I tried (and wasted a lot of time) to leave you with some more suggestions and they get deleted automatically. Maybe you can see them on your end. Sorry to waste your time too, if you didn't want them. Good luck with the next video!

I'm neither pro-AI or anti-AI. It is what it is and it's not going anywhere. The reality is, it's not just human art that has been trained on, but code, legal documents, mathematical papers, scientific research papers, etc. If someone wants to call it theft, fine, but at the end of the day, it's not much different than a human learning from all these things and then creating art, code, stories, documents, etc from everything it's learned on. AI *will* replace nearly all "work-for-pay" jobs in the future, this is a fact. And they'll do it because they trained on everything we humans have ever created and published in some form or another. It doesn't mean people can't still create art (or code or whatever they like to do) but it's simply not going be something we can earn a living from.

@@alexandru5316 I checked the automatically held comments but I didn't see yours amongst them. Can you please email your recommendations to me instead? You can find it on my KZfaq channel details. Thank you!

​@@YesImaDesignersent

Random thoughts: As an artist myself, I've been following this since the beginning. I get the resentment from artists. We are just first in line, as the crosshairs have us front and center. You can hear it from themselves in this video: They did all the hard work, all the years of blood sweat and tears, and now they're being shut out. AI will come for everyone eventually, not just us poor saps who were all born at the wrong time. Tomato Soup cans and the Sandorn style are perfect examples of this which are just graphic design elements now. People are expedient and lazy, and that goes for artists as well. Making great art 'still relies on a lot of skills and practice' and the truly great ones will be the ones rising to the top, everyone else will have to be satisfied with their Walmart printouts. Eventhough he's trying to cover all the arguments here, this video doesn't persuade anyone against using AI art. Photographers were accused of this at the dawn of photography so using photography as an example in the video doesn't work here. Every technology removes another layer of effort; typography is another example. What about artists who generate AI art and ad their own flair to it? Are they stealing? All of human history is building upon the past. And by the way, I don't think comparing Napster and Midjourney is fair. That's just my opinion. Image sickness is nothing new, it's just more vast. All these lofty ideas in this video about what is art and what is a true artist are so old and I have heard them since grade school. No one cares. So if you want to really make a difference in your life, let your life be your art, before AI comes for that too. Warhol said it himself, "Art is what you can get away with." He would know.

100 percent

Ian Malcolm remains relevant

As harsh as it is for this to be unleashed on the art community in such a rapid way, it has helped shine a light on the possibilities of AI and given the general public a pretty concrete sense of how far AI has come. The thing is this innovation was actually already in place for many years before we knew it could be used for this purpose - the underlying technology comes from completely unrelated research in self driving cars which need to understand the world and form a picture of it. For many years we’ve been a lot closer to this than almost anyone realised, and not a good situation that five years ago even top experts thought this would be a 100 years away. IMO it’s better for it to be out in the open now, for us to discuss the implications of it, before some bad actor went and created their own General AI in secret and either unleash it and cause havoc or gain an upper hand on the rest of the world. Whether the scientists ‘should’ have used it for this purpose is only a question that can be discussed or answered with the benefit of hindsight, with Scientists already having done it. Imagine going back to the 1950s and asking a person “should we make Twitter?” They wouldn’t know what a Twitter was, or an internet, they couldn’t meaningfully comment on whether Twitter was a good or bad invention to make. It was the same just a few years ago when these generative models were first being developed. The implications of a Midjourney can only be discussed now that we know what one is - you’re not going to be able to make the case to a government or even artists that they should be afraid of the shitty version 1 of Midjourney. I remember it was only a couple of years ago we were all laughing at how garbage AI generated screenplays were.

Apparently it's a reoccurring human problem. What a fucking life

​@@btn237 "before some bad actor went and gained an upper hand on the world" That is literally what is happening though. There is zero other reason for this technology to exist other than to cut costs. There's no positive benefit that results from this for the general public. Maybe a few exploitative opportunists are cashing in on the moment but that isn't going to last. The end result of this is devaluing skill.

This is such a sorry ass excuse. An image being ai generated doesn't take away its value as a reference. You are honestly crying about something that is a positive in the specific scenario of reference images. You're no longer bound by what images you can find for reference you can generate ai stuff that is specifically the type of things you're looking for now. If its a question of morality that's idiotic. It's basically saying you're more moral for stealing directly from a person than using a middle man. If Ai art is theft so is every single thing drawn using a reference or building on past works the person has studied. You don't want to create art you want to cry and make excuses why you can't instead.

Same. Pinterest became a shithole full of thousands of AI shit.

Oh my God the Facebook groups! I used to be members of all the traditional art boards, now it's just a pile of lazy assholes posting A.I watercolor-like and acrylic-like photos, telling us how they're beautiful and expecting praise like they sit there smelling there own farts. It's disgusting and sad.

Even for non-artists, there are a lot of reasons to want real images of things and now it's ruined for everyone. Now there's a good chance you will get images that will be inaccurate to how something really was historically. You could want to see what buildings, weapons or clothing looked like for a specific time period and culture and get AI images mixing in completely different cultures and time periods. The internet wasn't always right about everything before, but certain topics that weren't controversial were easy to get the truth about. Now research of any kind is basically compromised by AI.

I never thought id be ever have to go back to the library, but here we are lmao

I understand how you feel, artist here. It's painful to see people do that, but it makes absolutely sense. I do that too. You see something "too good to be true" nowadays and you rightfully wonder whether it was done by an actual human being, whos got years of experience, knowledge, and passion behind or it was pumped out by a model. When I look at generative AI I genuinely think it's good. But aside from that, I feel nothing else. There's no one behind that image. There's no artist there. Just the AI, and my final thoughts are just "meh.."

Yes. I've worked professionally as an illustrator and animator since the 1980s. It was bad enough being a 2D traditional Disney animation artist when Pixar came along. Eventually my paper and disc were no longer of any use in producing feature films, and I didn't like the homogenized look of CG, but I DID have other styles and skills to fall back on, so walking away from traditional animation was hard, but not devastating. I was an excellent teacher, and spent decades training the next generation of artists on the side. But now ALL of it feels like wasted effort. My hundreds of students have no futures outside of prompting machines. My freelance is already gone. Creativity and self expression is a HUMAN need; when that's stolen away from us, what's left?

@@GingerPeacenik Yeah, that hurts 😞 I hope to god that every artist will continue to fight. People need to see the necessity of art, and althought we shouldn't have to prove ourselves and our worth, as long as we keep fighting for out existence, there is hope. Perhaps that's something to hold on to...

I think the best way to counter this is to stress the value of having made it yourself. Don't die inside for it, say it proudly. Yes, believe it or not this was made by a real human (me!) without just outsourcing all the work to machine. It was made with the actual intelligence of a human, everything you see had conscious intent put into it. Until we create literal artificial persons, this will always have artistic value (and economic value as well, if you're into that).

