I would definitely be down to hear you follow this as it continues to unfold

The fact that Artists get bullied because they are concerned for their livelihood is insane! Visual artists have never gotten the respect they deserve. I’d like to see how music artists react when AI can make hit songs similar to there hits without their consent.

As an aspiring artist, and sometimes commissioner of art, I tried using midjourney’s free trial to do some experiments, went to inform myself and see what would come out of it. I had something pretty specific in mind, and it was my own character, and also something I would never use outside of my little experiment. Safe to say that the results were terrible. As long as you put general prompts without having a very specific idea of what you want, you can get very good looking images (that break down in details and hands tho) that uou can choose from, however when the thing you have in mind is specific and you want it to be done in a very specific way, the AI is unable (to my experience) to deliver. From my point of view, I much prefer to commission an artist that has the style I prefer and I envision for the art I want, I know I can talk to them and provide all the references they’ll need, make sure they understood my needs completely and get the result I wish, instead of hoping that an AI does it (and maybe gives my character four hands or an extra finger on each finger…)

Thank you for covering this. You put everything so well, and I agree with your sentiments. As an artist, I’ve lost almost all my motivation recently because of this. I even deleted my artstation (although it’s likely too late to avoid being scraped). I’m so disheartened by the future we’re pursuing and by the attitudes and behaviour of so many people. There will be a lot of regret in the future after the earth beneath creatives has been salted, and we stop producing the people who bring more colour to the world.

Imagine that in the future there will be AI doing accounting, AI doing office work, AI doing data collection, AI driving taxis, planes and ships, AI that regulates air traffic, then millions of people will lose their jobs, it's time for me to buy land and start farming, If you think I'm paranoid guess what, my boss just fired me because he could save money by using AI instead of using an illustrator like me

Great. Civil. Instructive. Hopeful. Best perspective I've seen so far. Thanks, Brad.

Please continue your commentary on the impact of AI art. It's a valuable perspective from a working professional artist.

The way this is treated by law is so damn disgusting. "they allow you to opt out in the future" so if I steal the gucci designs, it's their own fault because they didn't send me a specific message telling me I am not allowed to use their design

I'd love for you to keep covering this! You manage to talk about the issue from a very objective standpoint while still maintaining a sense of heart that stands with artists. I didn't know much about the legal nitty gritty of this case but you managed to make it so accessible and clear. Great content and hope to see more!

Definitely continue covering this topic, great video 🙌🏾

Imagine developers developing AI to write codes and then getting fired because of the AI they develo... Oh, wait, that just happened a few months ago. Ironic.

Please keep covering this! Imo AI shouldn’t be allowed to do what it’s doing without getting the consent of the artists first. I’ve seen artists get in trouble for having a similar work to another artist, AI shouldn’t be above this just because it’s computer generated. There are a LOT of artists that are angry about AI doing this…

Artists are having some very real and serious concerns about this and we get bullied for even voicing them. The whole system is build around trying to bypass artist’s decisions and preferences around how their work is to be used and yet people still think we are the ones that are unreasonable. Honestly good points and thanks for bringing this up.However I just honestly completely lost my hope and trust in the public regarding this issue based on their response.

You merge everything related to art in a very good way on this channel, and I love it. You perfectly combined "Informative" and "entertaining" and you release videos like a wizard (precisely when he means to). So yes please, keep this content coming

I think part of the toxic response comes from what non artists consider art, traditionally an artist makes a piece of work to be enjoyed by others and art tends to become public domain when it is not trademarked or copyrighted in modern times allowing the "free-use" term to be used for that specific art. so when it comes to non artists who can then make something in the "style" of an artist they like or find interesting to then make a custom art for themselves is a form of admiration, however then the issue comes when people try to monotize it, in essence AI like this is meant to be a tool for both novices and professionals to allow them to create great art. Artists have always had a hard time monotizing their works and this is a chance to change in both good and bad ways, there is going to be an adaption phase but I do see artists themselves being the ones to use AI the most in the end. AI is just another tool in the toolbox and a professional will always make better work than a novice and AI makes mistakes and has limits, (yall seen them hands on AI Art?)

Sam has great points. if he doesn't want his stuff to be use then he should have the right. If they're using his work to generate new work... and if he consent to it, they should be paying him royalties for every piece used but that's not the case. These AI companies are making so much money generating stuff with ur name on it. Same with sampling music, should have royalties if a piece is used. Actors and actresses also have the right if they don't want their image to be used.

