I'm not scared of scammers passing off AI generated art as real, I'm scared of the counter Celestia has for this claim. I'm scared of hours of my work being demeaned and thrown out the window on the off chance that someone, somehow, recreated my art with an AI generator. I'm scared of being called a faker and having my reputation ruined all because technology overstepped it's boundaries. I spent 7 years of my life perfecting my skills, and art is ALL I know. I'm scared that some bot will come in and take that all away from me, and there will be nothing I can do, because few seem to even take artists and their concerns seriously.

Sometimes I wonder what old artists like rennaissance painters and comic strip artists would think of this stuff.

My biggest fear is the fact that people won’t want to commission me anymore if these ai generators become more and more mainstream and more available to the public. Because for a lot of people who commission artists, they often don’t think “wow, I love the composition of this piece! Look at all the work that went into it!” Instead; they think “wow, it looks cool!”. Which in most cases isn’t a bad thing. But if those same people apply that mindset to what they create with AI, why would they need to commission artists anymore? They can instead just create exactly what they want with a program. And that’s what scares me.

Another day another slay and good take I’ve seen people who use ai art and pretend it’s their own art 💀💀💀

I’ve always hated AI art. It’s helped me a lot in referencing scenes for my comic, but that’s only referencing. If I can take hours making something, whereas a computer can make the same thing in less than a minute, why does my career have any meaning? Why is my art worth anything? It’s a question I’ve been thinking of for a few months.

Majority of art bought by schools, hospitals, business are mundane and non controversial by design. It might not be "ART" but the "art substitute" might be a digestible substitute for these purchasers who just want to fill a blank wall .

I think it's... tricky. To say "it's far away from now" does not bode well because technology's development is moving exponentially so what isn't possible today could be very possible in 20, 10, 5, or next year. You can't control that, and once you've opened that pandora's box, there's no going back. I'm a millenial and I have still met classical graphic designers who were trained on drawing all signage by hand, they're not of retirement age and many have lost their jobs to "AI" tools already such as text box tools. Sure, they didn't learn the new tools, but nobody offered to train them, either, they just walked into work and received a pink slip and suddenly the industry has no need for their skills. So, while I am curious about the utility of these tools, I lean towards being fearful of them, because what seems like a long way away from you might be a hell of a lot closer than you realized. AI replacement, or even just jobs exclusively for the people who modify the AI algorithms, could be coming before you turn 30. And *then* what will you do for the rest of your life? Contrary to popular belief on the internet, you're not dead at 30, you're not even midlife. Can you start over so soon into your career? Can you abandon painting in colors for coding? I think the risk-reward is way out of balance, the risk is way deeper and more impactful than the reward. tl;dr, I'm not concerned about the definition and platform of AI art, art always has infinite room to exist, I'm afraid all of the centralizing corporate money will go there and thousands more artists will go unemployed as a workforce. If we had a UBI system or weren't under capitalism, I would not be concerned at all.

Im 18 and had taken my art practice seriously for a year and a half and was planning to potentially develop it into a full scale career, but what really demotivated me from making art this last couple of weeks is when I heard abt AI art. After watching all the vids of what the technology can do to create images really made me think twice about pursuing art seriously. idk what to do 😢

I dont think ai generated art will ever fully replace human artists. Theres so many niches in many aspects of creating art that cannot be replicated by an ai like character design, consept art, realism, animation, story boards, vector art, comission art of a real human/pet etc and just physical paintings, the list could go on. Ai replacing us is a scary thought for sure and people will absolutely abuse the fact anyone can use ai art generators, wheter its people who use it and claim they created whatever was generated or people who simply trace absolutely everything and again reclaim its their original creation when in fact it wont be. Lets not blame the tool, blame the people abusing it. Also ai generators themselves are art, but they simply create imitations of art. Someone created that ai and made it work and thats increndible, they absolutely deserve any money they can get if people want to use the generated images in any commercial use

I think its a good alternative for backgrounds. I mostly use stock images(completely free like pexels) and blur them, but these might be a limimited on some specific subject. Since these arent used as the main content only the mood matters.

I'm paraphrasing this from another comment I saw before, but digital artists aren't afraid of AI replacing them, they are afraid that people think that there is nothing special about digital art as an expressive art form. If there was an AI that artificially made music on par with the top artists today, people probably still wouldn't like it simply because they know there is no expression behind it. For the most part, that is not the case for digital art.

AI cannot steal the soul of an artist. Your original creations have your soul imbedded into them, I truly believe that. You get a certain feeling when you witness real, good art, that's intangible

The problem is that graphic designers, and animaters are already under payd, work in bad conditions, overwhealmed by long working hours, and mistreated, by companies. I want to work with animation, but this, and the fackt that even a movement that was created to help, and spread awarenes about that animaters are not robots, and that the industry's bad treatment of them didn't help screars, and angers me. Even before this my only hope was indi animated, and games. The only company, or studio I can see myself work for is the studio that made Cuphead (I forget they name), because one of the reasons why they spent 4 years working on the DLC is because of the well being of the emplyies. If the indi industry don't surviv, then my only hope is making webb comics, and self publishing a book with my illustrations, or to become a housewife, because outside of drawing I'm not really good at anything. (Sorry for the grammar, and spelling mistakes, English is not my first language.)