​​@@GingerPeacenik How is creativity and self expression stolen from You? Jesus christ you artists are so incredibly pretentious and entitled. You can STILL draw whatever you want. There is nothing that AI generated pictures threatens but your ability to monetize your art. That's it, and even that is only limited to digital art. Did acoustic music die with the invention of the synthesizer? Programs allowing for sound design previously thought impossible? Perfect rhythms, perfect intonation etc. Did guitarists around the world cry about how they wasted all their time learning to play, and now all you hear is digitalized, generated sounds? Get over yourself. If you create art for the sake of self expression, literally nothing changes. If you create art for the sake of wide spread recognition, economic success etc, yeah, you might be disappointed by the future (but even then, only if you don't adapt to your changing environment. Fucking go to the street and paint something publicly. You think AI art can replace that?) I'm a guitarist, and I've never once felt threatened by any AI music, digital Musik, or whatever. Why? I play because I enjoy playing. I enjoy the process. Nothing changed for me. I would have played the guitar the same 200 years ago or 200 years in the future.

That's very lazy. :/

There are good art schools. There are also very bad ones. At least, this one gives away some intel regarding its quality... ^^'

It's perfectly ok since it's not the tool that makes the artist

@@nicejungle but they are a lot of people who claims they made the "artwork" by themselves and there are a lot of people who believes in that.

Unfortunately that is the reality they will face in the near future when they are trying to get a job. AI is happening. It's best that they are familiar with these tools.

I struggle with the uncertainties that come with all of this. It was always hard to make your living in the art industry, and all of these developments are making it increasingly more difficult. But recently I realized the time I spend studying is not wasted, because I loved doing it. And I will always have that, even if I can’t pay my rent with a job in the arts. So currently I'm just trying to take it one day at a time and enjoy my journey while it lasts. If it ends there may be nothing I can do about it, and I have been blessed at least to have had these experiences. Amazing that you managed to teach yourself and get this far, all I can say is keep it up and for what it’s worth your journey is an inspiration to people like me, even through KZfaq comments like this.

Make sure to document every stage of your progress!! So that these people know that you actually put work in these. And maybe consider trying to upload on different social playform to avoid being harassed with the ai bros. I recommend pillowfort!! Its a really close tight community and the website prohibits any use of genai in drawings and writing

artmirka . . . I so understand, as a self-taught digital artist, although I paint also, I have been in the business for 25 years! Please read my comment above on my thoughts. Let you passion be your setting, your future will be what you make of it. I thought I was finished with AI, but on the contrary. Don't fight it, be human, tell your story, there is much more interest in that, as it's humans that buy art! Be a 'human' selling art! Good luck to you!

The problem is not the AI generated art. The people are the problem.

That is so shitty, im so sorry. Was also deciding on making an art account on tumblr, but its dumpster fire right now for them selling out all their users to midjourney and openai. So i suggest! At the very least, change social platforms! Facebook, reddit, and twitter are kind of...not good for an art account, always at risk for being harassed by ai bros. I really highly suggest to you that you try at pillowfort, its still small, but the community is tight knit. There's no algorithmn there so its definitely relaxed. Any ai assisted or generated works are not allowed on there! So i definitely made my stay there

I think a lot of people, don't wanna consume AI made media. Even if it's the best thing ever, as soon as we find out it's AI made, we instantly find it soulles or bad.

@@conocido4416 You'll find that most people don't care at all and you'll see this clearly when more AI stuff comes out. And the "as soon as we find out" argument implies that your bias is taking over your cognition and enjoyment of products too, we saw this clearly with the fake Palworld outrage. People were enjoying the game they just bought then all of a sudden they're malding when they find out it supposedly(not factually) used AI. This isn't logical in the slightest and the opinion of people who act like this will never matter because they're such an extreme minority. Radical zealots who don't care about fun or quality and can't be reasoned with.

@@DemWaifus you're right. It's over for artists

@@conocido4416 Sure, but lots of people won't care, either. And if you found out your absolute favourite book, album, picture or TV series, that you have obsessed over for years, was actually made by AI, would you really suddenly dislike it? Even if you would, lots wouldn't. So when AI makes things people like, it will be consumed

@@jeremymcmahon9546 yes and at that moment - we’re fucked, there’s no culture and growth without arts (and I mean all of it writing, painting, music, movies, games - you name it), so funny enough atomic bomb wasn’t what killed us, ironic enough - “creative” AI will)

As long as the aggregator scraper computer changes just one thing on the image or melds to other images, it is considered an original work. So suing the owners of said machine is very near impossible.

Don't worry, they'll sing a different tune when they are the ones in risk of replacement. And just some words of encouragement. I'm also an artist and all my life people have been telling me that art isn't a viable career choice but in my own practice I have found that people need and crave art wether they know it or not.

People who respond to you in this way are probably jealous. A lot of people are jealous of artists because they wish they could make money being creative instead of working in jobs they can’t stand just to survive. There are people who empathize with you so please don’t let these a**holes bring you down.

Are you an artist because you can paint or draw, or are you an artist because you can communicate an idea or thought through your medium of choice?

@@martinazhila6396 That's odd, I don't remember this kind of uproar from artists when AI was replacing other jobs. It's almost like people don't care until they are affected, artists included.

@@martinazhila6396 many roles on mine sites have been replaced by automated systems, as have many jobs in factories and warehouses.

Gary Marcus is a noted AI naysayer, as head of Meta's AI Lab and Meta's vice-president, Yann LeCunn, once said "It's easy to find a difficult area of science and criticise it for lack of progress and make a name for it".

I'm all for AI Nay sayers. Nerds online acts like everything that was published online was their possession. Just look at NoUSR/NoUS: "No one exists on the internet". Screw such a toxic mentality. AI makers are art thieves and intellectual property thieves and now they're making humans fucking obsolete. Are you so urged to get replaced by a machine? Physically. @@TheManinBlack9054

I'm all for AI Nay sayers. Nerds online acts like everything that was published online was their possession. Just look at NoUSR/NoUS: "No one exists on the internet". Screw such a toxic mentality. AI makers are art thieves and intellectual property thieves and now they're making humans fucking obsolete. Are you so urged to get replaced by a machine? Physically.

Truth is that AI for tedious tasks and repetitive tasks, it'S all good. But AI for tasks that brings us pleasure doing them are an annoyance.

@@TheManinBlack9054 So? argument still stands.

Real, and then the moment people at the top gets affected by these, they'll start acting up, they really don't care. Barf.

@@Bruh-vf8np The moment Biden got hit with the robocalls in New Hampshire encouraging people not to vote the FCC made AI robocalls illegal post haste. It's an uncomfortable truth that the main people allied with AI companies right now are Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer. They're the people primarily responsible for AI companies being allowed to run rampant. If artists really wanted to make a stand for themselves, those are the people who need to feel the heat. But it's also true that artists generally are going to vote democrat and be liberal or progressive. And with the specter of Donald Trump looming no one wants to speak ill of the democrats. But you all deserve at least to know who's stabbing you in the back.