The prospects of AI as a professional tool is fantastic. I imagine an artist feeding their own art work into the training data set so they can produce their own work faster, or animators only needing to draw keyframes as in-betweens can be generated, or giving a colour reference sheet to the AI so it can add colour to black&white/grayscale images. But AI as a tool for the general public is a tool that will be misused, and freelancer artists would be the most affected (if specific artists are used as prompts then its basically like tracing scandals' on roids). Another angle to see is stuff like ChatGTP is already screwing over written assignments in education

As a data professional for years, you nailed it! It not easy to translate such complex situation into simple words, well done!

Please continue to cover this topic, this has been eye opening and awareness of implications on artists and art is much needed.

Artists are not disadvantaged by AI, they are disadvantaged by the lack of AI-based tools. Although current AIs can be used as tools by artists, it does not mean they serve as such. In fact, these AIs often hinder the artist when it comes to image-to-image conversion, making us abandon them for that purpose. However, text-to-image AIs help a lot in getting references, etc. But the tools artists really need are: • AI that scans line art or the entire paper drawing: Although some artists use digital tools for their works, many still prefer the traditional method because it is more usual and easier. However, the process of digitizing the work is complicated, and sometimes it's even better to redo everything digitally. This ends up being a double job, which can be discouraging. The existing methods cannot transfer the drawing with 100% accuracy, and the quality of the work is often reduced. • AI for art correction: Although image-to-image AIs are useful, they often end up altering the artwork or generating even more errors because they were not created for that purpose. • AI for line art: Making line art is one of the most important processes in a work as it gives shape and depth to things. However, if the line art is the same in all parts, the quality will be poor. • AI for painting: When painting, artists always start by adding the base color of each element contained in the art (each base is separated into different layers), and then they start painting. The problem is that the light and shadow process is very repetitive. If we could draw a ball, put the colors we want on it, and use an AI to transfer it to the part of the base we chose, it would save a lot of time. • AI-powered texture generation: An AI tool that can generate textures for an artist to use in their artwork, based on their preferences and input. • AI-powered brush stroke simulation: An AI tool that can simulate different brush strokes and textures, allowing artists to experiment with different styles and techniques. If all these AIs existed, we could reduce the average 10 hours of work to 10 or 20 minutes depending on the complexity of the art. But until these AIs exist, artists are still at a disadvantage. (text to image doesn't make sense for artists, artists like their own styles)

I'd definitely like you to cover more of this! In the future maybe talk about how some generated images have the artist's signature still there.

Please keep it up with this topic Brad, it gets really time consuming and scary being informed in this matter mostly because when you find an opinion or post from the A.I images community it always feels like ''yes, you're going to be replaced and there's nothing that you can do'' :/

Keep making these vids Brad! Anyone drawing/modelling digitally needs to be in the loop with this! There is no sense hiding from it! I find it fascinating and have experimented with it as well asking "what if..."

This is a gigantically important topic. The picture artists are only the first step. We will see this with ALL creative work in the next years. This right here is a blueprint. - Either picture artist get fair compensation and everything will be on an "ok" trajectory - Or creative industries get gutted... which is horrfying for the artistis and also bad for the quality of models (less and worse training data) Thank you for covering this.

I would love to hear more on this topic! My English teacher is actually having us do a lot of work and research on this topic right now and it interests me (and I’m sure many others) a lot. Thanks talking about this Brad! Love the content, keep up the great work!!!