I imagine it’s gonna be the same with NFTs, lots of outrage, then when everyone realizes it’s not going anywhere, they abandon ship. I think we should worry about the chuckleheads who still pretend that digital art isn’t real despite not being able to tell the different between a traditional one. As well as dealing with the pseudo-outrage of people tracing when they’re being super transparent and say, “Oh yeah, I traced the pose during the OG sketch”

People seem to be paranoid that this is gonna be like how machines replaced factory workers, cashiers, and more recently delivery drivers. However, all of those jobs are so simplistic that they don't require a human. Art is different. Screwing a cap onto a soda bottle, typing numbers on a cash register, and delivering a pizza aren't the same as drawing. Artistry has so many skill sets and nuances that a robot will never be able to replicate it authentically. In terms of big industry jobs being taken away, A.I. isn't even advanced enough to write a script without grammatical errors, let alone animate an entire cartoon. At most, backgrounds may be utilized by A.I since those are static images. Actual characters who talk and move can't really be created by A.I.

I am probably going to drop my plans on an art career honestly. This basically turned my whole world upside down. It will be a long time mind you, the AI can't even scratch the surface of replacing any artist right now....but in a couple decades I think we'll see art teams for games and projects being cut in half or more so; and it just being one smaller team using AI to match productivity of more people. Then as the years go by they'll see less and less of them with jobs. I think it is a lifetime away, but it will happen. Sure traditional art will still have value, maybe more so as less people pursue art in fact- but overall artistic jobs will become more limited than ever. People will become more and more able to communicate what is in their mind quickly and visually however which is awesome. This sucks for artists but will be better for everyone else. So I say full steam ahead with the AI tech; but we need to do something to help artists maintain their living standards. These are people that spent decades buildiing their skills and career, they may not have another skill that they can fall back on. Also, AI will need new imagery or it will stagnate. So there will still be SOME demand but it will grow less and less over time.

If somebody creates a robot that randomly splashes paint on a wall it is considered art what the AI is doing is the same thing just the artist who created it are the people who coded it.

I could see this being a good tool for making backgrounds and stuff, as long as people would be honest about it. However I know there'd be people who would use it then claim they spent hours drawing it

I'm sorry that this is long. You've been warned. AI will eventually become more efficient and it will take less manpower to create the desired results, which equals to more profit so most will adapt it. My fear is the generations that will not pursue an art's education because it is pointless since AI exists. AI art will further lower the demand for art programs across the world. Kids won't even dream of becoming artists, they will simply give a prompt to an AI. I like the vid, but the 10 years from now AI is what I am worried about. This is not NFTs, AI is capitalism's final form, human free low cost labor.

I doubt AI can ever fully replace art, its extremely complicated, holding many nuances and levels of depth I don't think a robot can ever truly grasp, but you honestly never know what these things are capable of💀 that thought is terrifying.

music producer and debatable artist here :) while not a perfect comparison as it doesn't make something for you, i'm reminded a lot about the split opinions surrounding tools such as autotune and other vocal-correction tools in music production. there has been and always will be people who will claim to just be able to hit notes cleanly, etc, but still use the tools in secret. depending on the obviousness of the tool used to achieve it, it can be clear as day, or very hard to notice that any correction has been done at all. for the most part the vibe in the music-production community i'm a part of is that if you're asked if you can really sing like that, you tell the truth. your point about experts being able to spot a fraud was probably one of the more comforting points in the video because - as someone who has been producing music, and yes, using vocal correction tools to varying degrees, for 12 years now - i can preeeeetty confidently tell when vocals have been toyed with even subtly. even as this tech has become way more advanced over the years, you'll still frequently get those inhuman artifacts of the process. once you know what to look (or listen) for, you'll find it a lot more. in the case of vocal tuning, it's little unnatural wobbles as it tries to pull your note up or down a little, or fizzing of consonants, and a few other things; for AI imagery as of right now, it's anatomy, faces in particular. But even as those get improved, there's always going to be something off, and I'm fairly confident there'll always be someone who can tell. Even after my initial "wow that's incredible" moments from using various AI imagery tools, they've very quickly shifted to "yep that's definitely AI". Everyone knows this tech exists and could become a problem, and as a result everyone, especially those in the art community are gonna be on their toes, and there will be plenty of adept sleuths who will be quick to see the signs and call out frauds. Also, finally, (wow i didn't mean to talk so much about this lol) as a musician who needs artwork for albums and songs regularly, AI is a fun option once or twice with a clear "this was made with AI to accompany this piece", but it could never replace someone making something bespoke to go with your product, and honestly the good feelings that come from supporting other creators and having other people contribute to your work in a meaningful way. i think the impressiveness of AI will soon diminish and fraudulent attempts and corporate reliance on it will soon become pretty vapid and obvious.

AI will never be able to replace the human mind and imagination, it's just impossible

wow. the part about being able to tell ai art from artesian art shows how far we have come in a month. now it is impossible to tell them apart.

Job markets don't really care about people,they just want to get the job done. So if they can replace living people with needs with something that needs an update once in a while,they absolutely will. I'm pretty sure that only the top percent of artists with their already established styles will survive,anybody that's still in the process of learning or want to learn has just been made obsolete. That scene from the incredibles movie keeps playing in the back of my mind in this situation.

