Is AI taking over Art?

More and more people are experimenting with AI. Is this a good or a bad thing? Should artists be concerned with the latest developments? Is AI taking over art?

In this video we'll shortly look at how AI and we'll compare it to how we humans work. And we'll look at why you don't need to be concerned with your job as an artist.

⌚ Timestamps:
0:00 Introduction
0:46 How does AI work?
4:33 How do we get creative ideas?

➡️Couponcode: 'thedrdraw' for 10% off

(Affiliate links)
✏️ Tools I use ✏️

🎥 Filming setup 🎥

📚Books I read 📚

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

📹 In-video resources

🤓 Why?
In this channel we talk about art, psychology & drawing. Being an artist is hard and it's important to create a mindset that keeps it fun! We'll talk about simple techniques you can use to develop your artistic skills and feel more confident.

🔗 Follow me:

👨‍🎓 Study more effective:

👍 Youtube channel
Consider subscribing to this channel and be part of a community that chooses a life of confidence and passion in art and drawing.

▶️ Other videos:

#aiart #ai #art

[sergiarts]

Can we really conceive "AI art" as a tool when the companies behind these AI models are quite literally marketing it as a replacement for human artists? I think not.

[trenton]

As others already mentioned, my primary concern is the copyright violation happening with this tech. I'm unshaken in my confidence to survive as a professional artist. And competing with new tech is not new. Adopting new tech to enhance my work is not new either.

But AI is something different. I'm perfectly willing to adapt and compete in the marketplace, but it's still a slap in the face when your competition is built on the back of your own work. I'm very much rooting for the initiatives underway to address the legalities of how AI is sourced.

I'd be willing to use AI, not as art, but as reference material for art. But until this copyright issue is sorted, I'd feel hypocritical benefiting from the involuntary archive of other people's work. Upcoming music AI from the Stable Diffusion company will use opt-in and public domain sources only. I suspect they're more afraid of the music industry's might than they are us visual artists.

[koiyo]

the main problem with it is the art being fed into it is not consensual. AI can be a great tool for artists, but right now its going completely against the art community, producing near copies of other peoples work without their consent. The whole problem is the people in control of the AI arent artists or people who have ever been interested in art at all, just money hungry shitheads who want a quick buck. Its so gross how many people ive seen on etsy making AI art and charging real money for """commissions"""

[stardynamite]

I think the biggest problem with the AI/artist relationship isn't the fact that we confuse process with result and whatnot, I think that it's about the fact that the majority of people don't actually CARE about art... or at least not all forms of art. I'll take digital drawing as an example to explain myself since it applies to me: companies and people who used to commission artists might start using AI instead. There will consequentially be less jobs available on the market (which was already a problem, or so I've been told). When you're scrolling through, lets say, instagram. You tend to just look at the finished product that an artist has probably spent a lot of time on. Now, AI art can get so good that you won't be able to tell if it was made by an actual artist or not and since you've only seen the finished product, you don't actually care about the process. Chances are, you won't even take the time to check who made it! (I personally like to check, but I know from experience that most people don't)... All those people who spend hours on a simple comic strip could get replaced by an AI (or more accurately, by an AI operator) and you wouldn't know. What I'm afraid of is that the AI comic strips will have better chances of succeeding than the non-AI ones because of how fast they generate (no matter how much you want to fight it, you probably can't draw faster than an AI). I'm ok with seeing AI as a tool, but I don't want it to become the ONLY tool in the market yk?
Now you might say "oh yeah but everything an AI makes always looks deformed haha" or "yeah but a lot of AI steal actual artists works for their pictures so its immoral (and legally chargeable or smth)" which are both valid points. However, I am no scientist, but from what I've learned, we can't underestimate technological advances. These deformities and art-theft problems? those can be sorted out. I mean sure they won't replace us right *now* but maybe in a less distant future than we think... yk?

I would like to add that in the case of photography (and how, back in the day, people thought it was gonna replace art, yady yady yada...) it _could_ only replace realistic art...? (which, btw, I find quite boring usually if it doesn't show any difference with what a camera can do) What I mean to say is that AI art can actually replace any kind of art that fits digitally (which includes photography btw lmao). I've even started hearing about AI that make 3D models and if you print those with a 3D printer, then you also replace sculpting =D (although I have to agree that that last one would take much longer and isn't my primary concern right now).

[garynaccarato]

I think that the one difference between A.I art vs human created art particularly with novels is that human typically have morals as well as a moral compass and humans tend to project there personal ideology, agendas and or sense of morality into a piece of art however an A.I or a robot is completely amoral and does not have a moral compass so therefore cannot really do this.

[aldrinmilespartosa]

In a way people like Artists for now don't really need to answer the complicated and nuance discussion of what is art, can A.i generate Art, or said algorithm indeed does learn like us for that matter because these A.i companies for now never argued with that in the first place, they don't care, the ones who do are just the individuals who are using their products of which they created many poorly generated arguments so they can justify it. What we should really focus on is their idea of which holds the foundation of not only their current product but also their future business ventures that is their "axiomatic assumption" of which that they can use any data on the Internet for what ever the time, for whatever its purpose it is at may it be at may be it profit or non profit uses. If the people large enough fight against it and the law eventually sided with us, then it only matter of time for the exploit to crumbling down to nothingness.