This is a conversation that needs to be had a million times over. The more voices that cover it, the more comprehensive and all-encompassing the conversation can be. Not just on this channel but branching out to other channels as well simply by just being a part of the overall conversation to begin with. I hope that made sense..? When I saw that the video was 10 mins long, I was like "ok that is how long it it going to take to introduce the subject", let alone get an opinion on it but I thank Brad for this nonetheless. I am a web programmer and I tend to see things by matter of pipelines and production lines. Simply put, Stable Ai knowingly started with legally radioactive material so they ended up with a legally radioactive result. Members of both the Institute for AI Ethics in Montreal and Turkey warned SAi NOT to release the software using the LAION-5B data set. Stating that it would be "detrimental to the future development of Ai technologies". Even proponents of Ai art who have experience in the legal field have come out and said "yeah, this is definitely copyright infringement" (check Corridor Crew for more info). The backlash and malicious response from the Ai art community is not doing them any favors when it comes to litigation or future legislation either. All they have done is demonstrate how much of a threat Ai art has become to copyright data and intellectual property management. I personally think that it is going to have much of the same result as the monkey with the camera case. The software will be the only recognized artist. Ai art will be labeled with meta data as it is produced, including the prompt and software used. New models will need to be trained for updated software that are opt-in only or properly licensed, or royalty free, etc. Old models will be denied use in the software to ensure the integrity of future updates and regulation. Perhaps even going as far as to block any ability to allow users to train their own personal ai models and forcing users to work with a curated and regulated all encompassing ai model?? Anything that is not labeled as Ai outright will be labeled as Ai by default and it will be on the artist to prove human authorship or else no copyright protection will be afforded to it.

Please do keep us updated. I just hope that the artists get a fair hearing at trial and that the obvious money backing AI isn't too much for them to overcome.

Thanks for covering this topic! I think it is very important to raise awerness to the dramatic changes this technology is making in the world. I am sure that many of your subscribers are somewhere along their journy to make a career in digital art and these events can totally change their lives. Please keep us updated!

Please continue to report on this topic as events unfold. You are excellent at clarifying the murkiness and I consider this a very important discussion. Thank you for your hard work and excellent videos and reviews.

Please continue covering! Your perspective seems rooted in logic vs. emotion which we all need rn. I like the idea of finding ways to use this technology, but absolutely not at the expense of hardworking creatives. License & compensate the artists. It’s not that hard.

Thanks for calmly sharing this, Brad. I’m a “small” artist, and even I have found my work in one of the training sets. It feels violating in a number of ways to have it used in a mass production machine without my consent or compensation. If an artist wanted to study from my work? That’s fine. I’m a teacher. It’s not like the things I’ve learned are something I won’t share. But I’d take issue if a company took, printed, and sold my work on a t-shirt without permission, and this is a whole other level, and it doesn’t even seem to allow for the usual cease and desist channels. And complicated opting out? It should have been a choice to opt in. Given that choice, I’d have said no to this in the first place for my work. I also feel so much for those who have had entire machines trained on their portfolios, which goes beyond even copying a style, in my opinion. What I’ve seen of this particular aspect feels like something closer to identity theft. It makes sense that “style” (which I’d read in the broad sense like “genre”) can’t be copyrighted, nor in the sense I just used it, should it be. I shouldn’t be able to own the rights to all jazz music or impressionistic painting, for example, just because my work might be in that “style”. But this is more like completely replicating and cashing in on an individual’s actual voice (something that isn’t even possible to take in this way without a machine, and something that should be inseparable from that individual, a part of their identity) than it is like working in a genre. I just think there’s been some slippery wordplay around the phrase “you can’t copyright a style,” to try to justify something that has more parallels with identity theft than with style. As far as I can see, this isn’t copying a style. It’s singing with a stolen voice. It’s like Ursula pretending to be Ariel, swallowing her voice and singing with all of Ariel’s exact intonations and using her years of practice and singing experience, and in this case, the argument can’t even be made that Ariel signed her voice away in the first place.

There is a mistake with understanding copywrite. The question is not whether it affects the market for the original works, its does it affect the market for the original work. What difference does the s make? Using the Steven king example, the question would be "does this new AI generated book devalue a particular book by acting as a replacement", not "does this new AI generated book devalue kings library as a whole". Styles are not copywritable, only particular images.

From what I've heard and understand, AI doesn't "copy" the image. It learns from the images. I am a musician and songwriter. Everything I understand about music, all of the things I hear in my head are formed from music I've heard over my life time. My 'style' emerged from my experiences, listening, lessons I've taken, emotions, techniques and so on from a life time of music. Even the top artists that are concerned are incorporating the styles of others in their own works. Think not? What exactly were they taught in art school? What would a musician sound like if he'd never heard other musicians play? We all are familiar with the term 'influenced'. It is a common question in interviews. "Who was your biggest influence?" AI scrapes images to 'learn', then it takes a request for an image and produces one based on what it has 'learned' from other artists. The only way to not allow your art to 'influence' others is to not let them see it or hear it. If a painter likes something and thinks it is cool, do you think he/she will refrain from using that in a future work? AI is doing nothing more than learning from paintings and photos and such. We as humans learn every time we listen to a song or view a photo or painting. How would we write laws to prevent this? Good luck. AI just does it more in your face and obvious. You can't stop artists from seeing and using things in their own creations unless you remove them from public access. That sort of the defeats the purpose of art. AI while not human, is engaging in what we do and have done since the beginnings of civilization. The issue here is money.