I can't imagine any scenario in which AI doesn't almost completely replace a large portion of graphic design work. Virtually every business that can replace graphic designers will replace them. They already don't want to pay artists. Everyone I've seen who says otherwise has based their opinion on the *current* state of AI. This is like someone in 1900 saying phonographs don't sound good enough to really take off. I'm sure things will go differently with businesses where the artwork itself is key to their success like comics, animated films, visual effects, prop and set design, etc. In those cases, I think you're exactly right and AI will be simply another tool for now. But consider book cover designs. Most are already garbage based entirely on trends with little effort put into them. Each genre has a standard cover and virtually every book sticks to that standard. AI was made for this sort of thing. It's perfect. If the desired result is just a near copy of what's trending, why pay someone when you can press a button? Of course trends have to start somewhere and at least for the time being, I think they'll start with human artists. Publishers promoting big name writers might still pay artists, but everyone else will press the button and the results will be nearly identical to what they would have paid a person to do. In the same way, Larry's Refrigerator Repair Shop isn't going to pay someone to design a logo anymore. That's already happening. A big, multi-billion dollar brand might still hire designers almost as a sort of prestige thing and to push creative boundaries, but even they will use AI to save as much money as possible. I also think people are underestimating the potential complexity of AI. I think it'll one day mimic creativity itself in a way indistinguishable from human creativity. Everyone thinks I'm nuts when I say that, but I see no reason it won't or couldn't happen. It's the exact thing they're trying to accomplish and I think they're going to succeed. Eventually, AI will not be the clay. It'll be the sculptor. I think there will come a day when nobody, not even professional artists, can consistently spot the difference between AI generated art and human artwork. And this is just the very, very beginning. Decades from now, you'll be able to just say "A bank heist comedy film set in 1960s Vienna directed by Quentin Tarantino starring Marlon Brando and Pee Wee Herman" and it'll actually happen. And it'll be a guaranteed 3 star script if you sign up for the plus package. I can also imagine a backlash happening similar to the resurgence in popularity of vinyl records. As the world becomes more and more "fake," some portion of people will crave what they consider authenticity. I bet one day, for example, there will be comic book publishers whose whole selling point is that they don't use AI. And, like analog recordings, nobody will actually be able to tell the difference between the analog and the digital. I think there will always be a place for high art. With some styles of art like expressionism, the fact that it was made by a human being is essential to the style itself. The stuff that "looks like my 5 year old painted it" could of course be done by AI, but the whole point is to express an emotional reality. I think there will always be room for the human hand in art, if only for philosophical and emotional reasons. As I said before about a backlash, perhaps we might even see a wider appreciation of "real" art that currently isn't even appreciated by a majority of people. I'm probably being overly optimistic. The more I think about it, the more I think artists should already be embracing and promoting a new art movement. Something like primitivism and naïve art that focuses on the philosophical virtues of human creativity and emotional expression and explicitly promotes the idea of everyone and anyone creating "serious" art with whatever talent or lack thereof they may possess. Creating things with one's own hands satisfies an emotional need. Appreciating the efforts of a flesh and blood artist satisfies an emotional need, too, I think. Perhaps this should be the focus. Without a concerted effort by artists and educators to promote a new philosophy to counter the AI revolution, I think we'll see AI replace not just graphic design, but human creativity itself eventually. I think there will always be people with a compulsion to use their hands to create things, but the art world can't rely on a trickle of prodigies. All that said, I still think graphic design specifically is on the way out no matter what. Commercial art at the press of a button is just what the people with the money have always wanted. The overwhelming feeling I have about AI is that this is just the beginning and people are vastly underestimating the effects it will have on all aspects of human experience. The entire point of a tool is that it eases or replaces human labor. The logical conclusion of technology itself is that it will render humans obsolete in every objective, measurable way. The only question is whether this will result in utopia or extinction. tl;dr: I don't care if this is too long or if you don't read it

As a musician myself, I totally understand the argument that a creation without intent and vision almost has no point, and I would even prefer lower quality art than higher quality generated art, but do people paying the bills care? No they don't, they care about results. Do the paying customers care? A very small subset. So it isn't a good argument for artists losing their jobs. It isn't like no artists will be required, there will still need to be people to do fine-tuning and touch ups of AI generated art, or even feed it the original art style to replicate, but it will still be a massively smaller number than the artists we need today.

I think there is more of a fear to do with artistic industries such as graphic design, industry animation, concept artists and the like rather than individual art commissions. like for freelancers and people trying to work in the art industry. For galleries i think they will put some ai art in for the gimmick/novelty but then go back to artists because the artist and intent, message, ect. is very important in "gallery-type" art. For "social media artists" (idk if there is an actual term) who make a living on commissions, item sales (pins, posters, ect.), and patreon type funding I think a growing part of that is the "social" part of social media where people want to support an artist for their personal style and even personality.

Let's say it's a type of Art. Modern Art, digital art, traditional art, ai art.

if you have seen what dall E could do 2 years ago and seen what Dall E2 can do now, i think the need for total panic is absolutely justified. this will kill all creative jobs within the next 2-3 decades

Oooooooo Celestia uploaded while I recover! Yay! (Recovering from dental surgery and covid)

I just want to say “Thank you!” where you metioned how digital art was trashed on when it became a thing too. A lot of the AI art bashing is /exactly/ what digital artists had to put up with in regards to “it’s not real art”. I am personally not scared of AI art. In fact, I got three commissions because of AI art. Two of them were to take a reference the commissioner had made using AI art and make something cool for them. The third one was because they loved what I did that much that they just wanted the third. And the AI art made a great reference. I was much better able to understand what they wanted - it was character art. They did have some changes they wanted (some colour changes and, of course, not having the wonky anatomy/messed up hands). So, I found that the AI art was a great tool in that regard. I can absolutely see how i can have its postive uses. I see it as another tool. I do understand why a lot of artists are so apprehensive or even straight out terrified of it. And I can def see how it could be abused.

