I have to keep writing the same response to comments about a Spotify payment model not being viable when there are so many possible solutions, please read the following before commenting: Two other possibilities: x.com/curtisjamesholt/status/1792534626180731286 x.com/curtisjamesholt/status/1792629213419249990 Think about it as compensation for access, not the end result. Alternatively for the possibility of a sub fee, splitting it by time usage of artist-specified models, rather than generations. There are lots of different ways to split compensation before even thinking about inspiration or copyright. For Blender, we sell access to things that belong to everyone all the time: GPL addons. In that case, people pay for access to the download service rather than the addon itself. None of this requires a decision to be made about inspiration vs ownership, or the licensing of a generation. Quite frankly, the results generated are irrelevant.

Leaving a couple of important timestamps here for people that comment after only a couple of minutes: 8:30 - AI tools may become a new norm as the idea of 'mental effort' compresses over time. 13:26 - (Job Market) Corporations jump on FOMO tech waves before homogenizing. For some additional thoughts: I had previously created a video teaching people how to combine AI art content with technical elements in Blender with a specific interest in procedural material generation (by the name of 'The Insane Potential of AI Art'), which I have since privated. I don't think I understood the complexities of the ethics at the time, and there wasn't much in the way of discussion, so I will hold off on doing educational content relating to this category of tools until I can feel more confident about the answers to some of the questions raised in this video, particularly relating to the access and compensation of artists. I do believe there's a way to introduce AI art tools into the art community in a way that's truly beneficial for artists that may offer them new types of independent careers, but it's not there yet. When the space feels more fair for artists, then I will be more open to doing educational content incorporating elements of the tools.

It's a short sighted mistake to give AI a pass contingent on royalty payouts. Consider the stock photography and illustration market. There was boom of easy money early on in the 90's, but the industry is gutted now. YOU might get compensated for your work now as an early contributor. However, imagine the industry in 20 years. Eventually the models will be capable enough to service 99% of their customers and there won't be an incentive to increase the data set. The result being, new artist will be competing with this new AI, AND they won't get compensated like you did.

Fascinating video on this topic. It's great to see someone trying to think of solutions to the more problematic sides of generative AI!

🎨"The tools are surprisingly anti artists" - that's kind of key point in this new wave of generative ai. I doubt many people would complain if there would be a tool for ai-powered retopology or uv unwrapping for example...

In the US there's no copyright on AI generated content. I expect we'll see the same in Europe. There"s also a few pending lawsuits concerning the original content being used to train.. An excellent tool for creative people who wants someone else to do the creative work.

I want artificial intelligence to solve my daily chores so i have more free time to do art, not artificial intelligence doing art while i do the dishes.

In the lucid dream, instead of writer's block, you had dreamer's block. :) 🎨

I often have conversations with people who don't engage with art the same way we all do (they see an impressive image, "oh, that's cool", then they move on and forget about it) That's the vast majority of people. Unfortunately most people aren't art nerds and they can't tell if an image is AI or not. For us it's obvious - "AI gunk" is a good way of describing it, I think. The patterns that go nowhere, the airbrushed look. We art nerds can see that but the average person doesn't pay enough attention to notice. My concern is that the internet will get rapidly flooded with "AI gunk": Images, articles, everything. The scary thing is most people won't notice and we'll be the crazy ones. I already feel crazy when talking to people about it, and hell, maybe I am.

FInally someone who thinks the same way. I definitely think corporations will test the limits with AI, until they go to far, and AI art will be stigmatised. I'm so sick of AI fearmongering, this is a refreshing take

This is a great video! I love the list of ideas towards the end. Just the simple one of listing a percentage breakdown of artists sourced, would not only be an openness from AI programs that would be welcomed, but also, I think it would actually be helpful and do what you're suggesting, like helping us discover new artists and talents. There's more you mentioned and they all got me thinking. Feeling very inspired 🙏

I would be super interested in a tool that generates abstract patterns following some patterns. But the problems are, as always, a labour and extraction problem. The sewing machine's pitch was to "free the women from the burden of manually sewing". And in the end we have sweatshops producing fast fashion and kids sewing cheap clothes for people in other countries.

