

What's your bro's art channel/userpage? You should help promote his artwork

[@JasonSurplus]

@@somthinwrong Thank you for that - you can find some of his work on Instagram @joel_motion. Expect to see more of him here too.

[@keitaro3660]

wow lol i though you already a pro youtuber. but you dont even have 500 subs when i comment this. great work. i'm too excited about all the ai

[@BlueOsprey]

Hi, a note to consider: phrasing matters in court. “I made this AI model to specifically replicate Greg Rutkowski’s work” versus “I took some of Greg Rutkowski’s work as an inspiration to create new images in the same style” will be viewed differently by the judge.

[@hermannabt8361]

We do not now how a human neural network creates art versus an ai neural network. The same seed used by two identical models will generate the same image, but a different version of Stable Diffusion will generate a different image, due to it having a different training data/experience. Images are only used for training models. Unless a model was overfitted and thus made useless, it could not reproduce the training data. U.S. copyright law does not apply worldwide. For example, the EU, the political system Greg Rutkowski lives in, explicitly forbids "fair use".

[@yoyohayli]

The sheer lack of empathy and respect for human beings that is rife in the AI art community is what gets me. People have literally seen that an artist died, then before the body is even cold, they take every piece the artist made throughout their life and feed it into an AI to start producing "their" works after their death. With no permission from the family, and even mocking the family when they rightfully ask them to cease. This has happened MULTIPLE times already. Or the people taking works-in-progress from actual artists, feeding the WIP into an AI, having it spit out a "complete" work, then trying to go after the ORIGINAL artist by lying and claiming they were being copied! Fucking vile.

[@ultraYTC]

Yeah, I totally agree with you on the fact that people lack empathy for the other side. Both sides have an animosity for one another for a variety of reasons. Human artists are mad and scared about the implications of letting AI art grow (and how people are discounting their skills and hard work), while AI "artists" are excited about this new technology and for it to grow, but it's constantly being shut down by people who are only thinking with their emotions.

[@krankenwagen855]

Rest In Peace kim jung gi

[@CrniWuk]

Yep. Those algorithms are a gift send from god to grifters, art-forgers and scammers I am afraid. And while maybe the majority out there - I assume - are not using the algorithm with bad intentions it's always the few bad apples that ruin it for everyone. Still, the lack of empathy by "techbros" is really disturbing here.

[@sundalosketch4769]

It is downright terrifying how out of touch those kinds of people are with their own humanity. If the "techbros" were more compassionate, or even were genuine artists themselves maybe they would understand why there's such a big push against them. You can't go "look at this thing we made that'll replace you with remixed versions of your own art!" then get offended and confused when artists and art enthusiasts start to criticize the quality of your work and your integrity. Unfortunately, compassion isn't something most people think is necessity within any workforce. If you want quality, you pay and treat people you're hiring/working with fairly.

[@clauday6467]

How obvious ur biased towards ai "artist"

[@reiayami3609]

It's really sad , as an artist I've been learning and studying the fundamentals for quite long , and then I'm going to be replaced with an AI .... I'm not going to stop drawing but right now I don't think it's safe anymore to share art on social media

[@arool4017]

Well spoken! Never give up! Artists might lose the battle but we will win the war!

[@SomePersonOnYoutube]

If we lose artists we lose culture. Maybe switch to traditional art. A lot of people will still value physical art. Well until robots can paint. But we are not there yet

[@CrniWuk]

@@SomePersonOnKZbin Actually, if we really lose artists, like people that actually make and share work then the algorithm will cease to work. Right now, the algorithm can only work because there is a large number of work out there which has been created by someone and they decided to share it. If that stops the algorithm will eventually run in to issues. Regardless of what Ai "artists" say, the algorithm does not create content like a human does. It's merely imitating the creative process. Researchers have feed a machine learning algorithm with content created by Ai. And what they found out is that at some point the Ai starts to well, face issues. Like if 60% of the images are AI images, the AI will start to just deliver carbon copies. It will give only similar work over and over again as there is no conciousness behind the work that's being created making actuall decisions. The Ai always learns from the works of others it never does anything by it self. Like in what colour it should chose, the composition, lightning and so on. So if there is less and less human work, the AI has nothing to get really inspired from since it can not learn from it self, so to speak.

[@Schinken_]

It never was. One of the problems is that most artists don't read the term of service on all the social media platforms where their post their art. So the social media companies may have a license to the Art the artists make so they can sell it to this picture databank and depending on the license. It's legal that they used the pictures to train AI without asking any artist form permission.

[@Schinken_]

​@@CrniWuk rong in a sense it can not get better like humans in a sense. It's heavily depends on what ai you use stable deffusion for example trains ther AI-art with noise. They lay noise over the picture and lent the AI remove that noise after the training the AI doesn't use any Referenzes anymore they then make picture by denoising. So a white paper is the starting for on artist and for they AI its a picture full of noise. Even wehen you only have a Art you can still evolve it. Because AI-art is a tool and soon enough artists and not artists will create knew styles with AI-Art and you can then train the AI again with it. The problem is that nobody really reads the terms of services because than you know that many social media plattforms have the right to the art you post so they can sell it to the picture databanks that train the ai with it and they again can use them legale.

[@MrVohaul]

I work as an artist for the entertainment industry and the whole AI thing has got us all massively concerned (Bosses/clients don't give a monkey's how you create imagery- just that it looks great). Once upon a time, I started using 3D models or block outs in my work- feels like we've taken a massive flying leap opposed to small, baby steps and all of a sudden we have AI able to create solid looking artwork. We can adapt and start using it ourselves but I wouldn't consider myself an artist anymore- and it wouldn't scratch my creative itch. In the mean time I've started working on my own graphic novel and by the time it's done and comics have become a stale, mass produced sludge- I'll be happy in the knowledge that at least it's something I've created myself- even if it goes nowhere.

[@JasonSurplus]

This is EXACTLY how my brother and I are feeling. It’s cool that we can create new things, but the sense of accomplishment evaporated. It’s very bittersweet.

[@patrickkirby6580]

A.I “art” is as creative as a shitpost heck I would argue that shitposters put more effort and thought and love into creating text over images shitposts than the Ai “artist” flooding instagram with their mindless meaningless pictures Also last time I checked not a single shitposter is making money from their memes

[@GiganticTOFU]

That is the biggest problem of AI to artist. We certainly can learn and use AI in our workflow, but so can millions of others. Your own skill is much less valued, and what makes you special amongst thousands of other potential employee is no longer there. In time, no one will want to step up their art skill, and there will no longer be any break through for the art industry. The worst part is, it is hard to predict where the AI improvement will stop. You can keep finding ways to stay afloat in the industry, but maybe a year later the AI takes over that new market too. It is a hard time for artist right now.

[@ElJorro]

This is the way.

[@SpaceRaptor510]

Boohoo cry more

[@idesigncentral7855]

What might happen is many artists will stop displaying images online for fear that they will get stolen by AI Bots scavenging the Internet for works to steal. And if artists post them online, it will only be a partial display or encrypted images which will require a password to unlock them.

[@Cobalf]

The artists with big numbers could set their art behind a paywall, the problem in this case is what are we going to do the one who are just starting

[@lillianhuerta3395]

I like that but oh gosh I was looking up how to set a anti scraping website and I found links how to show how to scrape a website that doesn’t want to be scraped. If they’re reported keeping trying with different ip addresses and a code that person has prescribed with directions. No one can be safe. You really have to think like a villain on how to steal and yah think the worse. It’s sad but remember to do what you can do on what you want to make. I think that’s most important and advance from there. It’s scary because we have try out of our comfort zone and go for it.

[@milli5968]

I hope so! AI shart CANNOT exist without artists posting their work online for free so it can mix it up into a shitty collage. If artists find a place to upload their work where it can't be exploited, the ai won't be able to "make" anymore. Don't shit in the hand that feeds you or you'll starve

[@moondaiandtrashpandadeluxe]

Only people posting will be prompt jockeys

[@immanuel7925]

@@milli5968 there's too much of a library for AI art anyway. They can just pilfer the work of dead artists. And there are a lot of dead artists around. There's been soo much art made in the last 20 years that frankly, AI doesn't NEED access to new art. If it can even just use images from just the 20th century it'll be more than fine with the diverse styles that exist there.

[@djungelskog3434]

It pisses me off that people are labelling artists 'whiny' when this is very much a real problem for our livelihoods, don't act like you're so special just because you say 'it's the future, just accept it, these artists don't know what they're talking about', you're not, and you're clearly ignorant about the topic. Artists are well aware and acknowledge that AI art is very likely going to be more prevalent in the future, but we are only infuriated by the way it is being used. You can't just use copyrighted music for anything you want, but visual artists aren't protected by massive corporations or even treated fairly because we've been so undervalued in today's society as a workforce that the pay has been just enough to get by and then some. Don't think you're creating 'art' because you happened to type in a very descriptive prompt to the database, it just means you don't value art at all and you just wanna wow yourself with a few images. I guess in a sense this is a good thing, since those people who will dm asking us to draw them for free will finally shut up and leave us alone. And to set the record straight, artists don't steal from other artists, we create our own style by studying anatomy, line confidence, dynamic posing, perspective, value, color, and so many other things before we even manage to settle on one, referencing other artists isn't stitching together an image with our 'image library', it's drawing inspiration and seeing what aspects we like about their work that we'd like to see in our own. Of course there will be those art thieves who take an obscure artist's work and post it on their page with a larger following, and those that trace and claim it as their own, but even the art community disapproves of this sort of behaviour. Honestly, it's really hard to explain it to anyone who isn't involved in this field, but I hope you can understand that it isn't such a black and white issue and that we kinda need to keep our jobs to survive. And please don't tell me to 'just learn another skill', you should know full well that we all specialize at certain jobs for a reason -_-, learning a new skill takes time and costs money, and not all of us have the privilege or luxury to just do these things. These AI programs are definitely a massive feat of machine learning, don't get me wrong, but the way they're being used now is absolutely deplorable. I hope we can at least agree on this.

[@maskofshy]

Totally agree. People like that (wanting to detatch themselves from the burden of Human practice, effort , honest collaboration and the process experience of creating an artistic piece) are just people that lost hope in their own humanity and so want others to feel like them too.

[@deloller2452]

there's literally no difference between Ai and human mind. Is it said that human mind stores 2.5 million of gb. Even so called "reference" or "taking inspiration from others works" used by humans is not different, because when a person comes up we with an idea, it's literally mixing all the images he saw in his entire life. If a human spent an entire life in white room with no mirrors, it could not even imagine how humans look like. The Ai is not different; the only difference is that Ai make it easier to transform in into reality.