It took communist revolutions and revolts sweeping through the world for decades, as well as vicious strikes, to get industrialization to not consume human children and other vulnerable categories as disposable tools to produce capital for the few. If we let the AI go further, what will it take to rein it in? We get educated to make fun of luddites, but when breaking down machinery didn't work human beings started breaking down their societies and centuries-old institutions instead.

It's not just MidJourney. It's all AI development, including ChatGPT. They steal code, newspaper articles etc... That's why New York Times sued ChatGPT and OpenAI. All AI development is based on theft. They steal labor by real humans, to train their neural networks. Code, music, video, articles, books, artwork, animation, photography, logos, characters...all stolen. It's happening left, right, center. It's shocking to me that these companies are not seen as criminal organizations. It's global scale theft, happening right in front of our eyes. Yet everyone, including governments, seems to be just standing and looking when burglars carry furniture into their van in broad daylight And sadly there's already several similar, or even "better" sites than MidJourney. For example Krea and Ideogram. Ideogram handles text much better than MidJourney, threatening graphic designers more than MidJourney. Krea on the other hand offers real-time image generation, your image changes in real time as you type. It has also other featuers that MidJourney doesn't, like intelligent upscaling, similar to Magnific AI. But all of them were trained on stolen data, including Magnific. Then there's animation sites like Pika, PixVerse and Runway. Which all are based on video/art/animation theft. Sora will be too.

Because they refuse to modernize laws for today's issues...we're still going on primitive rules from the 1700s

And thank you for making this video. It really explains everything very well. 🙏

real!

That's the price of free to use software.

That's the Internet for you. Maybe an AI is being fed these comments too?

I am glad that 16yo me had the foresight to restrict my fb and insta pages to just close friend groups.

I mean that's the thing. AI is as good at art as people are these days to the point you can't tell, and in certain areas where it isn't (say hands), it will be soon if it already isn't by tomorrow. That's how fast it moves. Real vs wrong is kind of a misnomer here. Ai art ain't wrong, if you want to argue ethics that is a different book. But if you're here to just learn art (and not shit around with ethics), then it's not objectively wrong to learn from. Human art is as real as ai art. One ain't more imaginary or tangible than the other. And art imitates life. If you really wanna learn how to draw things the "REAL" way, go do a life drawing session with a human model.

filter out images before 2020

I disagree, I’ve seen thousands of AI created art work and each time I can tell 100% it’s AI they always have the same brush patterns and lines no matter what prompt you use. AI will become scary once they add human emotion and intuition then the art it creates will be exactly the same as humans

@@mkit18 "Ai art ain't wrong" I have generated thousands of AI images so far and I can't remember seeing a single one without any wrong details. Image generation works so well because small visual errors are hard to detect for us, but they are there. That's why code generation with AI is still so bad, even small mistakes matter. Do human artists make mistakes too? Yes. But those aren't as random and unpredictable, or may even be deliberate choices. In AI those things are all mixed together. There's no way I'm gonna learn from an AI that can't even keep the light sources consistent within an image.

Use Stable Diffusion.

SO basically they can sue the artist for infringement after stealing his art. Great. We evolved in 2024

@@DemWaifus Diffusion is responsible for releasing the opensource tools that allow for photorealistic CP of real children. They are not the good guys.

Midjourney is literally closed source, if you want something uncensored then you need to use an open source model

@@GCatalinStefan did op correct smth in the edit, or did you misinterpret what they said

You cannot simultaneously complain about how AI trained and "took" all your culture (see: title of this video, even), and then also say that they are not a product of culture. These are literally exact opposite statements. Pick one.

"create an artwork in the style of Akira toriyama"

​@@gavinjenkins899 being trained with something is not synonymous with being a product of it. that's exactly the point the person above made. there is a real discrepancy because when a person creates art based on something they saw or studied or are influenced by, there are emotional, intuitive and perceptional impulses coming into play which are defining the process of creating it as well as the outcome - while AI misses all of these steps, it just blends together multiple shards of (stolen) reference by pure number/code.

@@loewi9223 Over many people, at a population level, those other factors boil down effectively to random and are functionally replaced by the RNG used to choose starting seeds in stable diffusion. The actual art strokes and patterns are just from what you've seen, re-mixed may-as-well-be randomly. By your logic, again, all human artists are also "thieves", since they stole all their tropes and brushwork and color mixing etc from artists before them without paying royalties. If you don't want art from "thieves" in that sense, have fun with empty walls, because there literally is none.

​@@gavinjenkins899 this argument is quite predictable, and in my view really shows a lack of involvement in the struggle and experience of creating. Your point of boiling down everything to randomness in order to equate the AI with the artist is not sustainable. Literally everything is inspired by the real world, yet we widely agree that there exists something called art and originality although artists have always been creating things based on what they perceive around them and based on what people before them achieved. Perception though is not something lawful or static but rather subjective and highly complex and most importantly not measurable. The point is, it’s not data. And the point is, if you tell 100 people to draw a Picasso just from memory, the result will be unpredictable and way more dynamic because each individual’s version of what constitutes the style, technique, character etc. of a Picasso is not just an artificially randomised amalgamation out of a finite set of given input but an imaginative and biased process. AI cannot be a product of any culture because it does not have any real experiences in the world, it’s just programmed to copy and blend togther.

The main issue is how to tell them apart. Who and what to trust.

@@sebastianb.1926being concerned about whats AI or not is like comparing an image formed by a camera and an artist painting the same landscape taken by the camera. Ultimately they are the same image. One can be made by non artist but an artist can still edit the photo to make it even more beautiful, interesting and pleasing to a wider audience.

So you'll never climb a mountain because using a helicopter you'll do it faster and with less effort?

​@@gabrielegagliardi3956 If you're trying to climb the mountain as a hurdle, you use the helicopter. Art is not a hurdle. It's not about pumping out a consumer safe product. It is about learning, and growing. You wouldn't use a helicopter to climb the mountain, if you're climbing a mountain for the sake of climbing a mountain. Being an artist is about improving your skills. A.I generation is about spinning a roulette wheel until it gives you something. That's why we don't use cars in the Olympics. Oh, also, it's stealing.

typical imposter syndrome, with ai you have infinity references, jesus use it to make what you love

Just use AI and you will find its limitations and with that you will find what you can do to make the world a little better. No?

I love AI generated art, because it separates the wheat from the shaffs. Either you have the desire and urge to express yourself, and create art for the sake of enjoying the process, or you have the desire to generate fame, prestige and wealth. If you only desire to create wealth, I guess AI art might destroy that dream. The people who are left are true artists. They don't paint or play music because they want to make it big, they do it because they WANT TO CREATE THEIR ART! Stop caring about what people think about your art. Stop caring about wether people will like it. Stop caring about wether it's better or worse than AI art by some stupid metric. That is not what art is about, art is about self expression. Once you create something that moves you and means something to you, what does it matter that AI art exists? You do not make AI art, you make YOUR art. People cry while Painting or playing, and you say "AI is stopping me from pursuing art" no, your lack of passion is stopping you, that's it. You have nothing to express, or else you would be doing so, undeterred by whatever someone/something else is doing. This is about you. Your art is about you.