I understand your opinion about the novelty of more organic, naturally made artwork. I find value in knowing that everything about the piece was intentional, even the shortcuts were done because the artist thought it would have diminishing returns to make it more complex. There's a lot that goes into an artwork, because of this, the final image is not the only thing that matters. There are some things I would like to address here about these models: 1. They do not reason or know anything at all; it is incapable of logic. What they do is correlate and interpolate between data points. When it tries to generate something "in the style of..." it pulls not only from that specific artist, but a wide body of artists around that data point that during training it has found to be closely related. There are a growing number of AI experts that conclude the same. These models do not possess the kind of architecture where logic and reasoning could ever arise, no matter how much data you put in them. 2. It does not discard the training data after the training process. All of these models, GPT's image model, Stable Diffusion, DALL-E, and Midjourney learn key pieces of data about an image during training so that they can recreate it. This data is then stored in a matrix, which is uses to recreate the original image closely. In effect, this is a very impressive and extremely heavy form of compression, being able to take the 5 billion images and store them in a few gigabytes. If you want to learn more about the process for training a diffusion model, I recommend Computerphile, there are a couple good videos about it there. Recently, there was a judgement in a court case, suing Midjourney I believe, where the judge thought the plaintiffs had good reason to believe the models do indeed contain their training data. During the process of generating an image, based on your prompt, it will splice together many images in a very fine way, in fact it's so fine it's difficult to detect the original images in the final mix, so it looks like an entirely new image. Since these models are essentially a natural language processor, strapped to a very large highly compressed dataset that is able to mix images together, I believe that puts them firmly in the realm of copyright breach. If it is concluded that these models have indeed breached copyright, they and the companies that made them likely will not be around for long. Twitter thread on the court case tentative ruling: x.com/LuizaJarovsky/status/1788569553145909599 3. Regarding payment and consent for these models, if these companies had the money to pay all these people (at least 10,000 in Midjourney's case) for their work, by now, with all the bad press and lawsuits, they probably would. The problem is fourfold: these models are very costly to run, the amount that would be fair is completely untenable for these companies (possibly in the 10s or 100s of billions), the potential money to be made and the greed of these companies is at an extreme level, and they also just don't care; from all of these developers and their user base, we consistently see aggressive anti-artist sentiment, "can't wait to see you lose your job to AI", "have fun on the street when you lose your home", "artists are gatekeeping elitists", and much worse. Some artists have been the victims of targeted campaigns to usurp their artistic identity (SamDoesArt). This video mentioned Spotify's payment system, which as I understand is widely criticised for being very stingy, a few pennies per thousand streams simply would not be enough. Most artists are barely scraping a living working ridiculous artists and still being treated like crap. Also, even a few pennies per data point call per generation from a model user would probably still bankrupt these companies, so they wouldn't even do that. 4. These companies and their spokespeople are doing everything they can to convince everyone that this kind of thing is inevitable, and they can't stop it. This is all part of their hype and terror culture. Legislation for these kinds of things looks to be coming in very soon, the EU recently passed its AI act which should come into effect within the next 2-3 years, one provision of which is the full disclosure of the data sets, which is found to contain copyrighted data (pending the outcome of whether it is found that these models can infringe copyright (which is looking even more likely)), they will not be able to operate models like this in the EU, and losing a huge economic sector like that is a complete no-can-do for these companies. People will also try to convince you that these models are only going to get exponentially better each update and that something like AGI is just around the corner. This is just a flat out lie, if anything they have very nearly plateaued, there simply isn't enough natural data for them to get much better. One of the potential solutions to this is to train on synthetic data, i.e. AI generated text and images, but because these models function by detecting patterns that humans can't see, they will find patterns in the generations, which at the lowest level is just noise, and eventually if training on enough synthetic data they will just stop returning good results, possibly just absolute nonsense. Being very generous, let's say that GPT-5 is 2x better than GPT-4, maybe GPT-6 will be a bit better than GPT-5. Moore's law is no longer in effect, for processors and for everything else. With that out of the way, here are some things about how these models function in the work environment right now: 1. every time someone wants a small change to the generation, the whole thing changes, which is absolutely no good at all in the production environment 2. you can't ask for very specific or niche things, the less prevalence something has in the dataset, the worse these models will be at making it. Plenty of cats and dogs, and women in the dataset, but not much of say a castle, underground, from 3/4 top view made of earthworms (I had no idea what example to give here lol). 3. you can't ask for technical drawings at high accuracy, such as orthographic breakdowns with material references and dimensions. More examples can be seen from FZDSCHOOL in his video: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/h7qaZLxlr72Re30.html&t (I also left a similar comment there) I would like to end by saying, I and many other artists, Curtis Holt included as he said, are not against AI technology. What we are against is the misuse of our work to exploit us, which is exactly what these models do. Furthermore, when we talk about these kinds of models, I wouldn't refer to them as simply AI; Gen-Ai, generative models, or simply models would be better. It helps the companies that we have to keep talking about these things in the same vein as all AI, when they are just a small problematic subset. I hope anyone reading this got something useful out of it, thank you for reading :)

How to check there u in dalee database or not? I have buch of viral artworks.