I feel that using AI art as references will be really useful since it’ll allow artists to make their own references that they need because a lot of the time artists can’t find the exact references that they need for their art

If my work gets stolen and copied and I get copyrighted for it I WILL jump off my apartment roof.

One thing artist can do which Ai users can’t is claim their art as their own and use perspectives/concepts. Maybe artist can adapt with ai art, but most of it is repetitive and creepy which will never make the cut for most who value it truly as they do with design, animation and other creative fields

Honestly I like the way the ai creates backgrounds and I'm definitely going to photobash them into references for complicated backgrounds. I already do it and ai will actually make it easier to come up with more specific things and styles instead of scrolling through Google photos for an hour

Good video

I don't believe that AI will replace artists any time soon. While it can create anything from a prompt, it all looks similar, and it cannot make anything actually super specific.

I personally like art challenges where a generator creates an image and it's the artist's job to translate it into something that makes sense. I've actually tried it myself and I think it's a fun, creative exercise that can be shared online as long as the creator makes it clear that they are interpreting an AI created image.

The AI also has to scrape through examples in order to composite an image; if there’s suddenly less being submitted to the pool from witch it scrapes…

Something that makes me curious is the creators of the AI. I personally think that they can definitely call the AI their art, seeing as they made it themselves creatively, but what about claiming what the AI makes as their own? If they made the program that made the art (or "art" i guess) is it still theirs? Like imagine your super cool art makes some more super cool art based off of someone elses input and you call it yours. Anyways great takes as always :))

I understand how both feel. When you are just doing commissions, some people really love to take advantage of artist, and cheat them out of their work. Plus say if the potential commission customer knows of AI well enough , they can find even more ways to piece away value away from your work. However, it many ways , it made the the art creating process more efficient, and faster. Like being able to copy and paste , using the lasso tool to select a part of your art or image, using a fill color, and much more helps a lot. I feel that besides art, they are going to replace places, even doctors. The ÁI I mean

It seems like ai art is only beneficial to artists up to a certain point, like for creating rough thumbnails or generating references. It doesn't look like many tech companies want to stop there though, they want the glory of creating the greatest at ai generated imagery machine because it hypes up investors. I kind of wish their was more regulations for these kinds of technologies, like some sort of federal agency keeping silicon valley in check. Especially during these times, with the recession/covid/other crazy stuff happening. Making an entire workforce full of millions of people lose their source of income within a couple of years, especially when there is no universal basic income, just seems like a blatant irresponsibility/misuse of power. I'm also not really a big fan of artists' works being used for training data without their consent. There should be some sort of communication going on between these companies and the artists who they take the work from.

As someone who’s both a musician and a machine learning developer, I think it’s entirely possible that AI may be useful as a tool to help artists in their own works, but it will likely never completely replace them. Technology in the art world has already faced several degrees of Luddism and it has ended up working in the artists’ favors in the long run. For example, when recorded music on phonograph records was starting to become a thing, musicians were up in arms about the implications it had for them and their lack of demand to keep playing music, but around the same time, music prerecorded onto rolls of paper similar to music boxes was also a thing and various instruments could use these sorts of rolls to mimic what one or many humans would play. There have also been gripes about MIDI, which people said could have done harm to large bands of musicians, but from my experience, it has only helped me in composing and arranging music for large ensembles. With artificial intelligence on the rise, I think we may see similar tools being evolved similar to Google’s Magic Eraser and Photoshop’s Content-Aware Filler. Because of this, art that is 100% AI-generated will likely always be second-best to a human’s in the best case scenario, since machines have historically been unable to fully complete tasks meant for humans. There is also the perspective that the use of antiquated techniques and technologies is met with a degree of prestige, since it takes significantly more effort to create using the old ways. For example, a recording of an acoustic grand piano or Yamaha CP-80 would likely loom higher in the regards of musicians and maybe even those who listen to them when compared to that produced using a sampled or modeled digital piano.

AI can only mimic what they have been programmed to do, I don't think it'll ever hold a candle to a skilled artist's work

HEY WAKE UP CELESTIA POSTED!! very good take as usual :D its so hard to find genuine people educating on a topic without baisty. you don't let your own opinion take over the script and let others have room to develop and have one. :)

I used some AI generators recently and I think it's more promising as an art reference than anything else. Although I'm not an artist to the extent that I would be if I practiced, I did take the time to consider the tool as art references more than anything else and was interested in what references would be produced with my key words. The images being produced aren't that great, but if I need something to look at to make sure my art looks better than without a reference, I think there's a lot of promise here as I've already stated. However, I do believe as a creator that fears are justified. We don't know what impact this will have on art going forward and I cannot make an accurate estimate of this. It could steal jobs, ruin lives, etc, but this being said, you can always prove that your art style is your art style. All you need is the confidence to pull it off and the right tools. This doesn't mean your life can't be ruined by AI making art in the future, but again, we don't know the impact right now. Everyone's fears and concerns are justified. I'm not going to say anyone's feelings on this topic aren't valid. I'm unable to speak for the art community as a whole. I'm just someone that has created art in the past and could in the future. But, this conversation is about artists. I can only imagine what I'll feel when a similar conversation happens in regards to writers.