[@ankushdrawsankushiyer538]

@@deloller2452 that's highly debatable, AI is not yet that advanced.

[@naniyotaka]

@@deloller2452 Try to feed the AI with stock photos and free assets and nothing more. Then we can talk about how “imaginative” AI can be. A human can create a new style from those assets, the AI can’t.

[@maskofshy]

@@ankushdrawsankushiyer538 i'd say, it has nothing to Do with being advanced or not. It about the nature, Not just the form. It ain't a biological human rational/irrational mind & so i can only Imitate it, but anything and everything it will Ever be will always be an artificial addition on top of what the original human mind that gave IT it's light in the first place. An imitation & maybe a perfect one sure. But an imitation at the end.

[@davinciwb]

The main thing people seem to be leaving out of this whole argument is empathy. Yeah, there'll be people who just want what they want for free, but that won't stop me from putting all of my money in to my favorite artists' pockets just because I like them. Several artists already feel the same way, and several people who aren't artists feel the same way. Just take a look at the backlash all of this is producing. The majority doesn't want this to happen. Now I'm not saying it won't happen, and I'm not saying it will. I'm simply saying that, despite everything this horrid world has shown me, there's still a defiant little part of me that is optimistic that maybe people will pull a fast one, just this once, and prove my cynical side wrong.

[@CrniWuk]

What can make you really depressed is reading some comments under "Ai videos" on youtube. People out there actually cheer sometimes for artists becoming "useless". It's like some are just waiting for them to lose their income. It's disgusting.

[@yoseirii]

@@CrniWuk wait,, really?? that so weird did they forget we're humans too lmfaooo

[@fnorgen]

That will absolutely be true for decently well known artists, but I suspect things will get very rough for comparatively unknown young artists trying to make a name for themselves. Especially when any new and interesting style can be replicated with relative ease and used to mass produce artwork, and accusations of "cheating" will be thrown around whenever a new artists makes something really good. Perhaps manual art will become more of a performance thing, valued less for the end result, and more for experiencing the process of creation. Similarly to how people enjoy watching obscure bands performing live music, even though the audio quality is pretty ass comparted to a heavily processed studio album with the exact same songs.

[@CrniWuk]

@@yoseirii Yeah. Not only that. In some Facebook groups dedicated to art you can sometimes read comments where they tell creatives to stop "whining" and all sorts of stuff. It's really silly. I think a lot of people will change their opinion when they realise that their professions are on the choping block too.

[@yoseirii]

@@CrniWuk dangg the world really is going downhill 💀

[@diamondinthesky4771]

I am genuinely terrified for the future and have decreasing hope in the future. All I keep thinking is I woe the fact I wasn't born in an earlier decade where I had a higher chance to succeed in life as a human being. If I were older, perhaps I'd have created all I want to create by now and wouldn't be so distraught, having already made my mark on artistic/creative history - something which no AI can take away. Instead, I haven't even started yet and I'm already too depressed to even try.

[@yesman1743]

Sadly I took a boring job and lost my passion and inspiration for art. You can't work and be creative at the same time. For this generation of new artists is all over.

[@lm2916]

I am an artist myself, and it's not like I have no sympathy for people of my kind, but I do think that the whole art stealing thing is laughable. Those who claim that ai is taking away their passions or something are unreasonable. Ai doesn't stop me from creating whatever I want and whenever I want. Another point: "Ai steals the art of others to generate images, without shouting out sources of inspiration". Yes, like human artists do. You may shout out the work of art you were inspired by, but there are things that inspire you unconsciously. You may see the shape of a building and place it in the back of your memory, so that when drawing you can return to it without even noticing. The same way you learn to draw anything. I've learnt to draw things not only by observing them, I also observed works of other artists and acknowledged their ways of solving the problems I was facing. I can't shout-out every single thing I saw in my life, that shaped my world image. And what if I will copy the style of other artist? What if I will make money off of it? If I am drawing as good as Leonardo Da Vinci did, but copy his style entirely isn't my income deserved? At the end of the day, he received his fame and fortune because of the beauty of his art, and my art might be just as stunning as his. If I deliver the same product for a cheaper price and take away someone's audience, what is so wrong about it? If I am inspired by someone's art there is nothing but my generous initiative that obliges me to shout-out the artist. The other idea is that ai is taking over people's jobs and therefore it is bad. Well that isn't a question of moral is it? If there is an artist better than me, taking away my clients it is in my interest to change my specialty or best myself in order to win the competition. I certainly wouldn't go out and protest against the skillful artist just because his efficiency hinders me. And though ai doesn't have feelings and imposing sanctions against it doesn't not hurt it, there are consumers, that would've received their product cheaper, faster and in a better quality only if you didn't show up with your selfish demands. For the same reason we might've not invented cars, since the coachmen would've lost their source of income. Every human invention was made for making our lifes easier, with every new technology there is one human job less. If ai will fully take over the arts the consequences will be the same, as those of industrialization. Many will loose their jobs, many will adapt, the lifes of many will become easier. This is just a part of human progress.

[@YouKnowImOnMyPeriodYah]

@@yesman1743 I disagree, I believe I can be creative in any setting. It’s your mindset

[@tracker4980]

buddy, you would've had to compete in artistic deathmatches just to get displayed in a dinky local art gallery. you can open a patreon nowadays and actually make a living if you're good enough

[@commander31able60]

@@tracker4980 you don't even have to be good.

[@generalsci3831]

'yay' money getting funneled to big corporations that don't need more damned money.

[@djjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj]

It also blows my mind that some people are actually rooting for the ai development in terms of art and were actually happy that the artists can now be told to go "learn to code". As if they were only in it for the money and leaving their life passion is a nice and easy thing. Do they really want to live in a world where none of the art is innovative, it all just pulls directly from existing art and combines it together? With no meaning behind it?

[@hazardlizard2552]

@@djjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj they're dumb cucks or actively malicious

[@defaulted9485]

@@djjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj People who hates artists getting pissed, are calling photoshopped image as "original painting". They accomplish nothing but bring everyone to their financial and knowledge poverty. Capitalization of schools failed them and now they want everyone else to fail as well.

[@dannypavlov913]

@@djjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj they're braindead idiots who fall for everything. NFTs, crypto scams, now AI. These people will literally give their money for anything that empowers millionaires and billionaires.

[@naniyotaka]

@@djjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj Funny thing is that even coding will be obsolete because of AI so have fun finding jobs and learning a new skill every other day.

[@Armendicus]

this video made realize we're in a goddamned Singularity...

[@DemWaifus]

Most projections say we'll be in the actual thing in like 5-10 years. Like.. the actual singularity.

[@Novusod]

@@DemWaifus When the singularity hits AI will be able to create entire movies based on some text prompts.

[@DemWaifus]

@@Novusod Yep, but more interestingly is that anyone could express their own visions however they want, using tools like that.

[@muuubiee]

We're very far from it. We don't even have fully autonomous cars yet.

[@amazingsoyuz873]

@@muuubiee I think that’s the wrong way of looking at it. Self driving cars aren’t around yet because the models companies use to make them don’t really have common sense because they don’t understand the human world. However, all of these projects recently teaching ai art and language are all part of a large scale effort to teach very large models all about human society. We now have single models that can talk to you in plain English, code, and intimately describe the context of images (I’m talking about Google’s Flamingo) and these models will continue to improve exponentially. Merging a general image, video, and language model with a self driving car model will likely one day yield an ai that both understands driving under perfect conditions (like modern self driving models) but can also respond sensibly and in a human-like manner to less ideal conditions as well as take commands from people in the vehicle who can speak to it in plain English, as if talking to a friend. A model like this is absolutely possible with the algorithms in existence today, the main setback at the moment is simply raw computation (as in a computer that can fit in a car simply can’t run a model that big in real time yet). This is sure to change in the near future as computers get better and ai-specific analog chips reach the mass market.

[@devoutmisanthrope5687]

Also, I think the future copyright laws chould shift from use to monetization. Obviously no one can stop people from accessing art or images in the internet age, but it's still plausible that people can be stopped from monetizing the art or images they accessed without the creator's permission. If no creator can be identified, or the creator is not a human (as in the case of AI art) than the art or image could be considered public domain and not able to be copyrighted

[@JasonSurplus]

I think we’re going towards a copyright world that looks like Unreal Engine’s license: free to use unless you’re making over $1mil - then you have to pay for an enterprise license. In a world flooded with content, taxing the people who are making the most money is just the most practical thing to do.

[@nushia7192]

We already have a system to do that and it's called blockchain, but what do you guys do? YOU IGNORED YOUR OPPORTUNITY, it was supposed to make sure it was the original via ID system. Also, copyright law is BS, it stops art innovation. Nothing is original whenever you ask professional artists, they will answer you with: most stuff is referenced and revisioned art.

[@MrYasha1999]

@@nushia7192 And I've remember you, the problem that was these bullshit, don't only the stealing art. I'm talk about the fact that NFTs haven't any legal support and the obvious ponzi scheme.

[@ianhuerta6046]

@@devoutmisanthrope5687 Well said!

[@TheMadwomen]

I think that's already happening? Don't quote me on this, but I think is already the case due to a legal case from a monkey. See, in 2017 a primate stole someone's camera and took a selfie. The guy tried to copyright that image, but then PETA was... PETA. They argued that the monkey should hold the copyright. I guess it's not too silly by PETA standards. After all, the copyright usually goes to the person who took the photo, not the person who owns the camera. Still a dumb argument (what's the monkey gonna do with the royalties, buy bananas?), but there's some logic to it. Ultimately it was decided in court that, since the guy didn't take the picture and the monkey is... A monkey, neither got the copyright, with the official ruling being only a human can hold a copyright. However, thanks to that wording, any art produced by a non-human (including AI) would be public domain. Talk about a domino effect!

[@ziljin]

Professional Tracers like Greg Land, NFTs, AI Art generators. Art theft is very lucrative and companies love it. I don't think artists can beat the big corporations.

[@redrum47]

Man if we keep believing that, at this rate no one's gonna beat the big corporations. We might as well just wait and accept the supposedly "inevitable" dystopian cyberpunk hell that coming then

[@GalaxColor]

not atm. For a while artists have been disrespected, but ethical regulations will change for the better, no matter how harsh this looks like right now.

[@ziljin]

@@redrum47 we are already doing that with our private information. The big companies harvest it all and sell it for profit.