Very interesting discussion! 🖌

I appreciate this video. It was interesting to hear your unique perspective on this topic. 🧐

This was fascinating on so many levels. Regarding compensation: in kind of a similar situation, we, a group of voice actors, were approached by a recording studio that was contacted by a recording studio in Shanghai, and asked if we'd be willing to record text-to-speech A.I. voices to be used for NPC game characters. I understand what the studio in Shanghai is doing. We often record voices for games created by small studios in China, and rather than having us record 5 lines for each and every minor character, it's cost effective to save using actors for hero characters, and just generate the little minions/monsters/enemies/etc. using text-to-speech; everyone is trying to cut budgetary corners. The studio asked how much we would want in compensation. The sticking point of the whole situation is that the proposal was not presented to us properly. The people whose job it is to contact the talents were told it was a games studio and the work would be for one game. Then, when questioned, they said it would be for multiple games. It was actually I who looked up the client and saw that they are a recording studio that dubs games, anime, films, etc. I'm not suggesting that we were deliberately misled, I think it's a case that the project managers didn't provide the correct information, not the first time, and the taletn coordinators were merely repeating what they were told. We are going to meet with our studio and request proper contracts specifying what kinds of projects the voices would be used for, and prohibiting them from selling the voice models, or making them available, to other parties. One of the actors in our circle then raised the question: how could you police that? These, unfortunately, are the realworld issues that we're facing with this technology. We're not entirely opposed to it, but we are also careful about protecting our careers. The issue in this case wasn't the technology, but the business people not adequately communicating how that technology was going to be used, and that's where it gets scary. 🎨🖌🤖

🎨Great vid. You bring up good points about where this tech is going. Eye-opening for a novice, like myself. Interesting perspective you being the artist and providing specific examples of how your craft is being used. The idea of access + compensation for the artist is amazing. I just hope its not already past the horizon like the music industry point you brought up where the artist only sees pennies when it is their work that is the main source of value.

IP_Adapter... Prompting is outdated for style and subject accuracy. IP adapter (which I use inside ComfyUI/Stable Diffusion), allows you to use an image as your prompt, with or without additional text prompting. There are optimized algorithms for style, composition, face/identity, and even regional masking so that you can define an image for the background, an image for the identity of the person standing on the left, and an image for the dog beside them on the right. You can also use multiple images for a single input, allowing you to blend identities or styles... This enables fairly effortless character and environment consistency, completely changing the scope of what these tools are useful for.

28:00 it's absolutely possible to do for local models, just training a style embedding takes a lot of time and sufficient machine, with correctly labeled and prepared images. The process takes at least few hours, revving the GPU to the max. As for me personally, I treat it as a glorified reference/iteration generator without the need of browsing through countless stock images. Most of AI imagery uses polished, "artificial" look, very distinct. It would take more time to mask the gloss from the image than making the image from scratch. But as a quick mockup to get the general idea what I want to do, its perfect.

This was a very interesting take on AI art, love thinking of ways of improving the system to properly compensate artist

🎨🖼 Loved the video, Curtis. A lot to think about ❤

I would be interested to see the full conversation you had with ChatGPT. Could you share the link?

Can you please drop a 15 minute long tutorial on texture projection mapping and texture painting? In blender 4.0

did you try to write a prompt where you put "in the style of curtis hold" at the beginning or in the 1st half of the prompt?

I love the way you used the AI as sort of a mirror, that lets you 'see' your art in a new way. I feel like that could be a great way for artists to improve. It's a bit like the trick of flipping an image horizontally, letting your brain see it in a new way, except with your style.🖼

Does gpt just use a prompt "in a style of" or does it actually add all the elements that belong to your style in it? I think it's an important question.

Thanks for sharing your perspective, I enjoyed listening to it

I appreciate you contributing to the conversation, very thoughtful and cogent words.

About a year and a half ago or so I trained a model on my art. I used stable diffusion as the base model but let my computer churn away for 2 days ingesting my work. When it was done I was totally weirded out that I could ask it for anything, even scribble a little doodle and then prompt it and it would turn that doodle into or create something that looked exactly like my work in a few seconds. I got very uncomfortable and after a period of time I deleted it. I turned my back on this tech and doubled down on traditional media, but since then the conversation around AI has changed. It is no longer simply about AI art. It is about the automation of all labor. These systems are amazing. I was angry and scared for a time, but I starting to feel positive about the long term effects of these systems. As you mention protein folding, material science and healthcare will be advanced beyond what we can even imagine I feel. I also, think in the short term things are going to get very uncomfortable as these systems replace humans across many, if not all fields with a monetary motive... I think the advantage will more than anything be a disruption of our economic system strangely enough. Corporations driven my profit will give into the race for efficiency and capitalism will consume itself out of existence. I think it will force us to turn away from a globalist mindset and back to local arts and efforts. People may no longer chase fame in the same way, and work that people don't want to do... they will simply just not do it, but, AI will. Our values and motivations for the things we will do will change over the next 5-10 years and ultimately these systems will be "better" than us at most things. That said art and expression of an individual subjective perspective will never be lacking in meaning and motivation from a human perspective. Even if art as a commodity loses its value it will never lose its ability to help humans process and explore our interests and emotions, test new visions for the future and bring delight to others by showing an individuals internal state. Humans are fascinated with other humans. When work as meaning is lost I think the world will be a better place and the best way to do that is to separate the human from the need to labor. I know a lot of people are afraid and angry about all this tech but in the long run at the rate things are progressing I think the vision of artists openly collaborating through AI as well as in person will be more accessible than it ever has been. The barrier of the need to monetize our efforts will free us to make our own limitations and create things that are truly unique. There is of course a chance this will not happen, and we will simply have our lively hoods stripped away from us and be forced to live in a false state of scarcity to prop up the ultra rich.... lol, but let's hope people are smarter than that and we can prevent that from happening. :D