I think the main problem here is the definition of creativity not art. Like it or not, creativity is just the abstract recreation of things we've seen before. Every single piece of art is based of something that we've already seen and therfore th ai is doing a very similar thing as humans. The only difference is that the computer cannot make the alterations that are capable by the human mind. Honestly it doesn't matter whether its art or not its just another art tool.

My Comment is done on uneducated mindset but I still want to say this as I think it’s relevant. I feel like Ai is replacing the wrong jobs.Like,you don’t see Ai replacing jobs like Game testers(It’s not fun,just imagine grinding for 10 hours on a 2min buggy,low resolution level)Garbage Collecters or Simple Fast food jobs. Yes,these job do pay but that’s the only motive in the majority of cases. Now what are we replacing? Writing essays,Art etc.These are higher paying jobs and are more importantly require alot of skill. Why are we replacing jobs that people work harder to develop their skills and have higher paid? Well,I don’t know.My only theory is Time.A very well coded Ai could complete an essay in minutes while the essayist would complete in a few hours. Less time used = More time for other things(probably advertising ) I think by reading my opinion on Ai replacing jobs is obvious.We should be replacing jobs that no one wants to do but keeping skilled careers. Thank you for reading all the way,I would love to discuss this more!

Now that AI will replace artists I kinda don't feel bad anymore that I gave up on my dream to become a anime artist. I dodged a bullet. I will still make illustrations as a hobby. But at least I don't have regrets anymore. My condolences for all the anime artists that are at the beginning and still trying to learn and take a small commission here and there. It is over for them, now they have to take a full time job in another domain not related to art and do art just in weekends. And as for big artists, I don't think they will be affected at all, since they made a name of themselves already. They will probably use the AI and draw over it to fix the mistakes, they could make manga, make anime and who knows what they will be able to make once they find new ways to exploit the AI.

I think your concern being mainly focused on how humans will abuse AI Art is valid. When this first began, I searched around the internet and found an “Artist VS AI art” video where they payed an artist to create art from the same prompt that they put into an AI. In almost every case the human was able to create a more specific, accurate, and uniquely stylized art piece…however the number of times the purchaser was scammed (either because the art they received was stolen, or because they never received any art at all) was nearly 50%. And that will only get worse as AI art becomes closer and closer to human artwork. - I also wanted to bring up another issue you didn’t touch on, which is the art theft of the AI itself. Many of the training images were taken from artists without their consent-and without those images the AI couldn’t do what it does nor improve at the rate it is improving. And yet the AI companies are profiting off their AI generators (Ex. The one you used only allowed you to test it for free 5 times, then you had to pay). This basically amounts to the companies profiting off the art of real artists who never saw any compensation. That’s one of my biggest concerns before I can accept AI art as a tool. There’s even multiple lawsuits about it happening right now-including from companies like Getty Images. Now obviously there are fair use laws and such, but I’m not trying to say that the art the AI PRODUCES is stolen/too close to the original, merely that the data they needed to create and improve their AI WAS. And that those stolen pieces deserve compensation for helping to create these AI generators. Whether my opinions will be reflected by the court cases, who knows, but it simply feels unjust to me as it stands.

I saw dall e 2 and it's actually impressive I mean I could mistake it for real art at first glance 0_0 However it disallows use of it for commerical purposes, and disallows people claiming it as their own too

I do consider ai generated art, art to a certain point, if anything I kinda see them as lovely idea generators, so essentially a tool. But reason I'm personally afraid is as others mentioned, I'm scared of being replaced by a machine. Capitalism already threatened employees such as money managers and retail workers on how they will soon be replaced by machines and kicking people out of jobs. And that's just the taste of it, imagine being an artist and you're already not taken seriously. You spent years perfecting your craft and shed tears and sweat over getting yourself out there, only for someone to say an ai generator is going to take replace the need for artists, replace retail workers as mentioned with artists and that's pretty much how we feel with machines, except it's not an isolated feeling, it's a feeling that's added with insecurity due to not being taken seriously and pressured cause people are on high demanding you to produce quantity over your need to perfect qualities. Machines are made to make things out of nothing, fast, efficient and accurate, and to be honest, I think that takes away a lot of what is considered art, we need those mistakes and we need to appreciate the slowing down part, but due to our current times, things are made faster and it started a line of expectations of how fast a task can get done and that damages people like artists who NEEDS time for their craft. Everyone deserves to work and try to support themselves.

I'd say, no, it isn't "real art" because it's not a person who is making it. Without people true emotion isn't put into the art it's just a generated mass of colors/shapes. I use art breeder to make forests for me to gain inspiration but I actually recreat the image.

Did I blank out, or did you just forget to mention that a good portion of the AI art programs out there were created by using other's, unpaid for, art? I think that is one of the biggest sticking point for people; I can create AI art in the style of an artist, because they stole his art and used it in their algorithm, by simply writing "in the style of x". There are other issues of course, but I think that's the big one for many - destroying people's careers by stealing their art.

Oh hi Celestia I just started watching you I think 3 or 4 days ago and I wish I watched you sooner I just love your vids! :)

I've been doing art for over 30 years starting out traditional/physical then moving to computer. I also loved taking high quality photos. I've faced a lot of challenges over the years with art no longer requiring talent and becoming something most people can do due to technology. I no longer can do it as a job in either digital art or photography because everyone can do it now. AI art is just another kick in the guts for me as it bringing art to everyone at the push of a button. As I've always done, I have to find my niche in the art world. I've switched back to traditional/physical for this reason. Mass produced art is low in this area because of cost and still requiring skill... for now. The biggest issue is copyright. Training AI using other peoples copyrighted images without permission should be illegal. It doesn't matter if you cannot spot it in the finished image, it still requires other peoples work to make it. It's not the same as using references. References give inspiration to the artist and are not required to produce art. Art can be made without references. AI art cannot exist without other peoples art to train it on and use in it's creation of the finished piece.