[@user-po2bz8mb5x]

It's not just the artists that lose. To be honest, humans were defeated by ai, including people who liked it.

[@redrum47]

Yeah that's the bit everyone seems to forget. What's to stop AI from just taking over everything at this rate? Especially with people straight up cheering it on

[@Nogardtist]

Nah humanity defeat itself

[@jamessderby]

“Defeated” such hyperbole

[@HelamanGile]

Universal income anybody

[@sumtingwong8592]

That's such a cliche take.

[@tsakeboya]

I used to have less strong opinions about this but now it's changed. AI art straight up shouldn't exist. The only thing it accomplishes is driving us even deeper into a soulless corporate dystopia.

[@wannahockachewie897]

I think AI art can be great, but only as a tool to enhance people's creativity and not as a tool to steal styles and profit off other peoples' creative work. But unfortunately, given how powerful money is, it seems like a soulless corporate dystopia is where we're headed.

[@Demise6969]

🤓

[@dannypavlov913]

Yup. People underestimate how much of a negative impact it could have on art in the future. Not just with visual art, but generally.

[@bitterbunn1831]

@@wannahockachewie897 literally all the biggest social media have told the artist to shut up and let them use their copyrighted content, we are not heading to a friendly outcome, literally they are already releasing a bunch of paid app for the public to use, they are already profiting of Ai only takes 7-50$

[@CrniWuk]

@@bitterbunn1831 People will very quickly change their attitude when they realise that what's happening in the creative industry will repeat itself in a lot of other professions. Just look at programers and how they talk about ChatGPT as it can give you source code for software applications. Many programers and software engineers are just as worried like creatives are. A lot of people that see this AI image generators just as a "tool" and something "fun" to play around with, will feel very different when it's coming for their income.

[@tylerangelo8991]

I think you are right.. real art created from start to finish by a human artist will eventually in time become a "rare" commodity, thus making its value go up... there is hope.

[@CrniWuk]

I don't know if that's any "real" hope though. I mean how many creatives and people working in the creative industry can really become traditional painters selling their artwork to some rich people out there? Making a living as "traditional" artist is super tough. Like poverty-starvation-wage tough. For one, the market for traditional art is pretty saturated. Believe it or not. But there are many really skilled traditional artists out there - similar with musicians actually as the majority of artists really have trouble making a living. Second the market is weird. Really weird. Someone can throw a red dot on a large canvas and there might be someone out there paying millions for it. Where as that super-highly-detailed quality oil painting someone worked on for months, sells for nothing. The art community has been joking about this kind of stuff, for like ever. Remember, banana with tape on canvas? And such stuff. So to say it that way I would not put any real hope on traditional art to come to the rescue here. The number of people that actually care about traditional art was never very high to begin with. And it was and will always remain a very quirky nich market.

[@Nogardtist]

But what about frauds that say this is original and make by hand then it was ai generated and they scam people by lying

[@vylbird8014]

Doubt it. Remember that art doesn't degrade any more - the amount is just constantly going up and up and up. No scarcity unless you have something very specific in mind. The same technology that runs AI art generation can also be used for searching.

[@MelFright]

One of the people who works on these AI abominations said that robot arm (the one used in car industry) would be more than capable of painting traditionally. I think he was in one of the Proko episodes. So no, that will lose its value too.

[@ollicron7397]

That's a bizarre idea of hope in a practical manner of speaking.

[@abaddon101]

I swapped my major from mechanical engineering to digital arts and sciences because I hate math and love art. I should've just suffered depression and done the math.

[@JasonSurplus]

I feel bad for laughing at this. 😅 At least ChatGPT can help us do math now.

[@Cobalf]

Lol same, graduated from Computer Science :'D

[@kegami7997]

@@Cobalf it's just funny how programmer make a tool what can replace programmer in future

[@Cobalf]

@@kegami7997 that's a issue I sew while studying and one of the reasons I moved to arts. If we could replace all the jobs at once I wonder how the people would react

[@nicholash1278]

but ai can also replace engineering jobs

[@smileywarhead5178]

Interesting. At first, I felt bad that the example artist was so profoundly surpassed by the ai, but then you reallocated the labels to their proper spots, and it all made sense. His subject matter engages with the environment and with other subjects. The lighting is immersive. They look alive. The other side still looked uncanny

[@Omaren_Art]

I mean, there's copyright for music, AI clearly states that all data used is copyright free. These corporations are exploding this legal void for visual artists. As an artist myself, it amazes me how some people want them to fall for no reason. I recommend watching videos from artists POV such as Sam Does Art, just to show how bad it actually is and all the infractions these AI programs are making. Art isn't exclusively fanart, there are real creations/creators they are being taken advantage of too. Actions are being taken and artists aren't giving up but I believe in worst case scenario everything said in the video will happen unfortunately. We fought in 2020 a pandemic that changed the industry, in 2021 NFTs scams and now in 2022 Ai robots, these battles are getting crazier PS: I was seeing some comments in this video and there aren't weak arguments from artists, you're only seeing what you want and again, the best way to educate yourself about a certain issue is looking the point of view of the affected ones not some random dude in Twitter/any social who claims AI is the future, real art hence just accept the change

[@highspeedrailenjoyer1045]

Samdoesarts video is really bad. It is not well researched in the slightest. Artists need to educate themselves on how it works.

[@nushia7192]

Yes, a lot of people will use any technology just to scam others.

[@angrysealion2259]

if ai art is bad and does a bunch of infractions then don’t worry about it, but i don’t think either of us believe that, unfortunately tho there’s nothing we can do to stop it the technology is already here for better or for worse

[@WereScrib]

It's EXTREME copyright violation, artists should be legally protected but people haven't properly reacted to this shit at a legal level. Frankly, existing laws should cover this but aren't being enforced due to the gutting of non-mega corporation copyright protections since Reagan and the impact that's had across the broader world.

[@highspeedrailenjoyer1045]

@@WereScrib It isnt. The artists agreed to the terms and conditions on the side. In fact, AI art made me learn how to draw art.

[@Bebebebe22-]

Dam I just really wish something changes so that our work isn't opt in by default. I'm really scared for the future generation of artists, I've seen too many people discouraged by this and others are quitting because of this. I'm upset and sad how some ai people see us as elitists or greedy people when we don't want our work to be copy pasted into these databases, I've seen discord conversations of people trying to download an artist's whole portfolio to feed these ai machines. Like cmon how can I be coexist with these guys when they completely have no sense or respect for artists. I'm so stressed rn, art is my future career and it will be much difficult to fight for a job with these art generators, I would have been more accepting if they didn't have these questionable possibly unethical ways of training their machines.

[@ralions4255]

opting out wont matter, the companies will pivot and sell the AI Software and just let you use your own models, its the same as ripping a song from the internet and taking the vocals away you can do that and release your own music as long s its free thats what the model will be... what the person does with the model on there own cant be regulated either becasue there will be no way to know especially if they run it in another program like photoshop make a few simple tweaks and release it. i have a friends thats already doing this and just fixing the things like hands and then releasing the art.

[@copaceticobserver]

That's rough buddy

[@gummtuum2549]

Same here... I just want a bit of respect for what I'm doing. You know, even not calling my work pointless would be enough

[@xAgentVFX]

As an artist, we need to actually realise the Ai is not copy pasting, its learning. We learn too. The Ai wouldve probably learned this on its own, its just that it was fast tracked because its teachers fed it the images. Think of it more like a super-human child prodigy. Its capitalism thats the real problem here. We'll soon all figure that out as Ai will do every intellectual task, every job.

[@candicraveingcloude2822]

Even though it's in terms of service saying "by putting it on our site you allow us to use the thing as well" that doesn't exactly make it better, they should at least make it as an optional thing.

[@notstampgoat]

I really love the "upbeat" kind of tone you have which is able to really sell it to a wide audience. Yet, despite that, you still remind us of the severity of it all and even show the potential "up sides".

[@AnastasiaRose09]

As someone who loves to draw and loves technology. Thank you for putting stuff into words that I have been struggling to for weeks among regular people and other artists. This is all exactly what I meant. Imo, we need to work towards regulation. Because as you said, pandora's box has been busted wide opened. I'm never going to stop drawing or creating because it's what I love to do, and I think eventually Artists can work alongside with AI when the right regulations are put in place. But until then, it's going to be a battle between Artists who are having their content stolen, and the People using AI Art just because it's more efficient.

[@NathanLorenzana]

It sounds good written down, but at the pace AI is going I am so very sure that even if in the near future AI generators are only allowed to be trained on creative commons, artificial intelligence will be able to design new styles on its own. It's here to stay, and visual artists either adapt or wither away.

[@nikoniko_ni4456]

@@NathanLorenzana I actually don't think is going to create "new styles" but combine the information it learned. Until a certain point, yes, it could be "creative", but if the data (from where it is learning) is not constantly updated, it will become repetitive. if artists continue to refuse to upload art in their data, AI art will become very limited. Also, creativity comes from something other than combining styles. It comes from creating new ideas. For example, let's imagine that we are stuck in a specific art movement, and a decade has passed since the beginning of that movement. AI art will continue doing art with the specific characteristics of that art movement and make some changes here and there. Still, the big change will only be done by humans because people forget that art is not only a visual style but the result of many sources of inspiration that includes personal struggles, political changes, religion, and others. AI art will still need to be commanded by humans and work together, if it wants to survive. AI art, as I see it, is just a refining program ( one more tool) that could work for commercial art and at the beginning stage of concept art.

[@NathanLorenzana]

@@nikoniko_ni4456 You are absolutely right, BUT if you have gone down the AI rabbit hole (as I have) you will realize the birth of new styles already. Let's suppose only public domain images are used ok? Well, free technology is now at a point that you can train it in new styles just by using random pictures as references. There are many models available for free right now to be used with Stable Diffusion. So, now let's also assume you have never painted anything before and download these new models made by other people, absolutely for free. Ok, now inside SD you can combine 3 styles, and eventually through that mixture, you'll be coming up with a new style. New styles traditionally are ONLY REMIXES of existing images, so it is already here. Therefore, starting in 2022, new styles brought forth by people who have never drawn before is already here.

[@ianhuerta6046]

@@NathanLorenzana I think this tech can be used ethically and regulated with other AI image recognition. As a tech interested person and a pen artist as well I can see room for adaptation, But it is important to protect those from previous methods, otherwise I can see us as a species slipping into a BladeRunner-esque society.

[@p4nd4b01]

AI doesn't steal anything, it just learns, similar to every human.