Really appreciate the nuanced take! I think at the largest scales of foundation models it would be hell to enforce, however, I could absolutely see people going for custom Checkpoint and LoRA models trained by individuals and/or artist collectives. It's absolutely possible to do *right now* with the necessary coding experience to run and host Sable Diffusion in the browser. Like the Gen AI equivalent of farm to table. Not to mention that you'd *always* have the best and most up to date dataset to train from. Be it a way for fans who'd happily pay $5 for some generation credits to support you, or studios interested in licensing output with your stamp of approval, the potential for monetization seems quite vast.

Quite an insightful talk. My favorite part was about the idea of overcoming limitations and how it's an important part of what makes something valuable. 🎨

same for live music. im not worried

As a professional 3D artist in architecture, I have been very interested in AI art for a while, and I have played around with Midjourney and Stable Diffusion. However, I mostly generate images for my own entertainment because the "creativity" of the AI is often very far from the vision of what I wanted or expected. For this reason, I often give Midjourney open-ended concepts as prompts, just to see what it comes up with but I have found very little practical application to use anything created. And I can't bring myself to claim any of it as mine. I suppose there may be an edge case in the future where an AI generator might help to fix an image, but in my job the output has to reflect the boss's vision exactly: I can't see using whole-cloth AI images will get the job done.

I really liked your point about references artists getting paid per generation. It would be like stock music or video creators who supply assets to Artlist or Motion Array. You get paid based on how popular your content is, and it legitimizes the platform as well.

Really appreciate hearing your input on this minefield subject, and I too hold a nuanced view. Weird to see your own style replicated isn't it.... 🎨

Do you use Blender AI render?

These were some interesting thoughts🎨 I wonder what it would generate for someone who has no style yet or someone who does too many different artworks that can't be put in one style category (maybe it would show possible style elements that a human didn't notice before 😄, "patterns" as you said). Also it would be interesting to give the same prompt to AI and to a human artist about copying a particular style. Although that would demand a strong sense of self-worth from artist side and their readiness to possibly "loose" to AI (although if one owns a sense of self-worth, no results from AI would shatter their believe in themselves). P.S. I love the dichotomy 😄. I wonder if it was on purpose, but I agree with both statements in the context. 0:54 -01:05 "don't expect "it's good" or "it's bad!"..." 29:29 "Healthy conversaion - good, unhealthy argument - no good"

Right and fair questions towards Open AI.

Really good insight on recent AI stuff. Truthfully i start to look into experimenting on ai with stable diffusion just a week ago and its kinda fun to play around and to get inspiration for your artworks. outside of all the legal rights problems. 🎨

If one doesn't make use of the latest and greatest tools, there is a good chance that one will make oneself obsolete. A hundred years ago, I was apprenticed to a 'layout designer' in an advertising agency. The job was all boards on drafting tables/Rotring pens/enlarger and ordering type from a Linotype agency. There was only one Mac in the building and it was used by the secretary/receptionist. I guess nothing says 'we're a modern forward thinking ad co' quite like the clients seeing a Mac when they walk in the door? I was the only other person in the agency to use this thing, and I did, after hours. After a while, I decided to leave and start a 'desktop pub biz' using the original Laser-writer hooked up to a Mac+. Five years later, I still had a job, and the 'layout artist' that had trained me had taken early retirement. I have this 'thing' I call 'deliberate ignorance' which I tend to reserve for 'people of religion' and 'boomers'. It's where ones emotions and fears overrides their perception of reality. This AI denial smells a bit like 'deliberate ignorance' to me :-)

Thank you Curtis for your sober, balanced take on the whole divisive debate. 🎨

loved your thoughts about this, great video! ✏

It would be interesting if we could find out for traditional artist artworks created that aren't AI generated how closely they look to other artworks by other artists. The vast majority of artists use references from other artists for inspiration and many are following a similar style. One example that comes to mind is the amazing Blender 3D artist Max Hay. I've seen many 3D artists now create scenes that look very close to his. In that case who would get the small royalty commission if they were used in AI models? I don't know the answer, but interesting to think about.