I really appreciate the conversation you are having around ai art, please keep talking about it. Thank you.

Yes, more on this issue please. You’ve summed this up quite well.

Definitely keep up the coverage, if you can, Brad. It’ll be interesting to see where this all ends up.

Genuinely interested in this topic as an artist, so I would like to see you keep covering it and giving your opinion.

HELL YEAH it's worth you covering!! I think this is an inflection point for a LOT of different things... if AI can generate art, or music, or pass the bar... when is it coming for YOU? Whatever you do, you don't think an AI or a robot can't do it? Maybe not NOW, but that's what they thought about art and music only a few years ago. There's THIS angle as well: These AI companies train on artist's work, then sell that gained knowledge to put said artists out of work. Everyone is now DEPENDENT on the AI company to get their art, because being an artist is even less economically viable than it already is. You don't think said AI company isn't going to put the screws to you at that point? Imagine if AMAZON OWNED YOUR ART GENERATION. Imagine them demolishing artists so they can't compete. Imagine them SUING artists for their work impinging on THE AI'S copyrighted generational style. Don't think can happen? Look up Monsanto, and how they sued farmers for using THEIR genetically modified plants that invaded their fields. Where there's profit to be had, there will be douchebaggery, no question. The Arts are about to get inundated with this, and if we as a society aren't careful, this can have HUGE consequences. Sorry for the wall of text... I'm kind of passionate about this!

Same as in the music production. Why is the 60-70-80's music so good, it has soul in it....today? a DAW with the same plugins and TR808 sounds. Good luck you are totally right. Love your channel.

ill be honest and say the toxicity is heavy on both sides of the war on levels that are flat out unreasonable. Ive watched people simply asking question get attacked in comment sections by artists who in my opinion have there heads up their asses far to often for not knowing something or slightly asking questions that sit in the grey area.

Good video! I started messing with some of these AI image generators recently to help me come up with some references and transfer styles of images onto other images but I only use artists or art that is in the public domain (due to the artists being over 50 years died). I think its important than living artist who have the rights to their art work should be able to opt out or at minimum get paid if they are used in these AI image generators

Great breakdown Brad, yes please keep covering this topic!

You make a pretty good overview of the situation. Great stuff, I want more.

Hey mate, this was a really well-done, insightful vid and I would love to see more from you on the topic

Really great monologue, Brad. Thanks. I too have seen the vicious responses from AI users against artists. Its degree of malevolence is initially startling and unusually high. However, it makes me wonder if it's driven by feelings of guilt and shame. If I were a failed artist (and I define that as someone who is not willing to put in the time and commitment to get good at it), yet had the desire to impress the world with 'my' art, it would put me in an emotionally strange position - as if I was consciously trying to deceive myself as well as others. Mix that in with a dose of insecurity in myself and what I was doing and then if I'm actually called out on it, and my inner and outer actions exposed, I would probably also behave in a pathetic and aggressive way too.

It's kinda sad that a lot of problems with AI comes from the users who ruins the whole thing. From blatantly calling artists "gatekeeper", trying to "fix" someone's art by running it through AI without permission, or accusing someone's work as AI-generated image. It's hard to fairly justify AI when it gives birth to these kinds of people.

Thanks Brad! Really well done. Please cover this further!

Probably your biggest comment stream yet, because this is by far your most consequential video on any topic. Yes, keep it going. Wish you’d post the extended version. Very well explained. I like the more serious version of you, too.👏🌟👍

One of the clearest and clear headed discussions on the ethical problems with AI art and your point that what these models produce would be any good if the most talented artists were removed from the datasets is spot on. Please do continue to cover this.

Really good point about what makes ai art so popular, it is zeroed in on imitating the top artists in the field. Thanks for your level-headed perspective on this.

I do think you should continue to cover this topic. Artists are hopefully the harbingers of how humanity can use AI but not replaced by it.

Would love to hear so much more about this!