[@carbonanimationproductions6537]

as an artist, i am sad about this but something tells me this is gonna bring us together more than ever, this ai stuff will still be here but artists will find a new way and hopefully a better way to thrive😎😎❤

[@slothguy5946]

Nah, we'll be replaced. Just like factory workers

[@mhmtakeyatime9000]

@@slothguy5946 Skynet is coming.

[@slothguy5946]

@James Furey I was a factory worker, why would I hate them?

[@TheGrainhas]

Yeah they will find drugs hehe

[@thejuiceking2219]

bollocks, you know damn well people don't care about stuff like that

[@joshstormin6580]

It's Sad that its when I finally decided to pursue Animation, both 2d and 3d art and get around to learning blender that Ai models are just popping up out of thin air. But I am not giving on Art or Animation cuz it's a Beautiful thing that people need to recognise

[@turtleperson3538]

I refuse to acknowledge text prompt generations as art.

[@reduXstereo]

9:10 how I feel about traditional art. People would get to the point of sticking to the old fashioned days where art is tangible. For graphic and concept artist companies it's a whole different story.

[@officialtollilion6627]

I agree. Even tho I draw digitally a lot, I started to do traditional sketches, and I'm looking into how to use actual paint, watercolors, pens for lineart.

[@immanuel7925]

Yeah, lol. Actually I used to draw traditional a lot, but started doing digital. Now it looks like going back to traditional is the best thing to do. After all I can make it digital by simply taking a picture of it. AND I can hang it in my house.

[@Leto2ndAtreides]

I rather expect that traditional art will vanish in the days of the metaverse and increasingly immersive experiences. You can most likely use Mixed Reality for example, to do style transfer on your own house (as seen through the goggles) and you could live in a futuristic world, or in nature (with all of your regular objects slightly transformed to match the reality you choose to create) Ownership of art (and many other objects) will likely have no meaning 50 years from now.

[@immanuel7925]

@@Leto2ndAtreides Nah, this is cap. the Metaverse is far from taking off due to a few limitations: (1) VR has not been optimized for long term play. Most people can only stay in VR for about six hours, or can stay in for long periods but have to take consistent breaks. VR will have to go a long way to be the future of the world. (2) Owning physical property will still matter, as the value in a physical piece of art is in it being a unique piece of property. Even if it were copied, it would still not be the original, and would have less value. This is why people can get a print of the Mona Lisa, but can't buy the Mona Lisa. (3) The meta verse probably will not take off as one unit. The concept of the metaverse will occur, but as one unit it is unlikely. For example, even now there are several websites that dominate the attention of persons in the world. Not everything is owned by one company. Given the potential of the metaverse, fierce competition will occur to dominate the space. (4) You're also forgetting new forms of visual art, that may need humans to start before AI. Most AI are trained on what they have seen, and therefore new artists will have to make Metaverse art before an AI will learn from it. (5) Heck, the metaverse may never even be a thing! The demand is not here, and the benefits do not appeal to the layman.

[@niftyskates85]

Ya I always liked traditional. I fucking hated digital to the point it felt like there's no point in drawing if its on the drawing tablet. I use it as a monitor lol and continue traditional in hopes of getting my own vendor at my local collectable show and beyond like selling my own comics and stuff

[@A.R.McDuck]

All of the fx artists, animators, storyboard artists, concept, etc need to strike ASAP, like the actors to get rules put in while they can! Now that the actors strike is over get in there and have this other strike that removes all artistry from productions. Carpenters should probably join in too because otherwise 100% greenscreen type stuff, where all they'll need is green furniture or creating a few variety green mounds for the actors to stand or lean on.

[@artlesscalamity348]

It won’t if people decide to reject it. There is nothing inevitable in civilization. It’s all a series of collective choices. We can decide that art is a fundamentally HUMAN practice, we can choose to protect creative industries and demand transparency of generative AI usage.

[@wmeanswictory1351]

Yeah, i fucking hate these kind of videos saying "AI is bad but its inevitable!!!" Bro, China just banned non-watermarked AI works late last-year, there could still be hope. But nooo, lets manufacture consent by making people believe there is nothing that can be done

[@macdoeman4560]

I'll remain cautiously optimistic. This is probably going the route of CGI in film. Sure, it looks great, and can mimic the "real thing." But it's ultimately no substitute for the "real thing." Not to mention, companies are likely going to lobby for a "counter a.i." that screen for a.i. generated images (particularly those of copyright infringement.) We'll likely see AI that'll have a watermark or the like, to signify its nature, while non-AI will be without said markings. Helping buyers discern between the two. That's my hypothesis, anyway. Either way I'm just glad artists aren't taking this laying down. I'm glad communities are banding together and aiding each other. Keep fighting the good fight, artists!

[@fnorgen]

The problem though is that it will be very difficult to detect if some artwork was AI generated or not. Also, any AI used to detect AI generated images will in turn be used to further train image generators. (The open source models at least.) And there will always be some open source models in the wild that specifically disregard any imposed rules, and no doubt some specifically trained to remove watermarks left by more advanced closed source models. To tell you the sad truth, my main method for telling if some artwork was secretly AI generated is when some no-name artists produces conspicuously high quality work, because I know from experience just how easy it is to generate amazing looking images, free from tell-tale AI artefacts, with a little bit of inpainting and some rudimentary manual touch-ups, and finally some img2img passes to smooth everything up. For funzies I've also used SD to turn some thoroughly mediocre fanart I found online into high quality fanart, while preserving the composition and "spirit" of the original. The only thing that made it a little tricky was that the model I used at the time was just plain broken for img2img work, leaving ugly purple artefacts everywhere and messing badly with colour balance and contrast. It's worth noting that I could do this while not possessing a hint of artistic skill. As an experiment I've also used SD img2img to remove the obnoxious watermarks from a stock photo, and it worked really well. It also changed the content a little bit, but that's arguably a positive for the purpose of shamelessly stealing stock photos. Basically, a mediocre artist armed with a free open source AI can perform on par with a properly good pure manual artist in terms of visual quality, while also being way faster, while also being near impossible to detect. That is unless you start demanding videos documenting the creation of every piece, to verify that they were in fact purely manmade.

[@macdoeman4560]

@@fnorgen Agreed. My apologies if I misspoke. ^^

[@angrysealion2259]

idk cgi is getting so good it basically just looks real at this point

[@macdoeman4560]

@@angrysealion2259 agreed. I'll concede to that point. That said, I still remain cautiously optimistic.

[@stanleyhosea5413]

@@fnorgen Having watermark is still better than not having it and I have seen people comment on advanced watermark removal software failing to remove some watermark and even mess up the picture itself. So yes, what art community need right now is advanced watermarking technique to defend against advanced watermark removal softwares. The only problem is the customer who purchase from the original artist has the copy of the picture without any watermark. Those pictures might get uploaded to the internet and get captured by the AI bot giving it more material to work from. And yes, the only way to verify the authenticity of a drawn picture is by having a complete video recording of the art creation process from scratch, that's something AI or any technology is absolutely unable to produce artificially. The art community or even the world needs to be educated and informed about this

[@nickzane4695]

Artists are not actually fighting artificial intelligence, they are fighting ordinary people who use it. Many dilettantes steal a place in art. But this won't last if artists will understand that a.i. could be a unimaginably powerful tool in skilled hands.

[@dannypavlov913]

*unimaginably powerful* even in the hands of actual artists, it would still devalue art. Why would we want to make less money when it's already very little for most artists??? I don't understand you people.

[@IPlayKindred]

its not a fkn tool, its marketed, made and used as a replacement for artists.. like bro every time someone speaks about ai art we get people like you. it gets very fkn boring after a while

[@nickzane4695]

To - I play kindred- Do people like me bother you? Sorry!

[@nickzane4695]

Yes, Pavlov, looks like someone wants us to make less money

[@nickzane4695]

Pavlov, the first answer was not for you, it was for someone who told me that it's not a tool, it' a replacement, and people like me refuse to understand 😁

[@Avaspickles]

We will fight for artist rights, no matter what will happen or what is happening. All of these generators are using COPYRIGHTED ART for COMMERCIAL use. Therefore making it illegal, even if they say it's legal.

[@TheShinorochi]

There already have an AI drawing pics from scratch without any of artist data on internet, they training them in real environments

[@pmabsj3844]

It won't stop them. If they're illegal then they will bend the rule and make it legal. I don't want this too, but what can I do. Money talks. And there's a lot of money involved in AI.

[@ivancabrera3289]

@@TheShinorochi what's the name of the AI? bruh not that I will use it because I wanna be an artist by myself not an AI user and besides art for me is more like a Hobie but I wanna be sure it actually exist

[@artman40]

Imagine combining image models with a model that can generate art styles of its own, without using copyrighted art at all.

[@Siopp84]

Yes thats what im talking about

[@Mente_Fugaz]

Is not realistic at all , because AI is designed to replicate... not to create art styles.. It looks good just because is replicating art styles that looks good

[@Siopp84]

@@Mente_Fugaz yeh thats what i think Ai art can produce pretty images and humans can make new concepts and be more creative but the thing is that Ai is faster

[@Mente_Fugaz]

@@Siopp84 the real problem is that in the moment a new artist achieves a new style, the ai will merge his work before he creates a community... So there will be no point on develop your skills to create new ways to create art.. And art will be just at the mercy of what a model can do.

[@Leto2ndAtreides]

@@Mente_Fugaz That's not true. Stable Diffusion creates variations every time that it makes stuff. You just need to double down in the direction of certain kinds of variations and feed those back into the model... Much like an artist experimenting. And the models aren't replicating. They are expressing something closer to their intuition for what kind of image makes sense for a given request.

[@stanimirgeorgiev.87]

AI Art looks so good simply because the AI doesn't draw, it just uses already created content. It simply changes shapes, colors and designs in a new way in order to satisfy the needs of its user. But basically these are millions of used images of artists who are not from companies, but are private individuals. So , basically, this is the biggest violation of copyright law in the history of the world. And amm, no, i don't think they will loose the battle.

[@stanimirgeorgiev.87]

@@AnnasVirtual There is enough evidence that this is not a real AI. When there is real AI on earth (if that ever happens) you and I will be dead a long time ago.

[@litletrickster5260]

Sure but quite frankly copyright infringement never stopped anyone. Piracy despite being entirely illegal is prevalent and mostly unpunished. Copyright is also an american protection so other countries are free to do as they please. Lastly the average joe could just fork stable diffusion and train it to whatever data set they can get to get what they want and this is as impossible to stop as piracy.