We have robots flipping burgers now. So I guess we don't even have that.

​​@@kimatlastlooks2915 damn bro I'm Hella fked huh💀

1950s were about communism?

The primary distinction between humans and animals lies in the human capacity to create art. One could even argue that the essence of civilization is art; remove it, and humans would regress to an animalistic state.

@@kimatlastlooks2915 maybe not exactly yet, but stuff like the recently realeased "figure 01" robot will definitely not leave physical jobs like that when sufficiently advanced in the near future.

don't listen to dummies that can't appreciate the novelty of your creation. you do you !

I'm studying a BA in photography and constantly been advised to use AI. I find it both baffling and infuriating.

@@charlieribeiro6343 Landscape photography is irreplaceable. But the bullcrap stock photography of something sitting on a table really isn't that hard to replicate

Haha... that's like telling a runner that their training and technique doesn't matter as long as they can identify as a runner when they hop onto a motorcycle.

Do you get paid though?

@@johanbrandstedt9570if they took millions of picture from people without their consent, would they pay them? Of course not, that’s not how stealing data works🤓

@@johanbrandstedt9570I never saw anything on a statement.

@@Drawperfectcircles nah the stock agencies silently expanded their contracts to cover this competing use, and pay pennies. Because eThIcAL

I'm sure it's the user agreement and fine print.

ive always felt that way about social media. its just giving corporations your mind for free.

'When something is free, you are the product' in a nutshell

Not how laws work

Normal? dull

😂 Thank you for making me remember that xD You are dead right too. 🤣

This is the harsh truth of it. Even without the outright content theft, generative AI devalues artists and it's good enough for most consumers.

just don't show any of your work.

@@TamalPlays You telling that anyone can use anything in internet: movies, games, softwares, as they want for commercial use?

@@peacefulman2196 yes anyone can learn from any movies, games, softwares, as they want for commercial use.

The problem with those applications is that they heavily use the GPU, as they're AI applications as well, but they shield the art instead of using it. A lot of artists don't have access to a computer with a good GPU to use them locally, and using them on the website gives a lot of undesirable results. It is also troublesome for the people who do traditional art and whose only tool to show their artwork online is their phone camera. I feel like the only effective path we can have is through the image's metadata and law enforcement. Unfortunately, like Elon Musk said in a podcast a while ago, when AI wasn't yet so advanced, we needed legislation back then, because it was rapidly developing and when we realized we needed legislation, it would already be too late.

@@TamalPlaysjust don’t live

And they knew exactly what they were doing and the value of it. THAT is WHY they had to STEAL THE ART IN THE FIRST PLACE!

@@pat4005 Very much so. I'm just remarking about the people who use it, not the people who created it.

people who don’t do art think it is purely the idea and the end product and the in between is an inconvenience…it’s actually hilarious because some tech nerds act like they actually made the thing. I decided to try it in earnest (putting my icky feelings aside) just to see what applications it could have…one thing i realised that makes so much sense is it doesn’t feel like creation. It feels like a game or programming. It’s not “look what i made” it’s “look what I made it do” which is why it’s so popular with a particular brand of people. Legit the level of input wasn’t that much. At first i was a little thrown at how easy it was to get what was in my head down (you do start to see some limitations after a bit) i could probably get it near perfect if i went at it for a while…but why? i didn’t make it, yeah some of the pics were my charachters exactly as vividly as they appear in my head (again i was a little shook) but it’s really no different if i got somone to commission then for me.These images were not something i would proudly hold up as my own.

Are you saying that artists don't study and steal other artists' art? It's ok if they do it, but not others. Right. The software they made that is capable of doing that is by far the greatest art. And you are saying that they never had to work for it...

Nah, the lack of respect comes from the fact that they can get away with it. Artists are underpaid, have no intrinsic rights, (at least not ones they can enforce without lots of money to fight a legal battle), and are easily silenced - just like how it's easy to insist that women work deadend jobs and take 100% of care work, the same "logic" is applied when abusing the work of artists, and then pretend they're being paid fairly.

Good! Art is finally free, creating art is now open to everyone.

@@ParumPirum No its not. The AI is creating art. You're just a customer, at a restaurant asking for a "nice steak". You haven't created anything. Just because you ask to put the sauce on the side of the steak, doesn't mean you were in anyway part of the creative process. You might consider this a good thing, and it usually is typical that people laugh when some field of work is crushed under automation, and then cry when their own field of expertise gets automated. As a side question, how long do you think it's gonna be free? You think these massive corporations just stealing other peoples work for their AI datasets, are gonna keep this free forever, or just long enough to crush resistance by using the free users like yourself who think this goldmine will free forever? 😆

@@tm5123art is free, just learn to live with it buddy!

​@@ParumPirumyou create nothing , you just go to a restaurants and you tell to the chef what you want , he made it .... congratulation......

Very well put, thank you.

Couldn't have said it better, this needs to be echoed harder!

It's really quite a miracle that a conglomerate of living cells, seemingly crude and relatively "inefficient", manifest a consciousness that create imagery that is dumbfounding, beautiful and inspiring.

And AI prompters want to shortcut that. Those behind AI image generation want art to be something we simply consume.

If you know it "deep down" do you actually live it? Do you pay $400 for boutique hand crafted furniture and only the finest hand plucked goose down pillows, and hand woven table placemats, and hand blown glass goblets etc. etc. etc. in your own life? Nope. You buy cheap stuff from IKEA like the rest of us, on at least most things like that (people have specific areas they care about but not the rest). The CONSUMER is the source of all these tools. If nobody valued cheap, fast products, IKEA, and AI art, would not exist. It's caused by you and me indeed not actually valuing these things much at all, at least far less than the price tag that they necessitate. Which means we don't actually value them at their cost. Which is a fancy way of saying we don't value them.

They already have. There are articles discussing how they found private photos in the datasets which includes but is not limited to private medical photos, photos from dating apps, family photos with children, pictures of addresses with the street name visible, non-consensual leaked photos, revenge porn/abuse material, pictures of ISIS beheadings, CSAM, etc. Instagram & Facebook photos have also been scraped & trained on without knowledge or permission from their owners.

If you have a phone right now, and take pictures, and this phone was made after 2020, you already use photo Ai filters, trained by the same models, to retouch your pictures. Yes these models use your favorite photographer, artist, designer, and any other open source image in the internet.

i will never respect ai 'artists'

@@squirrelhallowino29This is something most people are ignorant of therefore just because it is used and it exploits the art of artists in the past, there is no moral justification for its use without compensating ALL artists whose images were used.

Now you know why they always want you storing your photos and other files in the cloud..