I'm looking forward to the point when AI music generators get close to being as easy to work with as the art generators, because I'm really interested in how an AI would interpret my music, but the ones I've tried so far just aren't on the same level as art generators have gotten, as far as user interface, accuracy, or quality of output goes. Also, when it comes to art generators, I do wonder about the compensation part. Say, for example, someone puts in their prompt for a generation, but they decide to use a bunch of artists names as "modifiers," but they use, for an exaggerated example, 100 artist names for the generation. Would that complicate things, or are there perhaps limits on what the AI uses for the final result? I know that the word order in the prompt typically matters, but maybe there's also a cut-off point to how many artists can be used as an influence per generation. ....I dunno. I just know I would want AI to fill in some gaps between the work people do and the pay they receive by simply automating the process 🖌

🎨 I don't have a strong opinion either way about AI art, but I have been using AI to help me with very tedious / repetitive stuff such as rotoscoping in my visual effects projects. It's been extremely helpful.

I have been thinking about this idea of "AI spotify" althou in my mind it was more like a "KZfaq" of AI art. The big problem come from the human nature, many will try to take advantage and may upload art from artists that are not theirs to take profit, especially those that are not that interested in digital stuff, for example sculptors or graffiti artists. One thing is for sure those companies should be way more open in how they obtain datasets and how they train their models.

Good arguments, 🏔, my personal test is concepts. Can AI determine which prompted concept applies to what part of the output. "Refactor this code to use a class and make it multi-threaded for MicroPython" .. there's two concepts that AI mostly gets wrong -- but give it another 3 months and I expect AI to get this right more often than not.

the hopeful mythology with NFTs compensating artists for their contributions ended up being completely bunk because, in reality with tech made and hyped by corporations, the real thing is always going to be the shittiest possible version. it's already the same with genAI. I know you talk about the hopeful possibility of artists being compensated for their work in these genAI models, but it will never happen. it's not within the interest of the corporations that built these models, it never will be, it's too expensive. it might have been possible at the very beginning, but that ship has long sailed past the horizon. unless all current models utterly collapse, the ai bubble catastrophically bursts, and the corporations that made these models cease to exist and the tech effectively has to be made again from scratch, we cannot expect a future where a consensual and fair system of compensation will exist with this technology. it will always be the shittiest version. getting paid for all the art they stole from me would be amazing! I'm not holding my breath. 🖌 [edit] I recommend watching the video "The AI Revolution is Rotten to the Core" by Jimmy McGee

Nice idea ♥

🎨 It's refreshing to see people talk about AI without urging the torch and pitchforks for either direction on for or against it. I personally don't like the way that current art models of AI sidestep the consent of artists, so I'm all for your proposed method of instilling a more collaborative community among artists with an incentive to opt-in for it. I know that would change my stance on it, for sure. As for the use of AI in medical matters, well, I can see how some doctors could improve their practice with its application in the way you have stated. However, I don't expect that to be that popular among "problem" doctors that are far too stubborn to accept that they may be wrong; even with a patient's health being at stake. So, I guess I could distill my comments down to agreeing with you on all points. 😅

I have a question I’ve been arguing with my friend for the past hour now. Is ai art actually art? I saw yes, he says no. I argue that it’s low art at best, but still art in the end, if it’s a more advanced ai that can blend samples well. What are your opinions?

🎨

Stable Diffussion gives a lot of control to whoever trying to generate images.

AI art might be a black box but while I dont know that much about it, SURELY you could get some kind of output for the liminal space, and properly credit artists. I mean if you can ask for it in the style of a certain artist then certainly that information is somewhere. I think with GPT 4o being multimodal that type of crediting might be more possible.

I don't think compensation can work. Everything generated by AI is public domain, which means the generations have little commercial value. Things change when generative AI is used in pastiche works, but you wouldn't get compensated for those, either. And with local models like Stable Diffusion, Kandinsky, PixArt or Stable Cascade, you can't track what users add to the models or generate to begin with, and those models are pretty much the future, anyway - especially in commercial settings.

AI vs Artists - The Biggest Art Heist in History - I suggest watching this for a better idea of the impact generative AI is already having. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/kLBlbMpltbyVcXk.html

12:06 i believe it might have a possibility of replacing many, or any jobs that requires files at it's main thing, wich is probably everything in the internet since all you need is a large quantities of file, and combine.. well not combine, more like mutate. as far as what i know with ai, is in wich it works like a root of a tree finding the nearest source of water. this root paths is controlled, improved and updated. first chaotic, and then near perfect. and the scary thing is not the path of the roots but the rate in Wich it's growing. compare it like this, humanity is a tree 🌲 that grows everywhere and ai is a tree 🎋that grows in a straight line but it's growing at exponential eventually speed of light the problem is it stabs the human tree 🎠that is growing thus the **demotivation of artists** and stuns human development because the mass gets less motives and it grows slower there's only a few ai trees that grow that can stab it majorly imagination,audio,speech, the only way to make it grow again fast is for the ai to wrap around the root wich is basically turn into brain with metal parts that help it. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯ in wich there is a gamble either most of humanity is useless or humanity is useless and but there's ai, because humanity cannot go faster than AI technology and human will need to become ai to be at society, there will be ai chip in your brain if you want to improve in the future, ai chip is just basically google in your brain but faster and just like google it's really fucking dangerous and controlled by massive corporations, good luck with that you might improve but you will be controlled just like the ai, and of course there's no way out because the one who has the chip can make better machines in the real world, go be optimistic and believe humanity does not get violent and control people this argument is so godamn crazy because brain chip is just way too sci-fi and any file related jobs argument are just crazy but it's true any file related jobs will eventually be replicated, and brain chips exists and for now it's just on standby and i don't know what to do with it. and yes it's obviously gonna improve human health but that's just health not ideas. for context ideas are violent and Inspirational so don't expect a great world idea from a great torture idea , and holy shit I can write a book in this comment section I will stop arguing, just remember this, ai is fast ai in your brain and end. there are many possibilities in this end part dystopia or utopia.