Brad, thank you for making this video. For making it so clear and fair. This is exactly the conversation I think we should be having. So to your question “should we do more?” Please do. Even if we wouldn’t agree a 100%, This approach of opening a dialogue amongst at least our selves is the right one and opens up a way fwd. keep it up!

Absolutely -- please continue to cover it. There's a lot I still need to learn, and this subject is evolving rapidly. Something I don't see covered a lot is the notion of scale. Specifically, if people treat the scraping and upgrading process involved in AI-generated art in the same manner as a burgeoning artist treats looking / copying other artists to learn, then a lot of the pro-AI arguments revolve around the concept of inspiration (whether a computer can actually be "inspired" is another topic all-together...). BUT with AI this "inspiration" has been scaled to a level not unlike the shift from making mixtapes to Napster and other similar services. Sure, the music industry probably wasn't thrilled at the idea of people making their own mixtapes, but it was really only after the copying and sharing of music explosively scaled with services like Napster did they take notice. And that's not even touching the subject of AI-generated music. So, yes -- please keep cover this and we'll keep watching and learning. Thank you!

Yes! Continue covering this, we need your voice on this subject.

Yes, please continue covering this! This is a very interesting topic.

This is an excellent video on the issues of AI. You make an excellent point on how the outputs of AI appear to be heavily weighted by the excellent artists work that feeds it.

Bro this is legit pretty damn complicated but you managed to explain it pretty nicely, good job ! Personally, I feel like a lot of artists out there are too strict when it comes to taking inspiration from their work, but the fact that a damn robot can just take your stuff and learn your style within a small amount of time without your consent is irritating. The rendering is really realistic cuz... Well... A robot can't really make an error in a "mechanical" skill, can it ? Maybe I'm just too old school for those damn things

I’ve given up on art completely. I’m just done drawing and painting. I don’t know what I’m going to do now. I have no idea what to do. But I’m done, I’m giving up on art, painting and drawing.

Thank you for making this. Calm, concise, articulate. You earned a subscriber.

Thank you for making this video. I'm sure it took a lot of time to produce something so fair and educational. Yes, please do continue to talk about it.

This is all super relevant to my own art journey. I am actually graduating graphic arts classes in May, and admittedly go back and forth between feeling like AI presents a lot of tools if I use it to touch up my own projects, but also sometimes wonder what is the point if the AI is going to generate art so far beyond my own capabilities. That's a really long way to say I would love if you would continue to make content about this topic, you present concepts in a way that are both informative and entertaining. Thanks for the work you do.

That was a thing that blew my mind, I installed Stable Diffusion on my computer and it can use "Negative prompts" to get rid of things you so not want to see in a generated image, and standard for those prompts are "watermark, signature, artist names, copyright, footer, logo, logotype", just for they have used so many downloaded images stock photos and copyrighted images that the AI think this is a part of what is art, some time you can create a image that get branded with "Getty", "Alarmy" or "Shutterstock". I think this is a good topic to cover for it is a new technology and a democratization of art, I am mostly annoyed of the bad images that was used for the training that did include watermarks, branding, signatures and so on, so when you use the free Stable Diffusion a large part o the post work are to edit out watermarks from your "own" images.

The biggest advantage is that now people can get all the reference photos they want for every subjects that exist without having to feel bad for scraping the internet and putting other people's work in their references. This isn't "other people's work", here. It's something totally new and unique. What it does is save you time so you can be more productive. It also restitutes creative freedom to humanity and it allows people who have a lot of imagination but not a lot of time to put their ideas out. It's an amazing too, it's not stealing your job, it's not stealing your art. It's enhancing your job, and it's giving you reference photos for free. 3D artists can use this tool to create textures much faster, and create small details like grass or flowerpots really fast and focus more on story-telling than on spending just too much time for small details that will be seen for a fraction of time. Now, you can use your own art, throw it in, and make thousands of variations of it and be inspired. You can use the inspiration to create sculptures with your hands, or 3D models to 3D print. This is beautiful, and it's a relief. And it's not killing creativity, it gives you motivation to achieve more, to learn more, to mix with more traditional techniques. The only limit is your imagination. Things of the world are part of everyone'S reality, therefor, having the possibility to generate reference photos of everything that exists is just a new awesome tool for the already existing toolset.