Profitability has taken us to dark places like how it's considered a risk to feed the starving and house the homeless. Everything is motivated by the profit incentive including efficiency, affordability and convenience. Why pay for quality, hard work and a passion for their craft when you can get a carbon copy from a machine? Why hire workers under good conditions and compensate them with fair pay when you could just...not?

Writers will hold all the power moving forward, they can populate there scripts and books into existence without not only an artist but also actors, film directors, lighting teams...everybody. In fact consumers will probably be able to feed books into an AI system and watch whatever visual novel they want at any time.

Everyone here realizes 99% professional art studios and actual professional artists have been using AI tools for years, right?

Technology reveals the true face of this species. It's a test, and the species is failing. All of this artificial reality creating technology proves that this isn't real. 😂

@@bo-xt1ps this is just false mate... dunno where you get your information from, but as someone who has worked in the industry, i can tell you that this is not the case.

Ackowledge the effort behind the creation for AI art too. In the past year it has evolved FAR PAST prompting. You've got visual inputs for pose, depth, style, you've got ways to train your own models, you've got to find out how to bypass the models limitations and you've got to fix the errors of the images you generate with inpainting. It's not the same job, but you fail to understand the amount of effort good AI art needs.

@Dante02d12 You must be responding to the wrong comment because nowhere did I state anything about AI art. Feel free check my other comments I left addressing the many flat out wrong points of this video regarding AI art. Digital art in general takes much less skill than traditional art. It does still take skill but technology provides so much assistance you can get by without foundational art knowledge.

@@nigel-uno So what we must naturally realize is that art is in no way about the medium or format it's made with or on. It's about what you're willing to say and communicate. It's about the reason why people should pay attention to what you're making and what you're saying through it. You must give people a reason to buy your painting as it should signify a way of thinking or a way of viewing the world. These are the experiences only artists can provide. The demand for them is never going away. Artists have simply lost sight of what it means to be an artist. It's way more than just painting or drawing or taking photos. There has simply been a demand for good looking images for commercial usage. That's not related to art though. As long as you have something impactful to say to people, you do not need to worry about AI. If you have nothing to say, you might need to be worried.

i’ve been playing around with AI to see what application it has (I don’t like AI but i want to be informed) all ethical issues aside you can use it as a tool, color pallets in particular are useful, you could use it as reference in a limited capacity…but at the end of the day it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter what you do with it if it can get “good enough” with minimal input

We call these people useful idiots.

just use open source models. Literally problem fixed

*forgets or turns the blind eye to the fact that you have to accept the terms of agreement of the tool* Unless of course they use locally ran open source models, that usually (AT LEAST IIRC) don't have the kind of stuff that paid closed source models and pay sites would have.

@@gondoravalon7540 Those open source models come with their own problems, which evidently we're not even allowed to fairly indirectly talk about based on the comments I've made that are deleted. But yes if the only thing we had to worry about was artists fucking around with open source models and training them on their own shit to see what the algorithms would spit out there would be no war right now.

it already is but its variations lawsuits would of the exact signature riffs signature Sound clips .. example ROCK BAND SPIRIT tried too Lawsuit Led Zeppelin of using certain sound riff and melodies of Spirit Taurus song - for the Famous Song Stairway To heaven , and UK Court claimed it was not the exact same signature riff or Melodies as Taurus .. and there so many rock artist that took riff melodies from other bands for one Metallica took some riffs david bowie .. speaking of the so called theft if you are using microsoft windows guess what , its a variation of Macintosh OS Macintosh GUI is a Variation of the ALTO Star early 1970s computer Microsoft DOS is a Variation of a Seattle Computers Version Qdos / 86-dos of a CP/M Operating system

There´s very few professions out there, stealing as much stuff as the music industry. Literally *every* song on the radio sounds the same as the one before.

Suno AI (audio music gen) already exists and they have aggressive lookups if any of your lyrics are close to something existing. You're right about the music copyright being very tight. It needs to be much stronger, or even exist, for the art world. Style isn't something you can really copyright though so that's where all the artists will lose out. There's no way in hell you could copyright an artistic "style". If that were the case, any up and coming artist or fledgling painter would have been shut down by the big studios for even attempting fan art. We learn by copying...that's the art world man. It's been that way for millennia.

Yep yep yep! We've been through this shit many times before. Photography, then computers, Photoshop, etc etc. So sick of this 'real Artist' ego tripping bs. As if they're the only ones about to be out of work...UBI UBI UBI!

You shouldn’t use music copyright as a precedent worth aspiring to, it’s basically a grift for IP holders to sue artists who accidentally used the wrong 5 notes in order. Most musicians would change it to be more lenient, afaik.

Real sigma

Same. Also don't be so negative, the more you draw the better you'll get! Practice makes perfect.

that's how an artist would think, not a businessperson. The bottom line/profit matters more than the honor of how art is created.

@@MrSkullface well yes, thats capitalism. exploitation where eve it is posible.

@@oportium777 Before the modern era, many people lifted heavy stuff not because they want it but they had to, to earn a living wage. Now many people lift heavy stuff not because they had to but they want to, to keep themselves fit. You can still do what you like if even forklifts have replaced you. You don't need to be salty about it, the world doesn't owe you anything. It has nothing to do with capitalism PS: if I could create my own AI to solve my problem, I would. I'm a programmer, my job is to solve things. And anything that would solve my problem for me is always a good thing. The world will never run out of things to solve anyway. So as a professional problem solver, I would gladly welcome automation so I can finally move on to the next problem

Support from people like yourself who have no direct investment means the world to me as an artist. We live in a very callous world where a lot of people turn a blind eye to issues that don't affect them personally.

@@Metal-Spark I'm not an artist either but have doubled and redoubled my support, both financially and in raising awareness of this issue. I love experiencing creative works and it disgusts me the way corporations have rapaciously plundered the worlds creative works and for what? Well money obviously but these tools contribute nothing to culture or any kind of new artistic direction. By their very nature they can't. When I look at "AI art" all I feel is emptiness.

@@Metal-Spark hellbellies should support you with his wallet, not with empty words.

You literally use computers. What about all the people you use as a commodity? You can do everything on the world on a computer which put many people out of jobs over the last few decades.

@@Sammysapphira A fair point, except that AI is coming for your job too no matter what it is. People will have to agree to disagree about the status and position of cultural workers in society otherwise.