I sometimes feel like my opinion on these things is not seen as legitimate since I'm no artist and not having to make a living from art, but here are my thoughts anyway. So although I understand the hate AI gets from the artists community, I like to play around with it and see what happens. I sometimes find it fascinating with what it comes up with, because I usually do things like not describing specifically what I want to get like many users do, I give song titles, book titles or lyrics and quotes, often very vague and ambivalent and see what happens, only directions I give are sometimes the mood or the artistic style like photography, oil painting, watercolor etc. I also never use artist names, of course I know the AI has to draw from somewhere its "inspirations", but then again, when in school I was also taught what oil paintings were by being shown paintings from other artists, not straight been given a brush and paint and then doing my own picture. Of course I understand it is more valuable if I could create art with my own hands. But still, I'm doing this in my spare time for fun, I'm not selling this (especially not claiming it to be my own) and if I had no AI to use, I would surely not pay artists just for hours and hours of dabbling around with ideas, so they are losing a client on me. So I do not see why I (and millions of other non-commercial users out there) should be prohibited to use AI, even more so that I do not pay some service but do it all for free on my own PC, so I'm neither earning nor paying anything. 🎨 (Interesting how many people commenting have either not watched to the end or simply ignore your request...)

🎨Great ideas and opinions about the whole generative AI concepts, as well as the concept of value. I'm not sure if what you talk about is really achievable in the current context, but I really like the ideas. What do you do about totally free generative AI tools? Nobody is paying anything as such , so nothing can be given to the artist. are those tools and models condemned to disappear? That would be bad since those are the open source tools and models that can be freely modified and improved by the users.

🖌️ love hearing your view, as always! I think I have to disagree with you about being compensated. That seems to be a slippery slope into a lawsuit land of stagnation. How would the descendants of DaVinci, Rembrandt or anyone else in history be compensated for using their works as inspiration? Or more recently, Bob Ross, Warhol, and others. Just a thought. Humans tend to want to drag others down rather than lift themselves up. In this imagined future, everyone would be suing everyone else for inspiration compensation.

AI is a tool that can boost the work of those who have ideas. I use it everyday.

🖌 interesting view of AI thanks

I us Ai images all the time. It has never occurred to me to ask for anything in anyone else style. I do sometimes ask for images in my style...

The way image generators work today, I don't think there is a technical way to figure out who's work contributed to the final image. Figuring out what influenced the outcome is essentially impossible as far as I can see. You might use the text prompt to figure out which artist's work (that was used for the training dataset) fits the description in some way. But you would still not know whether or how much an image was influenced by an artist's work. I have trained generative neural networks and if you told me you wanted to hire me to do something like this, I would have to tell you that I don't know how to achieve it. I can think of many ways to have indications, but at the end those would be worthless as soon as you started to dissect them. The core issue is, as you are training a neural network, every image can influence everything within the neural network.

Motto of Silicon Valley is: First do, then ask forgiveness. As long as artists are not backed by the law in precedence law suits, this theft will go on. Imagine the billions of dollars being poured into this technology while zero to none compensation goes to the very content creators used to create this technology. At the same time these companies charge users for their money while siphoning off every thiny bit of personal information a Scarlett Johannson voice LLM can flirt out of their users. Honestly, it is very sickening.

I wouldn't mind seeing a free/local version for amateurs just messing about, and a paid tool for professionals looking to use it in their workflow. Getting compensated for someone just messing about doesn't feel realistic, whereas with people actually using it professionally feels a different story. As far as i'm concerned, if someone is making money off your work you need to be compensated, this is also true for the service itself, especially the service. The risk becomes in implementing such a systems, many companies in the past has bankrupted themselves trying to do the right thing, whereas their rivals flourished.

I’m hoping for animation it could enable a small team to create what a much larger studio could do, stable diffusion 3 and their rumoured superior control nets sound close or over the target to get this to happen, of course trained on one’s own art style and empowering smaller creators with open source models and not tech poison that’s controlled by the world of shareholding tech bros 🎨

I doubt companies will be willing to compensate the artists. They may claim that it is not your work and make excuses, and then use the legal system as a weapon against you!