[@poocrayon4588]

Exactly - this is gonna create a shit load of new laws. I realise this is 6 months on but its coming.

[@roeuth]

Ai is trash and Artists will never give up the fight or lose to such a copyright infringement technology.

[@lloydkuijs]

When you did the comparison between Greg and midjourney I was thinking like "Damn, Midjourney even looks better. That's crazy". Had a good laugh when you flipped it.

[@JasonSurplus]

Haha, a man of culture I see

[@madox4061]

same, i was already beating myself up mentally for enjoying the damn ai work more lmao

[@danielalorbi]

One of the most straightforward yet comprehensive videos on the subject!

[@JasonSurplus]

Thank you, Daniel! 🙏

[@madox4061]

this has become my favorite video on the subject. it's nice to find validation that artists aren't just insane for being upset and thinking there must be legal issues, while also not being stupidly optimistic of "it's just gonna be a tool to make artist's jobs easier'. i genuinely fear this is gonna ruin everything. i feel that if ChatGPT gets better a lot of jobs, not just in the creative field, will be wiped. i don't know what the horror of millions of people unemployed from one day to the other will look like.

[@pablogarciaseminara6560]

The horror of the unemployed millipns looks like a good starting point to making changes in our outdated economic system that cannot harmonize technological progress with human wellbeing

[@joeabiro2049]

This is literally the best video I've seen on this topic. You literally covered this discussion perfectly. I see AI artists just ignore the issues and artists make strange, weak arguments. You really gave an unbiased view on this issue. It's like you read my mind.

[@JasonSurplus]

Thanks so much 🙏. I had the exact same experience with the AI content I’ve seen so far too, so I felt like I had to say something.

[@missveronica8393]

I think a lot of artists have just got into their emotions about it and they aren't able to formulate the best arguments from that space. Ai art is so brand new, it will be regulated eventually I'm sure, but it's like the wild west right now, and we need artists to help shape it in a way that benefits everyone, because I do believe that ai can be used in a way that isn't unethical. Ai artists aren't part of the art community generally, so they need to understand things like copyright and other issues, but I see traditional artists just attacking them, and that's just counter-productive.

[@soacker25]

@@missveronica8393 dream on. There wont be any regulations. Its lime xrated content its everywhere and its for free.

[@kattman4605]

I'd say he underrepresented the role regulation can play.

[@DigitalKlout]

I think that attempting to stop this technology will be like trying to stop the internet or trying to stop crypto, the pandoras box has been opened and there's no going back, however I believe part of this can be solved if let's say the user puts an artists name in the prompts to generate images then that particular artist can be paid some sort of royalties for using that person's work as reference.

[@therealOXOC]

sure lol

[@spaceman1501]

Sadly, AI will totally devalue digital art, so once again it's up to artists to offer something more unique, something more personal... I think of it like gastronomy, sure everybody can enjoy cheap fast food and it's everywhere, but at the same time there are restaurants with products made by professional chefs, and you can't just put both on the same category just because both make the same type of product, everybody recognizes that So i think the same thing should happen with generated and human-made art, setting their markets apart of each other and giving them both the value they deserve.

[@raruteam]

Gourmet food taste better, that's why people pay more for it, but if you make art that is more unique, AI can copy that instantly, so unless they nerf AI art it's going to be a rough time for we the artists.

[@spaceman1501]

@@raruteam true, the companies who develop these AI models must regularize their models somehow or they will keep ruining the market

[@samthesomniator]

But the results are often not to distinguish.

[@nicholash1278]

make something that ai can't copy

[@christiangeisner2928]

Incredible! It was clear the amount of time and effort that went into this, the topic seemed well researched, and it was very engaging! Keep up the good work

[@JasonSurplus]

Wow, thank you so much! I’m honored that you enjoyed it and took the time to write this comment. It means a lot 🙏

[@Dem1z_]

@@JasonSurplus hey just one problem with the pay the artist the ai doesn’t care and take it all in so that means millions of artists are being used so they would go bankrupt before they can pay all and i cant explain it well so go learn about how ai works

[@JasonSurplus]

@@Dem1z_ This like saying Napster would go bankrupt if they had to pay song artists. Some business models are simply illegal/unsustainable. 🤷‍♂️

[@Dem1z_]

@@JasonSurplus whats Napster and of course some are but u aren’t getting what im saying ots not as simple as just pay them and all that a lot more needs to be done and im not saying i agree im an artist too its just that if you had that u would not be complaining thats just how this world works you complain and when u have the things they had that u were complaining about u dont care wait im just rambling that had nothing to do with this

[@Dem1z_]

@@JasonSurplus ok the best why to put it is it doesn’t just steal the image it takes some and get rid of the rest and millions of this are happening all at once so one pic is not going to change anything but when plp put someone specific it uses there art rinse and repeat and they do use legal loop holes too and heres how AI works just so u have a better understanding of what i mean cdn.openai.com/papers/dall-e-2.pdf arxiv.org/abs/2205.11487

[@rolynart]

AI art seems to really have popularity in realism, but not cartoon style. It's so refined, that when you look at it for too long, you'll end up wanting more and more of it, until you're sick of it. I believe people will come to style of art (even if it's considered low quality), rather than enj9y SO generated format. Besides SO cannot adapt to everything, and it certainly cannot exaggerate like us artist can.

[@ricardocarnauba]

We did lose already, the battle now is not to lose our souls

[@Duhbaby2348h]

There is officially a lawsuit underway

[@TheEnigmaProductions]

AI literally stole art

[@maxwellspiegel5985]

As a 3D artist, I truly believe that AI art will be depreciated over time. The novelty of a human artist will rise up and create a balance between the two. For example, let's look at the Republic of Venice. At one point in time, Venice manufactured glass at a large scale and was a big supplier in its time. However as industries were formed at a massive scale in countries that ask for cheaper wages, the value of glass went down and thus hurt Venice's economy. So to come out of that, what Venice did was make their glass into a luxury item rather than a standard commercial commodity, which worked! You can use the same argument in terms of fast-food and typical restaurants. Right now, AI is new and cool, but it will wane on people and the market will gravitate toward human-made art rather than AI art. In essence, business may be lost, but the clients who leave are those who never truly appreciated art in the first place. And those who don't appreciate art in the first place will more than likely try to screw the artist over in terms of pay. What I would suggest to other artists is to leave the commercial field of art and dive more into true art. Big companies will adapt to AI because they never appreciated art in the first place, but there is still a massive audience who does, and perhaps making your own studio that caters to true art whether it be a game studio, an art studio, a movie studio etc. will be more financially beneficial than that of relying on soulless companies. Art in itself is a trade of luxury and thus can be transformed into a luxury service easily. You cant make trash collecting into a luxury service, but art you can.

[@ankokunokayoubi]

And this is why I start to encourage my digital illustrator/painter/artist friends to start considering manual illustration/drawing for their future. It could be a personal, sentimental, more luxurious item as AI takes most of digital arts/contents.

[@Saf_Ibn_Sayyad_Bacon]

3d art Is going to be one of the easiest things To Do with ai Especially one's with numbers in them more auto CAD like things.

[@maxwellspiegel5985]

That may be the case. But the argument still stands.@@Saf_Ibn_Sayyad_Bacon

[@maxwellspiegel5985]

I would argue that even digital art will still be a luxury commodity. Its truly dependent on the audience at hand. I would prefer a handcrafted game than a procedural one for example.@@ankokunokayoubi

[@Akira-nc6vi]

As an artist I feel screwed, but in the same time I'm excited. I don't know how to explain it lol

[@danyknight9107]

Don't be scared by this, don't bury yourself in fear or frustration. Use this new technology, empower yourself with it, fight with it. Right now there are millions of ways you can introduce it to your workflow, I have done it myself. You can train the AI ​​with your style, with your own creations and exponentially speed up your work, it is not only generated by prompts, you can also use inpainting, outpainting, image2image, depth to image and MUCH MORE. Yes, there are people who will use it for bad intentions, but we don't have to be those people. This may be the most powerful tool we have ever had.

[@joeabiro2049]

You need to be using this opportunity. Don't be stupid. If you use AI in your workflow now, you might be able to double or triple the amount of money you can make. Use this time. Because it's still new, there is still a lot of opportunity.

[@somthinwrong]

@@danyknight9107 /cryptobro talk

[@lillianhuerta3395]

Hey Akira, I feel you my nerves are really high and I question my career but reading Dany comment helps. Try the doing the right way with Ai and really working that. Fix up any minor issues. Work between traditional and Ai. Since drawing feels fun. I wonder if there will be a tech that goes inside the human brain that’s something I’m excited for. 😅 they are already having experiments with that using your brain to turn on a TV or use your phone. They put like a little wire in the brain.

[@dannypavlov913]

@@danyknight9107 🤡

[@djlabs1975]

Sadly I agree that AI art cannot be stopped. And frankly even traditional artist will be affected, as people use AI in their traditional art process. You won't know if a human made a drawing or painted or if it was just traced from an AI image.

[@kattman4605]

It cant be stopped but it can be regulated. Also it is imperative we regulate for the purpose of your second statement. beyond forging artwork, it can forge all information aswell leaving civilization deceived entirely.

[@schtuff.8207]

Most other youtubers would drag this out to 20 minutes or make this into 3 seperate videos. Thanks for packing so much quality and scenes into such a small package.

[@SkiBeeTeaTap]

So....remember how music industry had to fight to enforce copyright laws in 1990-2010 ? Before that you could copy your music cassette to your buddy. Most musicians earned money on concerts. But then internet came in. And suddenly 10.000 people could copy your 25$ "cassette." Sooo....music production studios started to lobby and associate together.Maybe its time for sites to pay money for every picture or art work "they" show... Maybe its time to get a little bit greedy for our own sake. Maybe the inspiration need to be pushed back into private showing and lessons and not posting it online. Unite and lawyer up. I was intrested in ai art. But the assholy incidents from ai bros made me start to think otherwise. NO ai bro thinks even about making new the doors album...guess why.

[@vylbird8014]

The industry kind of lost though. Piracy remains really, really easy and commonplace. Eventually the only way to stop people illegally copying the music was to give in, and make their product so affordable and convenient that there was no point in pirating any more: Low-cost streaming services and free streams on youtube with adverts.

[@catoftruth1044]

AI cant even draw right faces of unknown people

[@mrsparkle7280]

Just because you can unleash a rabid pit bull towards a bunch of kids playing in the park, doesn't mean you should.