Yes thank you for this video! I too struggle with trying to be neutral on the topic since my husband works in tech and I love both traditional mediums and digital. Love the way you explained it and how you stayed an neutral as possible! 🙂I would totally watch more about this topic on your channel.

Hello, I have been following your channel for a while, starting with tipps on tablets why I got my Samsung s6 lite and recently how to color vector images and now I also like this discussing up to date things 👌 I think this ai trend should be thought over and even it's a strong tool it takes away peoples work not even like jobwise in the future but also what people have been creating, and the question of intellectual property should be really taken into consideration here 🤔

It's trained by random images and tuned by other AI models like Laion aesthethics or similar models. "To create LAION-Aesthetics we trained several lightweight models that predict the rating people gave when they were asked: How much do you like this image on a scale from 1 to 10?” And then you just punish the model until cats are pretty.

it's like suing the maker of guns for murder, its the person that misuses it not the weapon

I just started looking at a ChatGpt3 a couple of weeks ago. With all the new AI applications, it has been a whirlwind. Like you I have a foot in tech and art. From discussions I had listened to it sounded like scraping was just taking the algorithms from images and mixing them in new forms. But you really clarified what is going on. I am with everyone else with the comments. PLEASE continue. Not only have you uncovered a bias, but also, described clearly what is at issue for artists. And, you are really funny! Keep it up!!!

As someone who works in tech and coding, the defining argument for these AI art programs is does Copyright protect against using information to learn. As these programs claim their product looks at thousands of refrence images to define what a thing is. It then takes this "definition" and creates a work trying to combine what it believes the values requested are. It is very much a math equation. For Example, if you ask MidJourney to "turtle in a superman costume, cartoon style" it will evaluate the prompt as a series of variables. First it will try to define a turtle, by looking through its database of anything involving turtles, taking all of this information it will create a foundation of what it believes a turtle can be, it will do the same with the superman costume. When it gets to cartoon style it then evaluates all refrence images in its database that are classified as a cartoon and tries to find common characteristics of what makes a thing a cartoon. It then attempts to combine these into its outputs. This is why for many prompts you end up with misplaced anatomy or it generates an extra arm, because it is not able to define as we view something only based on what its data shows it. So if it scans a thousand turtle images and finds sometimes there eyes are in the middle of there head and sometimes they are on the side in a side profile it while generating can end up creating an image where there are eyes in both locations as it believes that it falls within "turtle". These lawsuits hopefully will define going forward the extent in which A.I tools can refrence data. As any A.I tool developed in the future regardless of field will always need to be taught through information. The argument comes down to, if a person were to look at these artists work for inspiration and develop a piece in a similar style it would not be an issue. But A.I does not have the same protections as people. Personally I believe all refrence libraries should be available to the public as well as the code used to generate. Artists should absolutely be able to remove their work from these libraries if they so choose, though I think doing so will not change A.I as much as some hope. When it is pulling from hundreds of thousands of examples both historical and temporary and not just from art pieces but all forms of still media there is a depth of data where it could in theory still replicate an artist style not in its database if the user prompted it by breaking down the style aspects of an artist style

Fundamentally, I don't understand how an a.i. learning peoples styles relates to it stealing peoples work the argument usually goes something like: "Well they didn't have permission to use the work" Neither do any of the other "artists" that copy people's style and we've never said a word about them? As an artist, I see no problem with a.i. art, it gives real artists the push to create more new patterns and styles "If you're afraid of being replaced, its because you know you're replaceable."

Thanks for the video Brad. I have been following you for some years and I always feel more informed after watching your videos. Absolutely keep informing me on this topic and all the other things you touch on! You are always one of the first KZfaq channels I recommend to other artists.

I'm not sure how I feel about AI generated art. "It's beautiful, it's progress," is what I tell myself but inside I'm dying and questioning myself, "What's the point anymore?" I can't imagine myself not being an artist, being an artist is what keeps me going with this life. Maybe this is what artists felt when photographs started to become more and more popular because art back then when it was still portrait painting was just that. Capturing the likeness of individuals and moments in time, then it gets replaced with a camera that can do their work in seconds. But photography has become its own art and art has been able to go in a more expressive way with abstract or impressionism, not bound by the constraints of making realistic portraits. Who knows, maybe AI will birth the new generations of progressive artists like Pollock, Picasso, Van Gogh, etc.