It took effort to study and appropriate style. It doesn’t now. Incomparable

@@RealityRecovery Totally depends on how skilled you are at the craft of your choice. If you're a novice, then yes. It will take time. If you're a pro, you can replicate a style very quickly, if not immediately, to get a paid job done. As I said in my examples. I replicate other peoples styles quickly all the time. And I have a friend who does commercial visual art... he can replicate styles on the spot, for his visual ad job. This is commonplace.

you will understand when someone usind Ai replicate your voice in a song and sell that piece of music like if it was you , a style for a painter is his/her sign of identity, for a musician is the voice , imaging someone using Beyonce voice in their music without her consent ,,,

​@@SibilaDelphos My initial comment is in response to 'style' and making and selling 'sound a likes' in reference to a 'style', which is perfectly legal and ethically acceptable to do in music and other art forms. Your comment in response, sounds like you're conflating "likeness" & "style". These are not the same. A voice, a unique vocal timbre, is considered, legally, to be part of someone's "likeness." How they choose to use it to interpret music and feelings is "style". Again, in music, singing included, "style" is freely replicated with no consequence: legal or ethical. Same in literature. Same in commercial visual advertising. People use other visual artists style in advertising, all the time. For example: Lipton created a Dali referenced ad of a melting chip bag over a tree branch. Kitchen Aid made visual ads in the style of Matisse, Dali & Klempt. These are a few of many examples. This is not unheard of and copying "style" has been ongoing, commercially even, before ai ever entered the scene. Ai is en mass, putting in your face, for you to look at, what humans have already been doing to each other for countless a millennium. Let's be clear, if you'd like to pivot the conversation to a different facet of the Ai discussion, ie "Likeness," we can go there. "Likeness" by legal definition is considered to be a person's name, face, voice timbre. To use a person's "likeness," without their permission, for commercial purposes, violates their rights of publicity and other IP rights. The only exception is in the use for a parody. Then it's fair game, with or without their permission. Your comment would be akin to getting Ai to make a Dali "look-a-like," telling everyone it's an original Dali and selling it under false pretense. That would be forgery and fraud. I have yet to hear anyone do this type of action with ai visual art. As far as ai copying the "likeness" of a voice, IE: replicating someone's specific vocal timbre for a song - each time this has been done, so far, the people who posted the tracks for sale, was in violation of "likeness" public/privacy rights and had to pull the track from acquiring money. They can be made for non commercial use, though. If someone were to do this with my voice, that's fine. My personal discography is up, so it can be easily referenced what are original tracks of mine and what are not. Parody use allows people to use art, music and likeness all the time, without legally having to pay the original artist anyway! Currently, high ticket vocalists are getting pitched by songwriters with a song demo using an ai version of the artist's voice. What might happen, as the technology advances, is pitched song demo's may become the final step in the creative process. What if someone asks the artist, "hey, you wanna cut this song?" and they say, "I don't have to, that's me"? No amount of ai will stop humans from creating art. Period. Ai will have disruptive consequences in the commercial corporate world. Absolutely. What that looks like is still unfolding. Can you articulate specifically, what are you personally afraid of? What might the positive opposite of that fear be? If you were to assume that positive opposite to be true, how might you next proceed?

@@joanie-music when Ai start affecting you , and you don't like it, remember this conversation

you call that a competition?

Right - but this is not available to everyone. I'd even argue, art that's supposed to hang on the wall is less at danger as is the people working in the creative industry (like character, or prop designers). Here we have the opposite effect - they were already not payed well, now the pressure will get even worse.

just saw your work homie, trust me, your stuff aint gucci HAHAHAHAHA.

its not even available to him, his stuff is poopoo. @@lalicaroful

​@@micaheiber1419 Can you elaborate on the aviation industry crashing pls? How and when??

Then again, everyone can be an artist today. Just draw a yellow circle on a blue canvas. Voila. Gimme thousands.

They probably already mentioned it in their EULA's you carelessly clicked ok on when you started using Behance.

All my homies hate Adobe

Adobe staff has been reported to have "identity crisis" and "depression" because they have to develop Firefly AI. There was a leaked Slack conversation, it was in the news. The CEO wouldn't say stuff like this of course. But not everything is hunky-dory at Adobe

thats why i pirate all adobe softwares

I just think that's pointless - other similar artists have, and will continue to, upload art, so denying yourself the chance at an audience just seems pointless.

@@unturned6066 but when showing to an audience you are doing it using another company, that you dont own, disks and memory are from them. You are putting your stuff into private property that you dont own, and when doing it you are accepting the rules of the owner of the house, and you are accepting what you are uploading there isnt entirely yours any more. There come the paradox, you dont own the audiences, the company you are using does. Unless you pay for ads. So, there is no escape, jobs and art will soon become as meaningful as meaningless. You cant be freelance without first working for someone, these days.

I think at this point influencing your community in your area. Like where traditional is cherished.

totally pointless, even if 60% listened, 40% wouldnt and the ferris wheel wouldnt stop, the harm is already done, but fuck ai art its not the problem, we'll cry 10x more when this tech gets incorporated into military tech, like lets just stop here, everything at openai will get leaked cause altman is a greedy corpo not a human being anymore

terrible advice artists post everything online because the traction it might get will help them find new jobs later down the line

So beaitfully said.

Art will not die, but diluted people working for big corporations who insist on still calling themselves 'artists' will go away pretty quickly.

@@audiogus2651I think we should be careful demonising people identifying as, e.g., artists. Your concept of an artist might come from the journey someone endured to reach that skillset. The process gives meaning to the concept of “mastery” or “artist”. But for others, the ability to transform their imagination/ideas into a visual product, employing all the tools provided, may be considered “art”. We always strive for diversity of processes - so does using the variety of AI tools add to it? Even though we may perceive it as oversimplifying/non-creative/destructive? I think it’s kinda unfortunate that we only look at the artists’ perspective on the matter, but don’t consider those who have been subject to social media’s influence from childhood onwards, such as indicating one’s uselessness compared to “masters in their craft”. AI wouldn’t have those features if there weren’t humans desiring it. It’s way more complex and multifaceted and can’t be pinned down to a unidimensional statement such as theft or copyright violations. At least that’s my humble opinion. Lots of love

A super thoughtful way of looking at it. As an artist I view AI as a tool. I hate the thought of replacing the human aspect, but to use AI for ideas is and should be just fine.

There's no such thing as ethical or unethical models just as there's no ethical or unethical way to learn how to draw.

@@DemWaifus Ai is no human. Ai don't learn. Ai is copypaste mixer

​@@sevcrycatthey don't copypaste tho

Its over for you, buddy boyos.

@DemWaifus do not compare the learning process of an artist as ethical or unethical, you know quite well the process in an artists journey is respectively their own. you're comparing that to people whom are using the models as not a reference, but a final product. as artists uses others work as references and not their final product and STILL gives credit to the referenced artist. WE are NOT the same. do not confuse the two. we don't steal from others then and don't try to justify it now.

it is very good

I agree. Every different element of the debate that I’ve heard or thought about was covered, and done in a way that’s very easy to understand.

Journalists will be replaced as well.

Stop calling those other folks "artists." They are paintbrush users.

Subjective... At worst, we would call them curators. But then many would consider curation an art in and of itself. Prompt engineering is also considered an art and science by many. "Art" has a lot of definitions, and you're trying to force yours on other people - without even clearly stating what your definition is. I could give a definition, but I understand that it would be subjective and pointless. And I wouldn't try to make other people use it.

​​​@@mattlove1actually start calling them "artist" because ai would literally be nothing without them. His statement is accurate: Users, or prompt writers or disegners are all quite accurate. Stop the cap.