I like your points, very thorough thinking. Personally, I have used AI Images to illustrate a large private project while it is still in the stages of finding themes, structures and scope. Not even always for reference, but for sheer motivation, because my visual imagination pretty much doesnt exist and looking at pics that vaguely read as my idea gives me certainty *that* what I'm doing will work one day if I manage to bring it all together. Fast prototyping, so to speak. I never understood why people feel computer generated [anything] should philosophically devaluate human art. The same discussion existed when synthesizers were invented, and it endures somehow, in a world were everyone and their mother has listened to lofi in some way. I am not a fine artist, really way more on the technical "how do I efficiently get my product done" side here. My take: If the value of an artpiece comes from the creativity, technique and vision in it, and the effort to achieve that, then the AI image lacks essential points here and can never be as valuable as art made by even a beginner artist. People who appreciate art for this intrinsic value will continue to do so, no? In my opinion it's a point born out of insecurity. The value my art has *to* me comes *from* myself. The value it has to others comes from whatever their value system is. There will always be someone who doesn't care. Rant over :3

I usually use these generators to get obscure references I can't find on google when i draw

There has already been someone who won an art contest submitting ai art they had almost no hand in creating. Corporations are not going to care if art is created by AI or a human...they will get their art from the quickest cheapest source . In fact , i would argue most people who buy art will not differentiate between the two in the way you do. Lastly ...after playing with a relatively basic AI art creation tool...I am not so sure it can't be said to actually be 'creating' art. I asked the AI to represent itself as an image depicting how it felt. The result frankly was terrifying . i am very afraid that we have just opened Pandora 's box...and we are wholly unprepared. It is a skip hop and jump from creating images to creating 3d images to creating 3d printed objects in the real world . Writing code for the physics of the real world is relatively simple by comparison .

AI being used as art by people is a bit like someone using Photoshop to put their grandpa on the Chrysler building in my opinion. It's still technically interesting, but doesn't really require the same skills art does in most cases. It's also interesting that humans keep trying to compare robots to themselves, because humans and robots are nothing alike. Humans have innate responses to certain things and how we view the world will vary depending on the people we meet, the places we go, and the things that happen to us. A robot can't ever have those experiences because those things don't matter to them in the same way. It won't change and grow like we do from an experience, and gets no emotion out of it that would make it significant

The thing about the AI generators being used to replace artists is not really a feasible prospect. But what they can do is generate some basic assets on the fly. Just from earlier in your video - a graffity or a poster on the wall. Currently the game can only pick from a set of posters created for it. And no matter how large a sample size you have there will be repetitions and at some points the repetitions will start scratching the eye. But if a game incorporated AI generation, it can solve those repetitions as each item can be unique. Made up on the fly by the on board AI.

Hi what pen u use for lineart

I think there will be several problems, imagine that two people put the same words in the AI ​​and get the same result. you have no way of knowing if someone is already selling that image

This probably doesn’t really directly relate to the problem addressed in the video but this topic made me remember that one story in ep 24-28 in the webcomic, ‘if ai ruled the world’ where it shows that people have prejudice against art created by ai ( art as in music in the context of the webcomic because they were playing the piano ) compared to art from a human because it’s not “real art”. I like how the creator shows the different view points of the two sides, please check it out! There are other stories in the webcomic too and I think they are interesting, especially the main story.

I think one of the bigger problems people have with AI art isn't the generated images themselves, but rather HOW those images are able to be generated. AI has to learn from something, and it's pulling from artists' work from across the internet without their knowledge or consent to incorporate into whatever the final image may be. It's learning from human artists' actual artwork, without consent, and I think THAT is the (at least my) biggest reason to despise AI art. It has potential to be an amazing tool, but stealing from artists is not how we should get there.

artist adapted when digital art first became a thing and we will adapt again. The current AI programs are mind blowing with what they can do, but its not always going to be the case and they are limited by the info in the available databases, which are huge but not always going to have what it needs. when we get to use the AI programs that are more able to actually design/illustrate/paint an idea by actually thinking we are screwed

As long as you claim it as AI art you can take credit as the artist of the concepts/prompt given. Anyway it's awesome

Hi- cool video :o you always pick good topic ideas

honestly I just dont get the artists that are actually defending it. choosingbeggars is bad enough in the art community, wait until we see more and we will. people will be asking for free art more because ai art can do it for free, so you should be able to do it for free too. its going to get bad.

What about signatures on art? Are we safe if we do that(edit) and animation

I feel like it's the best way to find the perfect reference for your backgrounds. I would use this a TON. I find the endless choices one of its best features. I might actually use it to find backgrounds that semi resemble what I think. However, I wouldn't use them as a FINAL design. I would use them for lighting reference. While AI can find *many MANY** things to use for art, I'm the only one who *truly* knows what I want to see as the final product. Therefore, I'd design my own backgrounds, but using the AI as a reference ONLY.