Great topic and well balanced! Please continue to keep us informed of this. The future with AI art is going to get interesting! Thanks for your great work!

Great video and I like your Lego modular in the background. 😊

I am glad this is being discussed in law. The AI Diffusion only creates derivatives on its database. It is only as good as it’s references. I think the database should be limited to public free use and public domain references.

Honestly, ai has the potential to address all the issues artist face. The main issues they face is one of both Value and recognition. Imagine it, whenever an ai image or text is generated, they also generate a list of works the ai was trained or referenced heavily to generate that work. And maybe, huge maybe, the artist get a few cents as compensation each time their work is reference. You can easily add ds and stuff these sites. And whenever someone wants a work generated in a particular style, the actual artist, if applicable has to authorize it and receive a royalty especially for commercial use. Ai could help artist everywhere. But, like always, everyone wants good stuff but don't want to pay for it.

Midjourney is adding prompts in the background to create those pretty images, if you use just "cat" in SD you will get results you expect. But this raises a lot of interesting questions, AI is capable of "understanding" how to use light in an image and is capable of creating better images than the source material.

Oh yes! You did an excellent job in covering this issue. Please continue.

It should be noted that people supportive of AI art are just as bullied and harassed as those against. There is very little coherent dialogue on this issue.

Please do more on this. The thing of it is: Artists are bullied basically our entire lives. Artists generally aren't super outgoing or popular (though there are exceptions of course) and will find meaning and purpose in our art. Many artists crave validation, hoping to be told that we're worth something because someone likes the thing we made. We have to endure though. We are told generally- again not all cases are the same, but generally: -It's not a real job -Grow up, stop playing with kids stuff -It's a "talent" we're so lucky to be born with, when it's actually a skill we pour or lives into honing -It's "cute", as in, aww look at you still playing like a child We are also told that our work is: trash, worthless, terrible, ugly, embarrassing, pathetic, bland, boring, uninteresting, unimaginative, garish, lame, and that so and so can do better. "my grandma can do better, my mother can do better, I can do better, this person over there can do better". If you work digitally, many people think that you're just "clicking buttons" and the computer does all the work. And the vast, vast majority of society balks at paying even a fraction of what all this is actually worth to create. Yet we do it anyway. Because it's our life. Not just our livelihood- our LIFE. Though some will have been driven to quit by the abusive way we're treated. My mother quit art in college because her teachers told her she was terrible. Later in life, when she had me, at about 4 or so years old I asked her to draw me Garfield. She hadn't drawn in years because she was "awful", but she gave it a shot and... hey actually, she was pretty good. So then she did more, and more, then branched out. She made a small business drawing people's animals in pastels for awhile, and I was so inspired from her being able to make things that I dedicated my life to art. But I have to imagine what a different life she could have had with just some earlier encouragement. All that comes to now, to say that.. Everyone hurling insults above? Now they have the ammunition they have wanted this whole time, to make artists obsolete. And you see it everywhere, the scorn and distain and frankly, jealousy. And that is why they are so nasty about it. Adapt or die. Finally the world no longer needs so-called "artists". They've always felt this way, now they get to finally prove it- see? ANYONE can be an artist, you just type words in and boom. Art. Even though they are about as far from an artist as you can get. they are the client telling the artist what to make. In this case: The machine. But try and point this out and the righteous indignation will pour out of them. How dare you. How DARE you call their "creations" not art. And now dare you refuse to call them artists. Now suddenly we're "gatekeepers" and "entitled" and went from being sort of off to the side, doing our thing, to holding back all progress of humanity or something. They could have just picked up a pencil and put in some work. Well, we've all had quite enough. Artists are done with this treatment, and we're pushing back with those lawsuits. The first of many, thats to be sure. For anyone who wishes to help support the cause, consider donating- this is for legislation, which is separate from the lawsuits.: www.gofundme.com/f/protecting-artists-from-ai-technologies?fbclid=IwAR1aundZO5E_qGUdz9i7xWEN7sq6o8CMykMcsBsNe-KD_4kfahfuRa0yGTU Also: if you do keep with this, PLEASE look at their music models, where they fall all over themselves to make sure EVERYONE KNOWS: No copyrighted material in those models! All public use! Don't sue us! Please! But Art? Yeah no uh, take everything, it's too hard to sort through it all. Whatever. Uh huh. Gee... I wonder why.

thanks man. i hope i have a future in art, please continue to talk about stuff like this, a follow was given

This is the debate of the decade..Please bring more of this discussion Brad.