@@isaacsmithjones there's no way around it, you cannot call anyone capable of typing a prompt an "artist", not even based on any subjective interpretation of the word "art". "Prompt engineers" in the art world have always existed, and they are called "commissioners", not artist. If you don't accept that, feel free to call restaurant customers "cooks" because they prompt the waiters what they want, and it magically appears on the table and tastes good.

​@@saantonandre If your definition of an artist is limited to just someone who uses a paintbrush, pencil, or markers. Than you're absolutely right. But alot of people are ok with generalising an artist as a skilled craftsman of any sort. So if where you are drawing the line in the sand is based on some modicum of effort or skill, then know that there's more to prompt engineering than just typing text that any literate buffoon could type.

AI image generators are not for artists though, they are for consumers. Art as a hobby is not for everyone, but some of those people still have a want/desire for customized images. For them the final product is what matters. Before AI the only options were to learn a skill you have no interest in or pay for an expensive commission. Ai is meant to be a cheaper and faster alternative for those people.

@@OMGUKILLKENNY2 yeah I understand. And I know the day is coming when I will likely be replaced by ai or forced to comply with a process that involves generative ai in order to continue working in my field. It is a depressing thought for me and I only hope I can continue to do what I love, maybe I won’t make a living out of it but I cannot conceive of abandoning it.

@@rachelhandleyart If it is something you love doing then please keep doing it. Even though I support the advancement of AI I still respect what good artists are able to do and believe that everyone should have something they are passionate about just for themselves.

@@OMGUKILLKENNY2 yeah, we're seeing AI/automation take over lots of jobs etc. I just hope the mongrels who champion AI art, will remember to not cry when their own jobs, or the jobs of their children get phased out under automation in the future, as they were the useful idiots pushing this forward.

@rachelhandleyart I produce music because I like doing it. I know AI can do it better and faster. But why should I bother? I'll just carry on as before and have the same fun.

...and yes it turned out we do. What was the point here?

@@gavinjenkins899 just saying that the quote is quite similar

No one can stop AI, creative people can use it as a tool just like photoshop. The ones who are afraid of AI just follow the rules thought to them and follow a function similar to AI never straying the path imposed upon them.

I wish i could give you a hug or something cuz i feel you but maybe you are the person now to have to get inspired, I am not psychiatrist or anything like that but somehow my journey in art was pretty hard on me mentally, first burnouts, envy and now AI right they are not the gratest mindset for a creative person with low selfworth. 2022 was the year i stopped drawing for quite some time, somehow in 2023 i created few characters that i am super bounded with, my own tiny little universe with goofy story. These characters still live in my head and paper only with maybe very few sketches i did somewhere on my ipad. I am also musican and i really assosiate the music with my characters, the entire vibe it hits the feel of where and when they live. So now im spending my live on checking these things on the list of what i wanna achieve, there is animation in one of them, animation that will take me ages and stuff to finish, i might be even the most like outdated human ever but i have so much determination to finish this project. Just seeing the storyboards, analyzing all the frame by frames, acting out the characters to see how would they react in certain situation, im compiling entire story on the cork board like a detective, inspired by sims2, goofy movie like what is that combination. It's so much fun to me now, even tho this all is happening in the world and we are literally getting scrambled by this stupid technology it's devastating cuz it makes world more fake and ugly, so i will create my own world in a way to get away from what is happening around. Im still like struggling with the AI but now when its work rolated. but we are living in really dark place atm so lets light a candle in there. I know what i said is such a nothing burger but who knows what can inspire people again. Like there are people who make furnitures like carpenters and they still get people to order something from them sometimes, like literally most humans have furniture but some of that furniture could be made by a carpenter and the rest by some factory. well the factory desk i bought some time ago it kinda broke so i had to take my carpenter desk back again, and it was solid. Stuff that are hand made might just feel better. Like what am i saying i hope whatever that was helped at least in like 1,23% or sth like there is more than internet in art

Wait ArtStation is promoting AI generated images now?!

After ArtStation showed it's true face, i made the decision to not even bother with it again. I currently search for sites that only host human art like Artgram.

What artstation betrayal? Did any of you read the terms of service? Artstation, Deviantart, and most other art hosting websites OWN YOUR WORK.

@@miriadesNot only promoting, they are selling prints!

Gen AI by it's very nature cannot generate new ideas. It tries to get around this limitation by introducing stochasism, or randomness. Randomness however is not intentionality. Whatever deviations it makes from the most expected results aren't the result of a conscious decision or anything resembling intentionality. This single feature is what has given AI it's mystique. We've known for 60 years that if a chatbot gives a reasonably human seeming response people will "imagine" a consciousness behind it. It's no different with art. If something is generated that seems plausibly human, then it is human nature to imagine a conscious, intentional will behind it even if we know that it's just a computer program with a fancy algorithm. Buuuut we're getting into the history of machine learning and experiments run a long time ago. AI companies don't really give a shit about any of this they just want to hoover up as much money as they can by stealing from artists.

@@Fuertisimodos That's b/c AI can't use weed and other stimulants artists use to make 'conscious' decisions.

That's just selfish of you not to let the AI take a few hits.

@@Fuertisimodos I think the AI developers are trying to put the control of conscious decision making into the hands of the user. They now have many settings that can be adjusted to get the intended result. In a sense, it can be used with intentionality.

I hope anyone seeing my comment here in this thread will look for and read my larger argument in a top-level comment on this video of why what you're saying here misses the mark because of a lack of understanding of how generative AI actually works.

I believe these are the words of a true artist. What I think is the most important aspect of art, is what you're willing to say with it. Why should people pay attention to what you're making? Why should they be a part of it? Because you should be able to say things so profound through your medium, be it music, painting or photography that people can't help but stop and listen. AI wont take that away. I feel the only people who fear AI are the people who have nothing to say. They don't see a reason for art other than making money. It's a bit sad to see how it's become this way but I think there's a possibility change the mentality. This is the perfect opportunity for artists to create a movement using their art to communicate these ideas and have them resonate with people. Create change and make people think. Yet all we have are spammed images of stop signs on forums...

Yes, I was focusing on the style mimicry, but actual impersonation and copying the likeness of people is a huge problem too. Some of the generated illustrations demonstrates this in a way (Henry Cavill, Keanu Reeves, Hugh Jackman)

Imagine now what kind of things can be used in court houses...now what? will we need "experts" to clarify if a video is real or fake? I can´t scream this louder, this is beyond a socio-economic consequence or even about art, this tool question the limit of the existential? Are we going to take this road to the total virtual world with AI, robots... which ironically pretend to offer "human experiences" just to keep us away of LIVING the real life in the real world , with people, communicating face to face???? ....