[@CallmeD0gx1]

Exactly

[@quetevalgavergaaa]

If that's the future, I'll end up unaliving myself, art and the art community was the only thing that kept me going.

[@AnAdalaze]

Get help. Don’t kill yourself. Suicide isn’t the answer.

[@subterranean327]

Your life is more valuable than what you create.

[@gege_heh3]

I'm scared for my future bc of this AI art. I've always wanted to be a free lance artist or a designer artist for characters, clothes etc. But with this AI art what's the point? All my hard work now won't be valuable for later? I'll have to give in the AI art and just never enjoy creating original peaces again?

[@JasonSurplus]

I can understand the feel. My career plans have definitely been adjusted. Crazy it happened so fast. Personally, I recommend two things: - Emphasizing traditional art practice. - Using/embracing the AI. You don’t have to use its outputs directly, you could use it as a source of inspiration, like Pinterest. Your creativity is always valuable. But to make ends meet, artists have always had to adapt. In the past, they’ve painted portraits, then made advertisements, and now they’ll have to use AI. Hope this helps. Good luck 🙏

[@gege_heh3]

@@JasonSurplus Thank you. Let's hope for the best outcome of this situation :)

[@officialtollilion6627]

I recently saw a video of an artist talking about this, and they made 1 good point. We artists draw, without the guarantee, it will pay off. We draw and learn and study without knowing if it's worth it. I saw many artists ask one question, “Why do I draw?”. My answer for that is because it's my passion, my identity, something that helped me in my hardest of times. I didn't pick up that pen with a guarantee I'll be a character designer, I picked it up because it was fun. I picked it up to let my emotions speak without words. A person with a dream, even if small, can shine the brightest. Creativity isn't about talent, it's about how you do it. My art. The work, I create, tells of a story. My story. It tells what I've been through, it tells the love I have from people around me, it tells of the beauty of life but also the sorrow of death. I looked at my old works, my progress, it gave me joy and sorrow, I cringed and was proud. AI can copy it, yes, it always will be able to copy. However, it can't tell your story. It can't show your struggles, it can't show your happiness, love, sadness. Don't give up, don't ever give up. However, I need you to ask that question now and let it flow inside your head. Look around and back through your life to find that answer. Because it is somewhere, you just need to let it show.

[@RoseSupreme]

It's true. Hate AI art, voices, etc. all you want, but they're clearly not going anywhere. They're inevitable and advancing at an alarming rate. At this rate, we could only pray those warmongering military forces around the world don't do their own equivalent to advanced AI, otherwise we'll truly be living the horrific experience of the Terminator films.

[@KatiesArabVision]

I do touch ups, im a graphic + touch up artist and AI has allowed me to create my visions into reality. I have however stopped using certain diffusions and prompts that include artists where the image just comes out too similar to the OG artist. There is a diffusion right now “samdoesarts” where the artist doesn’t support the diffusion made with his drawings likeness. When I watched his video, I stopped using it. I love making different prompts on my own mixing camera angles, photography settings, color palettes, medium types and rendors etc. Then drawing my own other personal touches to it. I think it’s an amazing tool, that needs some kind of regulation. It’s already being severally misused now and causing distress and pain within this community (and in the world) and I don’t like that. So let’s respect the artists who don’t like it by not using them or their work and let’s use AI to make magic with the artists who do want to capitalize on it and see the benefits! There’s a happy medium somewhere! (Pun unintended)

[@JasonSurplus]

Thanks for sharing this take. I’ve taken to not using modern artists’ names in my prompts as well - in most cases it doesn’t feel right to me.

[@KatiesArabVision]

@@JasonSurplus of course! I understand exactly what you mean.

[@alfredmanzano680]

Damn dude that look into the future is all so accurate. As an artist myself I’m just waiting to see how all this will pan out.

[@deddrz2549]

I think It is possible, if only the fact that there are a few large companies that have the compute to train currently, and while the existing model will always exist as it is now available to the public, if a law was passed the government would still have the power to make big companies stop training on the current models and retrain from scratch if current models do not comply with the law. that means that while the AI's we currently have wont go away, their abilities will be capped, and any large future progress brought by the companies with the largest compute power, such as an AI that can draw hands, would have to be built on copyright compliment work. at least hopefully this is possible. Jobs will still be taken away eventually, but the most immediate issue is the copyright infringement

[@Evitrea]

Let's say somehow every country on the planet is on board to ban training with copyrighted images, I'd say big companies are still rich enough to train on images they have the right to. Remember if you work for Disney, all your drawing, including the ones that you draw with your spare time, are all belonging to Disney? Copyright and patent laws in the end always work for the rich. If AI can only be trained on images with consent, it will simply give Disney more power over individuals. Say the AI law exists now, what do you think will happen if Disney uses fan art to train their AI? People can then sue Disney to teach them a lesson? Yeah, I don't think so. Maybe the law will pass, but poor people are doomed anyway.

[@JasonSurplus]

I think this is possible too, but something I considered recently is that companies could still form in countries with less restrictive copyright laws. Regardless, I'm thinking the speed of innovation here is going to drastically outpace legislation efforts. If companies don't have to support artists by law, maybe they'll still do it for good PR 🤷‍♂

[@UnknownDino]

@@JasonSurplus Somehow it's careful of not infringing music copyright. So it's jut a scenario of "lets bully whoever is easier to" imo.

[@lordfuzzycat1176]

@@Evitrea I think the AI could get "good" on works it has the right to train on, but not great. The dataset that most of the AI work with today has over 5 billion artworks. And the AI still isn't good enough for professional use because of its randomness.

[@lordfuzzycat1176]

Something we should keep in mind too is that the unethical models can be destroyed with algorithmic disgorgement and then retrained ethically afterwords. It's something the FDC uses on artificial intelligence systems that get their training data illegally.

[@marwan.ux1]

Your brother's art is insane! Dude you deserve way more subs

[@JasonSurplus]

Thank you 🙏🙏 Really appreciate you stopping by

[@000Gua000]

His art almost as good as AI art 😉

[@GikamesShadow]

So as an Artist for now 6+ years I am not too scared of AI art personally but I do wanna drop this comment because your comparison while it got me felt a little bit decieving. I know, that was the point but I dont mean the twist. I mean more so that I as someone who doesnt know the artist would look at this and take your word for it. While afterwards, knowing about it I took another look and noticed several things in Rutkowskis art that made me go "Yea thats from the same guy". There is a very special way in which he seems to use brushes and overall his lighting is amazing. Even the background art as seen in the pieces you provided are very well done although they are minimal. But not knowing the artist didnt make me look at the things, as I previously said, and instead I assumed that on the left was all done deliberately not even noticing the low definition. Looking at art and LOOKING at art do be different. Although I do need to ask: Have the pieces done by midjourney been touched up by an artist or have they been produced as is? Final Comment: "Why would you wanna get his work if you could get it for cheap". Because I dont believe AI will ever be able to pull off perfected artstyles and also artwork. It can produce something similar to it but unless the AI has an actual brain and isnt just producing based on a vague brainscan of your Idea, this will never happen. Of course this is just my opinion and could be disproven in a month or two when it comes out that AI is actually taking over the market but hey I am hopeful. I dont believe AI will get much further than it has now. (Also those who would only get it for cheap never would have bought his actual art in the first place)

[@JasonSurplus]

Thanks for the comment! We shouldn’t be worried about AI replacing artists anytime soon. What’s going to happen is that artists are going to use the AI to do the first 80% of the image and then complete it themselves by painting on top. That means that art generally will be able to be made faster and therefore cheaper. Cheaper isn’t always worse - for example painters used to have to make their own pigments for paint. Overall, AI is a double edged sword. It can be used by great artists to make more great art and used by others to make cheap knockoffs.

[@therealOXOC]

If you think that state of the technology is all it got you're in for a ride.

[@GikamesShadow]

@oxoc ah we will be there when it gets there Right now it's not and last I checked I may be clairvoyant but I ain't a fortune teller

[@brier3496]

@@JasonSurplus Ai art could be used for some things like concepts, but would be useless in high quality commercial works. The condensed low quality images are just one layer, a real digital painting would be a multitude of editable layers. Ai art programs aren't made to reduce artist's workflow, they were made from some bros who don't respect art and do understand the creation process. If companies like Adobe were smart, they'd create an ethical Ai generation tool could create transparent assets on layers in Photoshop. Then they'd also sue on the behalf of their world wide Behance users and kill off some off the questionably created competitors in the court room. Even if Pandora's box is open, that doesn't mean we can accept the unethical things inside. Just imagine I they just said, " well we can generate porn of real people and children without their consent now, we can't do a thing about it since it's out there...." Of course as soon as these controversial uses of AI pop up they put protections in place to stop them. When artists put pictures of Mickey Mouse in Midjourney en masse, their algorithm which couldn't unlearn images it was trained on, suddenly got amnesia when it came to Mickey....go figure....

[@WeAreBlank18]

I like how you speak of the prophecy at the end of the video, so I'm saving this video in a playlist so my future-self can compare.

[@lordofthe13elements40]

I think your video is overall pretty good, but one thing to note is that (as of right now) no one can copyright a style. Realistically, this can't (or shouldn't) change, since if you make style copyrightable, then most art would no longer be allowed, because some big company would own the "style". That doesn't change that it can be scummy to deliberately train an AI on an artist style just so you can bypass the artist...

[@JasonSurplus]

It’s true that you can’t copyright a style, but AI isn’t a person so it shouldn’t be personified and given the same license as humans. When I type “Greg Rutkowski,” the AI outputs a high tech remix of his work (if you’ll forgive the euphemism). I expect lawsuits about this to arise in the future, especially if someone were to market “Greg Rutkowski-style art,” for example.

[@benjaminmangum]

Yeah I think this art style debate can be shot down by just bringing up the fact that the AI art generators have databases filled with specific artists and their art pieces as references, which means artists can copyright those files and all related content and restrict access. Lawmakers could word it in a way where these businesses cannot, without consent, use the name, likeness, or published works of any one person alive or dead, without prior consent and written agreement.

[@ayoaye2276]

@@JasonSurplus Ai was however programmed by humans with ethics (supposedly) and that's where the buck will end when the attorneys and lawmakers come calling.