On one hand, sometimes it's interesting to see what AI can do with certain concepts. On the other hand, more and more people seem to be passing off AI generated images as genuine, and as you said, entering them into galleries and competitions. I honestly hate that idea so much. Now I'm not even that good at art despite working on it for over 20 years, but I don't want to have my entire being become obsolete because some schmuck decided they'd rather have a bot do all the work. Like others have said here, art is all I know. If human artists become obsolete, their livelihood is taken away from them, then life as a whole becomes pointless.

I think the subject of "is AI art real art" is a hornits nest. If we say it's not real art becouse the program can't be creative and just creats it's art based on alredy existing art, than we also have to ask ourselfe if we human even abide to that high standard of "creativity". Becouse let's be real, we creat art based on all kind of things. Our suroundings, other humans, emotions, objects, and yes, especially based on other art. So is a realism artist who draws portraits, by these standars, truly creative? Is a manga artist who bases his locations on existing citys creative? Is a character designer who takes inspiration from clothing trends creative? Is ANYONE creative? Or are we actually closer to the AI as we want to aknowledge: creating things based on other things that alredy exist?

I think one of the most important questions is the question of ownership when it comes to ai art. For what it’s worth, I think we are very close to incredible ai on this front. At least personally, it’s naive to think it’s far off (it might be but it may well not be). But the hard work for this was done by 3 main parties (somewhat unknowingly): programmers, the world and artists - and just as the programmers will be, artists should be paid for their work in creating this . It’s a copyright/fair use minefield and some financial plan for paying people for work they have unknowingly and knowingly contributed has to be drawn up and written into law.

AI is to art what Getty Images is to photography. I have a lot of thoughts on this pls bear with me- It's individually low effort, low specificity, low relevancy. It is real art, interactive art. A large collaborative group with knowledge of form, aesthetic ideals, lighting, framing, etc. wrote programs to identify and isolate these features from more artists and photographers and organize them in a visually pleasing way. Each individual piece is not the AI art, but rather a part of the larger interactive art piece. If any piece is the art, it's the code. Any passerby putting an input in the machine is not the artist, but rather just one small helping hand in the plethora of artists who coded the program, in the same way a factory worker making sketchbooks participates in someone's traditional sketch. Any input necessarily should still be without copyright, an issue I'm sure will be getting more prominent over time. I.e. if the AI takes the coca cola logo or someone else's OC as input, even if the result does not resemble it, it may be legally considered a direct derivative in the future, under U.S. copyright laws at least. AI will never be able to replace artists in this way because it requires them in order to continually update its functions.

I dunno, seeing ai art much better and more creative than I could ever do and it's so discouraging

AI generated Art is not really Art, because art to be actual art requires creativity and the personality of the person making it, it contains a part of the soul of the author, it contains emotions and moments, AI can create impressive looking images, but it cant add any personality, cant really portrait moments precisely. AI with time will remove busy work from the art industry and will take the orders that are made just to fill spaces in walls and shit like that, not actual art, thats what I think about it. Adam Duff Lucipixul has some videos talking about this that perfectly encapsulates what I think it will be with this whole AI thing.

My real fear/anger towards AI Art is that it's developers feed it art (be in digital, traditional, photography, etc) without the permission of it's creators. The real AI art is actually an amalgamation of a bunch of people's hard work being used without permission. That infuriates me more than anything. As for worrying.. I honestly don't. I am just SURE there will be so many people looking specifically for human-made art. There will always be ways for humans to go prove they made what they're presenting. By the time all our ways don't work, we'll have come up with more. And you just KNOW companies will boast about their certified human art, games will be separated into categories for who made them, commissioners will forego the option of cheap AI made art for the human touch of having another person hand-make something. For all this, I don't worry whatsoever that AI will completely kill off human art. I'm sure there will be an adjustment period and maybe for a while things will be rough once AI gets good enough, but I also think eventually it will settle down. What I want though, is all these AI makers to stop feeding out things to the AIs without permission.

I think the main thing I don't like is how I have seen people, because of the topic of AI art, start implying that art is all about the end result, and personally that idea hurts me because art, the process of making it, the process of learning to make it and the process of learning to improve it... Art as a process rather than as an end result is so fundamentally important to me and I can't imagine calling something generated by some bot art just because what it generates looks good, I just can't

Art theft (the AI scrapes the image for “erase arch”, and then launders it into the for profit venture owned by the same company or people), harassment, and illegal copyright use in the datasets. People are already stealing images of WiPs, finishing them in AI, and issuing takedowns and allegations of theft at the original artist’s work. And, the language of the mission statements for visual art is that of replacement, which is the total opposite of the voice replication AI software run by the same company

What I do find interesting though is human artists, wether painting a square or a realistic portrait on canvas, are controlling each direction of the brush stroke, and for the most part will accurately predict the outcome… whereas, can someone who types in a prompt, even with an above average input of specifications, be able to predict the amount of brushstrokes, saturation of each area of colour, proportions of colour application, exactly which pigments are used, anatomical accuracy vs stylisation, scale, proportions, intensity of values and how they are controlled over each object in the piece etc.

the uk comic Judge Dredd has a story about this way back in the 80s. the story was called 'kenny Who?' check it out if you can find a copy

There is a fantastic video called "Who's Afraid of Modern Art" which actually does a deep dive around how arguing the "sensibility" of certain kinds of art often times acts as a dog whistle for white supremacists, and even utilized by the n*zis. A very fantastic listen, if you're in the mood. It lives in my head rent free now anytime I have to even consider "what is art"

23:39 what if someone where to use it as a ref or smth for a background?