This was an amazing video, I really like the observation how Ai is obviously only using the most "desirable" images to generate outputs (I've always wondered how all those MS Paint Sonic OCs that are abundant on dA never threw off the learning algorithm if they were just "randomly scraping images" 🤣). Would love to hear more from you on this topic, I think you were really being fair to both sides. I'm not a fan of AI images as art but I also think many people don't really make good points when arguing against it but instead do appeals to emotion (which is understandable, but also easily dismissed).

Super critical issues. I would really appreciate further coverage of this. Thanks Brad!

Well put. Would like to see you follow the developments on this.

Hey Brad! Definitely do more of those videos! Thanks!

I would really like for you to cover this. As for my opinion, artists should have the right to opt out easily out of them A.I. As a beginner artist myself, I would be very mad/sad for A.I to use my art, retouch it, so when I post MY original work, people say "That's A.I art, make something original". It's a very interesting theme, I'm eager to see how this unfolds. I would also be very eager to see you cover these and other things in the art world, you talk clearly, concisely and civil. It'd be cool to watch vlogs from you.

Individuals whom I considered friends, fellow artists with whom I sought to engage in civil discourse regarding AI, have scapegoated and ostracized me to the extent that I now feel inclined to wish for the downfall of society. The artistic community, as a whole, can often display a tribal and emotive nature, in which hostility is not only unnecessary, but also frequently arises, particularly among supposed friends.

I like these type of open discussion videos... Well made, I'll be keeping an eye out for the next one :)

They could just hire 10,000 artists to do thousands of "Artist name style" images and then use all of those, and ask people to submit images to be included. Even have daily competitions and the winners receive $50. People actively put out content for use. I'm included. I love when someone uses my content on hitrecord or freesound. And I don't even want credit. As long as people don't directly take my content and say "I made this." and start selling it or sharing it as if it's their own. But using other people's work without permission when permission is required, that's just wrong.

This reminds me of the AI generated news and students using AI to write their papers controversy.

what is your opinion on the ethics of using ai art as a reference? i could kinda see it being sorta useful in that context but since it relies on the work of other artists it would be really hard to give credit properly

Everybody, understand the context of this video, he is an artist.

I have made my living as an artist for over half a century now. I recently found my name on lists of artist's styles used for prompts, and also my images on the " have I been trained" site. I hope there is some kind of easy opt out legally forced upon these pirates.

Yeah, definitely interested in your perspective as this unfolds. If anything, it feels like it'll change how artists promote their work online and increases the need for blockchain-based copyright protection (not just NFTs). AI is going to be too big to be regulated, it'll be on artists or future technology on top of AI to better protect those elite artists and their work.

Please, do continue to cover it, especially in this simple yet informative, and calm way. The absolute disregard and toxicity from the pro-AI (or anti-artists) has been revolting.

I will take these lawsuit seriously only when the artist will prove beyond reasonable doubt that "his stile" is 100% his original creation and it is NOT BASED on ANY other previous art styles and artists experiences that existed through human history.

Only yesterday I was trying out an AI to generate images for the first time. While I got really excited about the amazing outcome of the prompts I was feeding it, I was also disheartened about improving my art. It felt really pointless trying to improve my drawing/painting skills when any regular joe can produce art far better than mine in just a few seconds. Why would I dedicate months (and probably years) of my life to perfect something that's done in a blink of an eye? It's like painting a photorealistic image in MicroSoft Paint: although completely possible, it is an utter waste of time, especially if you do art for a living. I only draw as a hobby, and I can only imagine how all this affects people who do it for a living. I have mixed feelings about all this AI stuff.

It took me 10yrs and sleepless hours to become a decent digital artist and then A.I. art came along and I love it - way less hours to do my creations and get a significant more ideas out there.. The law suit is wonderful because it will settle the uneasiness and create the legal pathway and boundaries A.I. art will operate in but it’s not going away so get with it.. There are hundreds of thousands of quality artist out there to name prompt so the few, named artist can get over themselves, they don’t even matter, for getting quality art pieces regardless of them opting out.. Fame and notoriety make one a better artist than the rest of hundreds of thousands of not popular or totally unknown artists..