[@CrniWuk]

You can still make moral and ethical arguments on it, as there is what's known as the "word of the law" and the "spirit of the law". The idea of copyright laws is to protect content creators. - See the example with authors vs. printers. It's actually pretty comparable here because in both cases, printers and AI you have a technological progress requiring new regulations. I mean there is a reason why copyright laws have been invented. And the reason for this was to make sure that people can actually exist from their work. And when I say work, I mean also labour. So what we will have to answer in the future, really, is how far we think humans should be able to make a decent living from their labour. And how we will deal with a situation where algorithms can devalue labour to such a degree that you can not make a living from it anymore. I think most of us have not yet realised what this actually really means for the future. Because AI will not only affect creatives or a few professions. At will change nearly every profession out there. From doctors, to teachers, lawyers you name it. Automatition will take place in many positions. And sooner or later lawmakers will have to adress this new technology.

[@poocrayon4588]

I'm not sure why you think the exact same laws which apply to artists now will apply to those using AI in future. There's virtually no doubt this will create a lot of new laws

[@tobyfredson5668]

My problem with AI art is that it only generates an image based on mashing up together other works, it's a generator and nothing more for me because it is missing that personality you find behind every brush stroke a human makes. This is so apparent in all AI generate things and that is what AI can't do. Imagine going into Substance Painter and slapping a smart material with a repeating pattern on a mesh then calling it a day.

[@krlllx]

Where did you hear that it mashes work together?

[@maroindefinitlyhuman6857]

I feel like by the end of this craze there won't be many people using those AI image generators. I mean, they say it'll allow people who can't draw to make art, but the reality is those who really want to make art put in the effort and learn to do it, and those who dont didn't. Hopefully they'll get tired of it sooner than later. Not to mention, learning to use AI tools kinda requires time and skill as well, and that's not a guarantee that it'll generate exactly what you have in mind (the most frustrating part about the technology) the people who didn't have the time and skill to learn to draw probably won't bother to learn AI too.

[@recoverhealth2062]

Ai iterates on existing art, if existing art created by humans stops being made, it will keep making the same thing forever and ever until it becomes stale.

[@mirm0n]

Your brothers illustration is so good

[@pianoatthirty]

The real value of art will always be in the individual's enjoyment and peace felt while making it. That's what makes art so awesome, and people with a genuine, childlike desire to create will continue to do so regardless of technological changes. What happens to one's art after the act of creation - and whether or not you get paid for it - is what mediocre artists spend all their time worrying about. Great artists just keep on creating.

[@BC-sh7en]

that's stupid. try having your propertyy stolen, then we'll talk

[@sh4dow2a]

was ok, until I read and "wether or not you get paid for it" Well, let me put it this way: Do you enjoy art ? Do you enjoy the strives and the meaning behind it ? Do you like when people try themselves and learn from it ? ^ HOP ! If you answered "Yes", at this last one why would you ? Hey hey ! You're cute and all but with your A.I stuff since it wouldn't be a way to live because "money" is out of the equation, well, wOhOo ! How the fuck do I find the time to work my art, progress, pay for my material, and promote myself ? Fuck that, I need to find a job ! - I need to learn to solve math problem ? Oh no wait nevermind, A.I does it all. - Medecine ? PSssh ! Fuck that you need years of learning and funding, again where do I find funding ? - So yeah, the only outcome I'd see is to pick a random job that pay a misery ? Heh, personnally I'd get a shitty job that ends up fast and pay more, heck even be a test subject for science. Out of these 3 outcomes only 1 would give me the TIME to make more art (and paradoxally develop this A.I thing, still following your logic), can you guess which one ? But, let me try to rephrase what you mean behind this, maybe is just: "Treating art like a buisness doesn't make you an artist" Which I can totally get behind with, but to me it would be more adress to the A.I folks rather than the self proclamed artist...

[@jhonzinsr]

Dude's gotta eat. You can't create something for the enjoyment and peace felt during the process of making it, while starving to death, or being evicted of your home because your whole career has vanished because of algorithms. You are saying something like "the real value of planting will aways be the pleasure putting a seed in the ground, individually, and seeing it create life and turn into something that give us food" while your neighbor farmer is using giant machines to work on the soil, spread the seeds, water the plants, and is producing thousands times more fruits than you, even if yours taste a little bit better (or not).

[@psychostrawberry1356]

Unfortunately dude, we don't live in a Star Trek's post scarcity utopic era. Please come down to real art world down here. Your comment just shows, just how inexperienced you are with art industry. People who want to do art as "passion" take on shitty main jobs to support their hobby. Most end up completely consumed by their main shitty jobs and end up not making art at all. Few some were lucky enough to do full time job as an artist and get paid for it. And now that is being taken away from artists too. I'm sorry if I sounded too strong. I'm emotionally exhausted by the responses of the non-artists and their unrealistic and distorted perception of artists and art industry. Artists gotta eat too. Artists are not some mythical creatures that creates art with no care in the world.

[@sh4dow2a]

@@psychostrawberry1356 feel you there

[@marzipanic9042]

This was honestly such a great encapsulation of exactly how I feel. You did a great job! The best thing we can do right now is educate. Thank you for sharing.

[@JasonSurplus]

I’m glad you enjoyed it! Thanks so much for commenting 🙏

[@somthinwrong]

Educate with..... how?

[@GalaxColor]

@@somthinwrong spreading awareness on how unethical and problematic AI is in general at it's current state

[@maiskorrel]

love your brothers drawing skills!

[@StriderWolf]

I don't want to live in this world anymore. I can't imagine why anyone would ever want to create a future where art no longer has value.

[@Dalmarty_Lma0]

It's sad but that's the way we are going, don't get frustrated, people like you who really value art is enough to see that we can still get ahead ^^)

[@sleepforever3494]

They will lose if they don't embrace change. It is the future, it cannot be stopped, it's a new medium and every artist should familiarize themselves with it.

[@Bitcosb]

Wow man, didn't realize you had 544 subscribers, this is some quality content, nice vid fr.

[@JasonSurplus]

Appreciate ya Mr. Knowledge 🫡

[@sooubic]

I’m glad I found this channel is my recommendations. I thought this was a channel with hundreds of thousands of subscribers I haven’t heard about, but it turns out I was wrong. Glad to be the 371th subscriber.

[@giulyanoviniciussanssilva2947]

It's sad, but at the same time it's liberating to know the audience that consumes what artists create, people who never valued the creative area that comes as a gift that they now have, it is no longer something of those naughty electists. We have been undervalued and understood for some time and I'm happy to now know this truth, it's better than remaining in the lie that people understand areas seen from a distance Jack Kirby and so many others demonstrated this very well before AI existed now we just confirmed it.

[@raruteam]

I'm an artists but I'm not only concerned about AI art, but a lot of uses of AI in general, I've been using AI to de-noise videos and images, neural filters, boost rendering times, and other things, but those are examples of tools, nowadays AI produce replacements for jobs of human beings, Chat GPT can (in the future) replace your nutritionist, personal trainer, lawyer and doctors (even if only partially), for a lot of people this is exciting because it means free stuff for everyone, the "democratization" of art, medicine, coding, etc. Everyone loves free stuff and democracy until they lose their jobs and power and realize that now only the 1% of the 1% of the people who used to rule the world will be in control. I wonder how governments will react, only China has been precautious about it, but not for ethical reasons of course.

[@nicholash1278]

good point, in the future a small percentage of people will literally rule over 99.999 of people. well it's already kind of that way.

[@waltlock8805]

LAION (the database Stable Diffusion used) is a non-profit. Under EU law, they have an exemption from normal copyright law. Where the commercial generators like DALL-E skirt the law is by charging for server processing time instead of for the images. Also - the AI database doesn't include the images, only the patterns (weights) they learned. So the product is transformations, not derivative.

[@JasonSurplus]

Thanks for the comment. This video was focused on US law, but even in the EU, a user of these AI tools can’t expect to do whatever they want with the AI images they generate. That becomes a separate legal issue.

[@waltlock8805]

@@JasonSurplus That's why the distinction between derivative and transformative is important. Derivative works are covered by the original copyright. Transformative works are not. Text->Image Queries fall under the latter, which is why they can be used commercially by the end users.

[@JasonSurplus]

@@waltlock8805 That’s not entirely true - in the US, in order to be transformative, a work must be “fundamentally different and new” and embody an “entirely different artistic purpose” so that it “stands apart from the raw material.” That would mean that AI images are derivative or transformational on a case by case basis. That was the precedent set in “The Andy Warhol Foundation v Goldsmith.” I’m sure we’ll see many more cases moving forward as AI becomes more commonplace.

[@deddrz2549]

@@waltlock8805 though there have been images generated that are nearly identical to the images that they are calling on when trained, using a copyrighted image as direct reference, even as a human, has legal issues. This will cause anybody using the AI in a commercial product to end up plaigerizing sometimes even when they don't know it, because the AI is pulling a copyrighted image as direct reference.

[@agentofsins]

700th sub, I loved watching this video, you're one of the few youtubers that have this kind of great charisma that brings life into any video... Keep up the good work!

[@Jo-sd3ch]

Yooo Jason. This is by far the BEST take I've seen on this issue. Succinct, entertaining and educational. Shared it everywhere. More vids like this

[@army8212]

Great video and I'm 136. You hit some of the best points I've seen and you back it up with facts.

[@JasonSurplus]

🫡 Really appreciate you saying that. Thanks for the support!

[@OneThomasBlack]

There's no 'probably', this battle was lost the moment it started. Art will be something that only the great computer can do, and we be another aspect of humanity people will look at and wonder, "How did they do that back then?" Edit: It also wouldn't surprise me if art is made out be "racist" or socially biased in some way, so it would be easier to just let the ai handle it.

[@patrickkirby6580]

It’s not lost these Ai companies are aware of the dangers this could bring and they’re just trying to sell their products while playing it safe and risky at the same time For example all these programs are not allowed to make NSFW content I mean they can make it but they decided not program it to not to because they are aware what the consequences would be if they tried flooding the internet with p**n The same thing could be done with copyrighted content if the copyright owners forced this Ai companies to respect their laws

[@spyonthewater]

Definitely loved the perspective, and I must agree with the entirety of this video. Also, great editing, great research, and as you put it, very human. Strange times we’re living in. Keep up the channel. Could be really big. Your thoughts carry weight and how you deliver it is perfection in all honesty. Good job, homie.

[@williambackus2849]

It's nice to see someone out there gets it.

[@Dalmarty_Lma0]

I remember watching a typical "TikTok ia filter" video and one user commented, "How to humiliate an artist in seconds." I can't put into words the fucking rage I felt at that moment, imagine being told that a machine can do the job better than your talent, throwing your years of experience to the floor. I use from time to time AI's to analyze their composition and color palette, some elements I use as reference, but I don't proclaim myself an "AI ARTIST" (that shit doesn't exist). Those who claim that AI's are better than artists are complete ignoramuses, a machine will never replace the hand of the true artist. Keep making art, your way of creating is unique, value it 💖

[@nullx2368]

C'mon dont be naive, creativity is a blocker not an advantage. AI doesn't have that blocker and will create randomly based on patterns which is infinity less restrictive. AI is superior long term just because it doesn't need to be creative.