It's not as easy as: Just pay the artists. Let's say Ai companies start paying artist a share, and the whole art industry relies on those payments. Wouldn't new artists be left out? How about the artists that used Ai to create some art, just to make money by including it in the databases? Should they be paid as well? How about non artists with AI tools and lots of time? Should they be paid too? What if a company just hires a bunch of minimum wage workers to create a database of only AI art to use in training? Can they keep all of the money? Because that will be the most likely case.

🎨🖌🖼 👍

I would think the reason for the pennies not coming is the same as the reason artists in general are not paying pennies to every artist their own art is inspired by. Can someone plaese explain the difference? I literally would like to know as I want this argument to be a good one if I ever need it myself

You're right that there will always be a desire for art created by a person because it has a story to it. I liken it to thinks like sports stars signatures, if you have a picture of your favourite star with a printed signature on it it will look the same when in a frame on the wall than a hand signed version. We all know the hand signed version is worth more. I still think that images that are 'inspired' by other's work is ok, it's how we all learn. If I painted a picture in the style of David Hockney would he own it???? As long as I don't try to pass it off as his work then it's mine. Same should apply with AI. What would be your thoughts if you were inspired by one of these AI generated images and created an artwork based off of it? Who owns that???? :) you squared :)

Compensated by whom exactly? The whole conversation around compensation, axiomatically assumes that someone, somewhere, is making money at some point from which that compensation would be deducted. Who is making any profit right now or in the foreseeable future from any of this? The whole industry is burning venture capital like it's going out of style, banking on the exponential curve to carry them out of the red.

Visual arts and other arts are not just about pretty or whether value is inherent in it it's purity or bespoke nature, that is a commodification not an actual reason or limit on what art is and is done for and by whom, AI=LLM=processing uint's is also not what people prescribe to this current AI models, Ai has been around longer than most people think way before you got interested in it, i was doing AI back at Uni in the mid 90's, what has changed is the processing power, and some small developments in algorithmic inference, which all eventually breakdown to entropy when over trained Still very much based in what you ask is what you get. much of the time that is generic and repetitive and boring, use as a tool for sure, and some artists can use them effectively as a new generative experience, but mostly it will be used for consistently bland copycat imagery! it has more validity within science but should never be without humans checking it's validity for algorithmic bias! Opensource art libraries for AI art generation, by people who are willing to donate to it, but AI should be not be allowed to be monetised and IP, until AI libraries pay artists. been talking about this since the beginning of AI art and NFT🎨

You know when you talk with a utterly eloquent friend that can express complex ideas and concepts with simple terms and clarity? And then there someone else (usually us) who stumble upon the words, painting a really muddy but understandable picture of what they wanna say? I feel like when asking an AI Img Gen tool to mimic someone's style is the same as asking for this second friend to cite with their own words an opinion of the first friend's each top 3 topics of interest.

🖼️

What defines one's style? Reminds me of the 'chicken or the egg' causality. I guess we all 'copy' in our own unique way, over and over again, such is life. AI is becoming good enough to copy things we do. Can be a great tool in many ways, but it is intention that worries me most. With ability speeding up, we are bound to lose sight of the consequences.

I total agree with a ai Spotify idea

From a coder that mostly codes, but occacionally looks at art and tries to procedurally generate it over the last years, basically doing the job that AI does now, finding patterns and replicating them :) (also advocated in 2015/16 to give Substance Designer a try to an artist that draw textures by hand), so yeah, I don't take any moral highground. I think the compensation talk is flawed. Everybody copies small things from others and integrates it in their own art. You do procedural modelling and you got some colors you like. While I like some of the things you made in the past, I believe if AI would give you a percentage of artists influence per image, the number and thus compensation would be too low to care. If you go that far, then every image you look at and took inspiration from should be compensated, too. I don't see how this is possible even if you try your best to filter certain aspects of an image. A black and white image, a sphere that is divided by 8 parts, these are just "whispers" as you say and I don't see how this could be assigned to any artist. I also don't think AI art will be homogonized. The coders don't just feed AI with data. They will find out why AI art is homogen and they will find ways to make art unique. Same thing when we all laughed about AI hands, didn't take much time to fix it.

i cannot stress enough that youre not asking Dalle-3. youre asking an llm that has access to the web and can search the web. and that can manipulate your prompts after searching the web for information related to your prompt. dalle has no idea who you are.

I don't care at all for AI art. For me is just big tech company taking and using our work without compensation and consent, and never will. It is just one more big hindrance you have to deal with in addition to the competitive entertainment and art market. You as an individual could never use someone else's IP to profit without getting sued but big corpa bent the reality in her favor, that's peak capitalism. But thanks for the philosophical perspective you put in, I hope people appreciate human art more as a result of more processed AI one.

if you can do anything, make the conundrum of killing to live go away...

Should you be worried? It depends. Are you reliant on selling art pieces as a job and your brand isn't big? Yes. Are you corporate? Learn the AI and nothing to worry about.

Thats alot of words for, " I want to be payed for my work."