So was Photoshop.

i know artists always appreciate people who value and respect art, technologists or not, especially nowadays. i also see more and more artists and non-artists talking about giving up on internet as it is, when with more ai-garbage and deepfakes you can't tell anymore what is real, and social media are draining your soul and so on. so i hope you are right and we'll see more of this in the future (hopefully the near one)

Very few people can afford hand painted paintings, and an AI can just make a print and put that in a gallery if you're selling prints, which most people would need. I suppose you could sell prints in a bin underneath the actual painting to prove it's real... but then how would their friends know it was real when they hang it? If you can't afford the real thing personally just for you, which like 90% of people can't, then there's no distribution or display or sales method that solves that.

I suspect the medium will be videos over .pngs, etc actually. At least for 2D work. While 3D digital artists and videographers may choose to showcase how they created their work

The cost of college was over-inflated anyway. If the explosion of AI art causes tuition prices to go down then I suppose that’s one thing we can be grateful for. for anyone who bought into the scam at 50k / 70k per year though, I do feel for them.

for a lot of new artists using it as a “tool” they’re really going to be doing themselves a disservice.Ethics aside you have to know how to do the thing before you take shortcuts

AI will change the entire education system - for the better.

No that isn't the same thing. If that were the case humans couldn't create art based off of other art styles. And of course that is the rule. The homework analogy is so bad, it isn' even funny. Homework is supposed to reflect learned skill. Art doesn't require any reflection of anything it is a mere creative process.

I disagree. Today we still have master woodworkers making amazing things, even though the invention of machine mass production made the prospects of being a career woodworker next to impossible. We may not have as many master painters or drawers as people move to the other alternatives. But there will still be people who have a desire for expression and the urge to make something unique. Some will stick with traditional while at the same time I won't be surprise if some of the next generation of master artists are coders who alter image generating ai scripts to create one of a kind outcomes.

it is likely there will be less.@@OMGUKILLKENNY2

AI will soon ensure that we all have a lot of time on our hands. The arts will flourish.

Trust me, art nowadays is nothing compared to 600 years ago. People sell pictures that look like a toddler drew them for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

There is already people who paint over printed AI generated images and pass them as their "original" art.

​@@RaydenLGX I have big doubts that these AI replications in oil look masterful, fake is always a fake. But yeah ai consiquences are everywhere in art nowadays.

There already ai that can create textured art to printvon 3d printer😢 to pas as original art.

Too late, they're 3D printing paint onto canvas now so it looks like real brush strokes. Nobody can tell if the "painting" on the canvass was actually hand painted or not. This is a Kobayashi Maru situation, human art is officially dead.

Fake is fake, chillout.

A really good motorcycle pinup AI "shoot" of multiple images would also take all day, many many hours. Saying that it took you several hours is not very impressive by contrast, it just sounds like two similarly effective tools for doing the same thing, in this case.

@@gavinjenkins899 I'm just a hobby photographer, not a professional. I do that in my free time (6-8 Hours), I don't get paid for all of that. There are Professionals which would shoot for days of course, but they aren't cheap. And in the AI Prompter (they aren't artists), won't prompt for days for just a set of pics. They don't want to invest time in learning actual skills, so they won't invest time for a photo set. They want results as fast as possible.

Keep in mind a lot of people here wouldn't consider you an artist because you don't paint or draw. I fear most of the confliction comes from the way people use the word artist. As we see, it can mean many things, so what does it actually mean? I believe artist are simply people who can communicate their thoughts or ideas through their chosen medium. The most important thing in it is what you're willing to say. Artists are the kind of people who would create an entire art gallery exhibition simply to show their distain for ai through their photographs. Or writing. Or painting. Artists talk through their medium. You'd only have to fear if you have nothing to say to the people around you.

That is why you need to get more creative. A boring sunset shot at the beacht is not enough anymore.

@@namaehik0kaikimo795 Doing more is not the answer. It never is. That's how you end up with a race to the bottom. You need to understand why you're doing what you're doing, only then other people might care to join your cause.

Yessssss!

Why don't you fight for the abolition of the private intellectual property of artists? Communism is happening now!

You must speak to it in stream of consciousness mixed with unrelated exclamations of words in beats infused with emotional Dada. It will give you crazy stuff, baby (just for fun, of course). I have seen the milky way up close and personal.

won't ever happen as they aren't doing anything illegal.

I agree, we won't be losing any artists(because people will always want to see things made by people) and the people that actually want high end art, will have to pay higher because its a luxury now.

I cared and continue to buy music but yeah f-all no-one else seemed to care. Thinking it will somehow work out.

For the record, musicians are speaking out against generative AI too

I'm visual artist and I'm not using spotify for that reason, its a personal choice and each personal choice matters.

Except you can't let companies manifest destiny their way into every aspects of your life. Their goal = growing profits, your goal = live a meaningful life. See the discrepancy? As an arist you didn't have a choice to adapt or not. They MADE you adapt. That's why it's important to fight back politically. This isn't about personal choice because it's a systemic problem. If we let companies do whatever then they'll monetize air and plaster advertisements in the sky. Then what? You'll keep on saying "Life always sucked. Make your own oxygen and don't look up"?

Because their brains are too stupid to comprehend logic.

Are we really going to pretend _artists_ aren't the one on the defensive? I recall them literally manifesting on Deviantart.

So you tell them off, acting as an aggressor, then they become defensive in response? How fascinating, it's as if that's how the average person works.

@@Dante02d12 Tell me where you live, I'll come take some of your stuff and see you teach us NOT to be on the defensive.

@tonyblast4592 Nothing is taken. You're not depossessed of anything. You also don't own traits, you don't own the notion of colors, you don't own the notion of shading. You likely don't even own the characters you're drawing, lmao. Most artists online get popular by using IPs they're not allowed to. Yep, fanarts are illegal. But when you do it, it's alright. Also, you're off-topic.

Copyright doesn't protect artists, it protects record companies' profits.

Andy Warhols estate owes Campbell's Soup billions.

Photography was not a replacement for painters although there were many luddites who viewed it that way at first. This is just sloppy reasoning.

"...too lazy to research and get to know the artists they want to copy". Okay that's kind of meta ie. beside the point. What proportion of the entire sum total of all artists on planet Earth do that? That sounds more like something that someone who spends a lot of money going to art school would say

A comic artist who drew Spider-Man complaining that AI does it faster is not making a convincing copyright argument.

People thinking that complex art created by people is from an AI and that that degrades complex art is a ridiculous argument. Just sign your work.

And I don't think damage control would work against AI models. Hardly any Artist would voluntarily opt in to have AI train on their work because that would not only make their own future hard, it would also make it harder for the industry and its people. Keep in mind that AI only needs to use an image once, then it stores its data and pattern in storage devices in a different form. And since the data has been converted into a different form, they use it as an excuse to say the data has been transformed and thus, it is a "derivative work." And there are also chances that many would give in for the money that these greedy Companies would offer to have their work used to train their AI. Highly unlikely will they be able to train their AI model on few images and it's not even possible for them to pay the amount to the total number of artists and their works to train their AI. And also, images that have no information of their origin, considering that the use of those images in AI models would harm the individuals, they should not be allowed to use it however they want.