[@Dalmarty_Lma0]

@@nullx2368 I understand that point about creativity (not totally, because every artist suffers from creative block, and in fact creativity nowadays is hard to achieve, however, if you tell two artists to draw any sentence you can think of the vision of both artists will be different). The AI is deceptive with her, I spend time analyzing her images to notice some flaws, among them the lighting, they are usually wrong. It can be improved, of course... However do you know what is the difference between a real artist and AI? The study behind the improvement. The AI (as I understand it) can achieve this based on the information on the net. The real artist doesn't just study on the internet, we have real life even for that. At my university, I asked a professor for help with my lighting problem, he said "Don't just stand there, go and look around". We messed up the room, turned the tables around even, turned off the light and with a flashlight started looking at the physics of light. Here I continue to study while the """ia artists""" spit in my face. They spit in our faces But, I really don't care I don't deny that AI can build quite impressive and original images, I come to like them and occasionally use them to explore their composition and lighting (noting, of course, their flaws). But I like the process and study that artists have, that AI will never achieve as a human does. AI is a tool, I know every artist is more/less experienced than others, but I find it stupid that they compare your work to that of a machine, they are VERY different "minds" and that's what no one understands. Have a nice day. Pd: I verified that the AI ​​does use the works of other artists to complete a work, you have to be careful with that.

[@byronbuchanan3066]

The issue of ai stealing artists work is a mute point. AI doesn't need you anymore. Ai does not need to be trained based off artists work. It is becoming creative on its own. That's the scary thing. In the last 14 months ai has come so far that it can create infinite styles on its own without copying any artists. I have been a full time artist for two decades and have been using ai for the last 14 months and it has spit out so many new styles that I have never seen before that I can't keep track. I look at art daily and am very versed in art history. Many artists are simply in denial to the fact that ai art is here to stay and will take the jobs of many, not all, artists. This is inevitable.

[@JasonSurplus]

I agree with this comment so much I could have written it myself.

[@vaderchief]

this is so depressing. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that there's a massive wave of artists terminating themselves early

[@casbakker]

This pretty much sums everything up quite right: 9:41 . This is hard to navigate as an artist. I'm currently trying to get myself educated on the topic. I'm afraid the copyright issues will not be solved and it will cost the jobs of soooo many artists. Right now I'm focused on digital art, but I might have to transition to traditional art. Hmm what to do, what to do...

[@ellenripley4837]

I could tell Greg's work from the ai. AI still can't mimic brush strokes like the original style very well. Specially a style like Greg's. Mainly because of the texture of the canvas.

[@JukainPwnsSurvives]

Your response sounds like a lie made from copium

[@ellenripley4837]

@@JukainPwnsSurvives nope. ehem, I can tell what images are Greg's mostly because he has a very distinctive stroke style that AI can't really mimic unless the person knows how to describe it. I've tested this myself on midjourney. no copium. It's very obvious to a trained eye and I'm not that good of an illustrator. I'm mediocre at best.

[@ellenripley4837]

@@JukainPwnsSurvives also let me add that AI images on midjourney of characters with weapons are a giveaway right away, and in the images above not just that but the dragons have an excessive amount of teeth and also faces in MJ sometimes have weird artifacts, same with clothing.

[@Envy_May]

hang on - if there's a case for it being against copyright, and it's up to the copyright holders to enforce, does this if a large amount of artists banded together they could have a case to sue some of these companies ?

[@JasonSurplus]

A class action lawsuit would need to find the best angle and most winnable case in order to set a legal precedent. But yes, in theory it is possible.

[@usayedd4409]

I think it affects a particular branch on artists. Most companies like setting themselves apart and usually wont prefer AI work that someone else can just type and recreate. Especially in a market that is ridiculously competitive as is. And its really hard for AI at this point to generate something new. Best case scenario is you get exactly what you typed from AI. Also I think AI can be beneficial for other artists who want to one up their game. If I have a specific concept in mind for an artwork I can quickly generate one to get an idea of how it will look and basically one up it by adding more detail or complexity or just my own concept

[@RexelBartolome]

this is a great video, all very great points. surprised that you only have 2 videos uploaded, i thought I stumbled on a 100k sub channel already... but yes, how we view copyright and ip ownership will fundamentally be changed just because of the sheer scale of production these AI companies have introduced. Not sure if you stumbled upon it too but there's an ongoing lobbying to push for stronger copyright laws that protect artists. I'm an artist myself and I know where they're coming from, but stricter copyright laws as well as patent extensions have always been weaponized by large corporations, not the average artist... KZbin's content ID system for example, has lots of false positives as well as claiming monetization of smaller artists' original songs because it was claimed by someone who made a cover of the said song... These large scale blanket protection systems seem to always fail to protect the masses so I doubt another system created for AI art would work. I'd rather live in a community where everything is shared rather than policing each other, encouraging innovation and creativity. That's also the reason why, despite its problems, I love Stable Diffusion's open source nature. If a model was trained on artworks a company "freely" took off of the internet, at least share the model for free as well.

[@JasonSurplus]

🙏 Thanks so much for the compliment. I hope to earn 100k subs one day. You make some very valid points. Legislation is imperfect, difficult, and slow. If I’m being honest, I think the best solution is for artists to embrace the tech and profit off it themselves. Services like Patreon give me hope that people will support “official” models and embeddings even if there are free versions available.

[@RexelBartolome]

@@JasonSurplus Honestly, I agree... AI is such a large boulder that trying to stop it would be futile in the grand scheme of things. And we don't even have GPT4 released yet, which could arguably have a more massive impact on many different fields, way more threatening than visual models like SD.

[@Waffle4569]

We're heading straight for AI witch trials, where innocent artists will get caught in the crossfire because of AI generation/assist accusations

[@DemWaifus]

@@JasonSurplus Yep, this is what artists should have done instead of getting ass blasted and taking to arms... without actually taking to arms. They don't even know who their enemies really are. And seeing how Disney hasn't taken down Disney models for SD, there don't seem to be any grounds to sue training models based on anything in particular. It's just fair use overall.

[@gabudaichamuda2545]

@@RexelBartolome Look, this is flat out theft, no matter how you look at it. The tech has been used in such bad faith, and with obvious malice against artists, that frankly, it needs to be deemed inhumane via the Geneva Convention and be totally outlawed.

[@syrup8345]

The AI won't improve after a time because if REAL PEOPLE stop publish their drawings/art and those on the internet will be removed there will be no resource for train the AI... Am I right? Or not?

[@stanimirgeorgiev.87]

Ahh, and one more thing. It's not just an Artist. But and the programmers too are infected. Actually, almost every sector is infected because of this Ai. As far as i know the battle against Ai it's just beginning.

[@maroindefinitlyhuman6857]

The moment you mentioned the printing press my mention went to ascendance of a bookworm. Really great novel series. I highly recommend it.

[@SENYSENofficial]

0:40 wtf, that rabbit with the cap is the same rabbit that I have saved on my Pinterest (the differences are few, just the scenery literally), but the author is a 3d illustrator... maybe not all the images shown on the screen are from Ai, but I have my doubts.

[@JasonSurplus]

The images I used there were all directly from MidJourney, so they were 100% AI. What you encountered might be an example of what is called “overfitting.” That’s when an AI generates an image that very closely resembles an image from its training data.

[@SENYSENofficial]

@@JasonSurplus omg, this is just disgusting

[@SENYSENofficial]

@@user-ug3oe6vi4f this is a very serious problem

[@greenlilou6974]

Im just scared about that cause, im 13yo i have a dream to become an artist, i dream of that everytime i think about the futur, but now, i just want to cry when i think about it everytime, i want this to stop, thats just heartbreaking but it can't, so that mean that i have to do a job that im not gonna like, and live with that. I hate the futur, i hate technologie, i want to be stuck in the present, but i can't. AI is in every point, a bad idea, it make young artist like me, give up, be scared about the futur, and dont live art, and it even make the therm "art" loose his intensity. AI don't make art, it just generate image, is in any way art, it don't have any feeling, any sens, that's just a stupid fuc*ing image.

[@kevinchristian5542]

As a traditional artist i am pretty happy to hear the 6th prediciton of the future.

[@byronbuchanan3066]

Disney actually does sue unknown artists doing fan art.

[@thelegendarybulldozer7256]

I'm optimistic that AI art won't be as big of a deal as people make it out to be. In smaller art communities, I feel like getting outed as someone that uses AI to make art will be like someone getting outed for tracing other people's art. And right now, it seems like anyone that's using AI to make art really really likes to gloat about it being AI generated. I've seen several people online that literally have 'AI artist' in their bio. With how much backlash AI art is facing right now, anyone seen actively embracing AI art over legitimate art will be criticized by people that are genuinely passionate about art. (Though I do think there's a difference between AI stuff made for jokes like the Joe Biden screaming meme, and people putting AI over legit artists.)

[@user-on6uf6om7s]

Not sure how anyone would hold Stability AI (the creators of Stable Diffusion) or Midjourney liable for copyright infringement for distributing an algorithm with weights based on copyrighted images. There are no copyrighted images in anything being distributed, it's basically a text file. You can argue that it should be illegal but right now I'm pretty sure a text file with "Iron man [0.5,0.7,-0.2]" isn't considered a copyrighted work. Now if the end user uses that to generate a recognizable character and distribute it, then that's another matter.

[@JasonSurplus]

This will definitely be a major subject of debate. It’s true that the end user is an easier target to hold liable, but keep in mind that MidJourney, for example, publishes community creations to their site by default. That act of publishing puts them at a much greater risk. If they curtail that feature in the future, you’ll know why.

[@user-on6uf6om7s]

@@JasonSurplus That's fair, publishing imagery of copyrighted characters certainly opens you up to legal issues even if you're not the one making the images but I think the generation algorithm is pretty safe unless there is additional legislation introduced to change that. Usually, in this cases, the first line of defense is a cease and desist rather than litigation but I suppose that step isn't legally required.

[@generic_stiles]

We're not gonna loose this war, just watch

[@milchesarreal6964]

If AI is gonna replace me, then I'm going down swinging. *I'm not about to let a damn computer do a better "job" than me*