From the perspective of someone with no artistic talent, what is the difference in someone typing "In the style of Curtis Holt" into a AI art prompt and someone with some talent looking at your works and imitating your style? Customer walks in with a bunch of Curtis Holt pictures and tells the artist that he wants a picture of "X" in this style, what then? I recently used Dall-E to generate a thumbnail for me to use. I typed in my prompt and it output something well beyond my expectations. I did not use any "in the style of" prompts. Do you feel that this is an acceptable use of AI generated imagery? Or do you still feel that every artist that who's work was used to train the AI needs to be compensated? Will any kind of artist compensation lead to an AI that is only trained on art from artists that are dead? The AI companies will just wait for you to die and then use your art. With the power of home computers, and the fact that the newest processors have built in NPUs, how will we prevent the average creator (or clever businessman) from spinning up an AI and training it on "everything" on the internet? Is the only way to stop unapproved training with your work to put it behind a pay wall and turn off all the search bot access so no one knows you exist? Maybe just not post any of your work on the internet to the point of only sending encrypted images of your work to those that YOU want to see it? Is being a paid artist no longer a viable business model, like Fast Food in our current economy, just not a profitable venture? Tough questions that I wish I had answers to.

🧑‍🎨

For me these AI generative tools will always be unethical until 4 things happen: 1. The creators of the generative AI tool get a license from every author they are using their work. (Needs to be explicit and opt-in) 2. Make public all the dataset they are using, with authors and license agreements. 3. The user of the AI doesn't get the rights about the work is generated, only a license to use the work. 4. Every AI work generated needs to be marked that is AI generated and which AI tool was used to created it. with "work", I refer to every medium: images, music, books, games, etc. But I know this will never happen, if they really care about the authors, they will do this already. But this will not make their business win money, and they only care about that.

i like how people keep comforting themselves that it's only a tool - ai tools, they say. Well, guys, in this case I believe you're a tool as well, in the eyes of the employer, and ai is just a better one.. if we dismiss all the "ai art has no soul" crap, which really means nothing and no one really cares about if the end result is decent, which it is. that is the problem.

🎭🎨

6:50 It is one thing that God is lack - Limits.

I don't think it's necessary to mention or pay authors whose work was used to train AI models. Because when real people learn from the work of other authors and are inspired by their styles, they don't have to pay for it. And if compensation for the use of other people's works is made mandatory, this will hit small authors who want to use AI as a tool in their works. After all, then it will become impossible to use stable diffusion models for free, and large companies will be able to easily deduct part of the money they earn from providing paid access to their AI.

🤖👽✏🖌

📷🔬

Another video of high intellectual content. Thanks for that. I have no doubt that there is an equitable solution to the AI art generation problem, however, I don't think that's of any concern to a corporation. Why give you money if they can keep it all? Now for some constructive criticism. I had issues watching this video because of the excessive jump cuts. There were so many that I started to get dizzy and had to look away and just listen. You're not the only creator doing this and I don't understand the purpose. It doesn't add value to the video in any way and visually breaks up the conversation, in my opinion. Still love the content, just can't watch it.🖌

The compensation will not work, those companies that built those tools don't care about anyone except money. If they can get away with stealing they will do it, that's why the law and regulations are important. It's similar to ntfs, just capitalism

Art emoji

If you feel threatened by AI art existing then just remember that your art still exists. AI art is the next art renaissance, already in full swing, you can use it to your benefit, or be a luddite. And remember that everything anti-AI art people say today was said about people who use computers to make art with 30 years ago. They said digital art was not real art, it was fake, it had no value, it was a threat to traditional art. You using a stabilizer is computer assisted art, not actually done by you. The only pure form of art is then pixel art where you intentionally click every single dot - even traditional brush strokes are tool assisted. Even photography is not by an artist, there was no intentionality in those megapixels only a broad prompt by the so-called photographer.

I think is hard to explain but I'll try to explain why this model of monetisation won't work. When we pay for music on Spotify, we pay to "reproduce" the music, so we pay the licence of the copyright material. By the law, when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work, we need a licence of the author or will be a copyright infringement. AI doesn't do nothing of that. I will skip distribution, performance and publicly displaying because don't fit on the discussion so, reproducing: to create a copy we need the original, all the images are discarded before the train process start, AI just identify patterns and never uses the original material again. What AI storages in the neutral network is the processes it learned to "redraw" patterns of the original image. So, by design, AI is no capable of "reproducing". Derivative work is when you make a similar work that's have the same purpose, AI training create a model which could be use to create a derivative work (not necessarily), but the responsibility of using it to the finality is of the final user, so, to be a copyright infringement, we need to judge each image created by it, not the model or the training database. You could monetize Loras, but i don't think you would be payed for your style, just for the work you did to create the model and the distribution, because, technically, you don't hold copyright on your style, only on individual images you create with it. Imagine creating a model and a big company (Disney for example) claims your model is way to similar to their, that could create a bigger problem than a automatic tool could.

Short answer, no. There are more important things to worry about.