Woke up extra early and this is a nice thing to see first, a new duchess celestia video

My hipe is that it will become beneficial to those who might have trouble creating digital art such as people with disabilities. The idea that people could abuse it somehow does worry me but I don't think artists who draw or paint by hand will be phases out.

Overall think it is great for general concepts and backgrounds. Maybe for ideas for RPG things I don't have time to make myself. There is a free software going around, Stable Diffusion, which is actually fun as hell. Overall, it is a tool that can be used for good or evil. A good artist may be able to figure out how to work with it to make concepts that are INSANE! I know I'm having fun.

You beat me to this topic! I’m also making a video on this topic soon lol. I agree it’s not a replacement but a resource.

Great video, love that you take a very differentiated stance. Only issue I have is that you say the AI's consult a database of human made art, this is not true, the AI's are trained on a database of human made art but when actually generating stuff they simply consult their weights which are usually pretty small in file size (4gb for stable diffusion) in other words much too small to hold that many images. 21:19 Welcome to science. In all seriousness this is just how humans do things in our era, ever since the renaissance we've been making incredible progress nonstop and nothing other than a massive catastrophe is ever going to stop that.

As a ilustrator, I am watching all those videos that talk about IA and if it will or will not replace the humans. and I am reading the comments below. It all recalls one image in my mind. Remember that tsunami that happened 10 years or so ago in Thailand? You probably saw the amateur footage of ppl staring at the waves getting bigger and bigger, and finally running for their lives once it is already too late. They also didn't believe such a thing might happen. They would look around and see only a few wrapping their stuff and going somewhere safe. They would think - See? Things will sort out, and everything will be normal. Nope, it will not be the same, not even close.

Tbh I don't really mind people using it as refs but I also feel like I should be worried bc what if people turn their backs on artists and just use ai. I know it's unreasonable but... Just something I fear. I know you've covered this but I just was to type this ig

24:27 In terms of policing the images created with AI. The key here is somewhat simple. Meta data. Basically the digital image is more than you can see. The most basic is the pallette used for the image is encoded into the file but never directly displayed to you. It would also include the name of the application the file was created in, date size etc. And among this information there can be added a signature specific to the AI doctoring with which will make the whole file unusable. And on top of this there is a million and one way to imprint a watermark across the image itself that would be invisible to the naked eye but easily revealed by a dedicated image filter.

This is an absolutely fantastic video.

From what i've observed, there are more people claiming ai art as their own, and judges being ok with it than it being useful as a tool for artist. So i see it more as a harmful and irresponsible invention since it devalues authentic human creativity.

"Machines will replace human workers" Human workers: *become machine operators *

ether way the monkeys paw of every artist that ever said "I wish I could just bzzzt and print out an image from my mind" has closed and the pandoras box has opened.

23:48 In order to avoid 1:1 copies, so they don't run into copyright issues, they use randomizers. So would have to produce an incredible large number of images to get identical images. Your images build upon each other, so similarities are inevitable. But if another user on a different computer enters your prompt, the randomizer will likely have a different starting point. In order to please customers, the software may incorporate previous choices, which in itself will develop unique styles actually based on human tastes and character detached from the developer of the software. It will change the marketplace, just like computers and home printers did for the office world, printers. Or the jukebox for musicians. The jobs didn't vanish entirely, but there are much fewer jobs in the field and the skill set has changed. When the first automobile was built it was a work of metal craftsmen in hundreds of hours, then Ford streamlined the process and a car was produced with in hours by 20 to 30 men with much less skill, then more and more machines and robots were introduced. Now a car is produced in mere minutes and at the most 5 men oversea the process, while one car after the next is passing them by. There will always be a market for artists, but artist who paint hundreds of images for high-end hotels will be even less common. But just like provenience is more important than skill in the artist market, so will it be in the future. Yes, there will be Andy Warhols who will be marketing themselves as masters of AI instructions and there will be purists who market themselves as all manual and without AI assist. And design jobs which already heavily rely on grids definitely will change, AI will provide market analysis and base designs on those analyses and will be more successful than any human can be. Though every now and then there will have to be a trend setting human to avoid staleness and boredom of an AI generated design process based on existing successes. Just like car designs lost a lot of individuality due to physics in the wind channel. Unlike in the I have a hard time to distinguish cars and rely on their car labels. Computer algorithms have a downside when it comes to the freshness of true originality.

I like so much your ideas and the way you thinks.

I am a programmer,rather than an artist so my perspective on this question is a bit skewed, but I feel like there are a couple of clarification I can and should add. The AI does not consult thouthand of pieces of existing art every time it tries to generate new art. Instead it had processed those thouthand upon thouthand of pieces of art and aggregated information it was able to skim from them and additional flags provided to accompany them during training. And now it operated based on this aggregated data independently of all the pieces of art it was constructed upon. Like we humans do. Accumulating experience and then using this experience to solve a particular task. So in this sense AI could claim ownership of creating those pieces as much as a real artist would with one tiny exception. It needs a starting point. This reference you type into a generator. Without it there is no image so in a way the creative impulse to generate this art came from outside the AI. And in this sense I feel like no. The art stops qualifying as being created by this AI. At the same time here is a pretty conceivable hypothetical. Imagine there is a bot that on a regular basis uses some algorithm to generate a sentence. Then generates an image based on it. And posts it. Can this be called ar created by AI?

She is way to underrated.