If that axiomatic assumption is deem unreasonable both ethically and legally speaking then, only then the previous discussion will be instantly relevant but we have to remember, the clash of formation between two ancient armies is not the deadliest but the route of that will after it. Meaning if we can brake their main justification on court, to the humanity as a whole, its basically much easier then fourth after.

Note: What I mean "exploit" is their cheeky way of gathering data of which they funded a non profit organization of are actually the ones who can actually gather or in other words scrap data across the internet of which they suppose to use it for just non-profit and only research only purposes... of which might be true but the parent company who mainly funded them definitely will, and surely make a profit out of it when the datasets became open, of which should have been illegal in a first place but oh well, a loophole is a loophole.

[_loss_]

0:55 that's not how it works. It doesn't combine anything, it creates everything by diffusing noise.

[aldrinmilespartosa]

Yes, and also true to coding, literature, game developments, movies, such and such. If humanity just accept that companies can use our data to do what ever they want, its not really impossible that they can make a machine learning algorithm to make a faster, much more better, and a fraction of the cost we will ever do.

[bini]

I think the best use of ai is concept art, it's not that useful to create a final piece for a client

[waltlock]

A simple solution for the "stolen training data" issue would be for Epic Games to release a model trained on all the art from Art Station portfolios, as all the artists there granted Epic a perpetual royalty-free license to modify and sell their art.

[psycholaw]

If artist cease making/sharing art, artificial intelligence may begin processing their own prompt to generate images which in turn will increase repetition and fill their databank with similar imageries. Consequentially those reference will be broken down more and more, eventually generating infinite amount of noise or blank images

Why can't it simply reference past artwork ? Because for every original ideas, countless variants will be generated which in turn, those will be more likely to be used & generate variants of their own

[hjups]

You didn't really describe the whole training and generation process correctly. I think your explanation may actually do far more harm than good, since it perpetuates the false information spread by the anti-AI art movement.
The generative AIs don't collect the image data, and they don't choose which pieces to take from images.
The image data is collected beforehand and used for training the AI - just like how you can buy a book on art history and the contents are already curated. The difference is that the AI needs A LOT more images - or else it will over-fit, meaning unintentionally reproduce inputs at near perfect copies (which is a no-no from an AI ethics perspective).
Then the model learns patterns of features, which are not the same thing as "pieces of an image". It learns things like "what does an apple look like?", and "how do you draw an eye?", and "what do Van Gogh's brush strokes look like?". Then it associates those features with a text representation "apple", "eye", "painting by Van Gogh".
When prompted, the AI will then take an input consisting of pure noise, and try to re-create those features based on the text prompt (this is called "conditioning"). But the recreation is a probabilistic function based on feature prevalence in the model, the condition strength, and the noise seed. In simpler terms, if you trained the model on 4 images of Starry Night and 4 images of Irises, then the model has a 50% chance of reproducing the Starry Night brush strokes and a 50% change of reproducing the Irises brush strokes when prompted with "painting by Van Gogh". However, that probability is distributed spatially (in roughly 8x8 overlapping pixel chunks from Stable Diffusion), where each chunk can have a different combination of the brush strokes to create something that didn't previously exist.
Note that if you instead only trained the model on Starry Night, then it would only produce features in Starry Night when prompted "painting by Van Gogh", which is a form of overfitting. Sometimes this is also called "burn in".

[Octoboobs]

It can take away some jobs, but it can never take away the feeling of creating and being in the zone.

My favorite artist will still be my favorite artists, even if someone starts making copies of their art style.
There is more to human creations than just replicating their technique. I'm not that worried about AI

[spiderjump]

with a i image generators, no one will pay artists to produce illustrations for book covers or posters .

[Cellardoor_]

Right, this whole AI "art" situation brings up a lot of philosophical conversations. But art has always been about human expression and skill. When you take that away you just have a product to sell. It's pretty soulless. I have no problem with the technology but it's catering to the ugly side of humanity that wants things and "wants it now." It empowers entitled people who are too lazy to learn a craft. It's like someone who achieved a fit physique from working out naturally VS someone who uses steroids. But honestly, assuming copyright laws get enforced, the true skilled (not talented) artist who worked hard on their craft will rise above. Even if AI gets advanced, the true artist will be able to do things the mediocre pretend artist won't be able to do.

[Creepavore]

The definition of art in it's creation and total expression comes from a human. Not a machine Ai that ironically has a database of human art.

[kYnTso]

ok i guess painting houses it is, atleast thats a job AI cant take, for now.

[anonnymous]

1:00
it's not how it works though. It doesn't suck up images and sorts what it takes and what not.
There are two parts to creating an AI image generation app.

1. The crawler, an algorithm that looks for publicly available images. It "looks" at them, it doesn't download the file - and than changes a few weights in the second part based on what it saw. (What we call Machine learning).

2. The neural network (the second part). A file that is in it's creation roughly 4.5 GB. The crawler does it's thing and sends the neural network commands to change, a few billion times. After completion, the neural network is ... 4.5 GB large. Its filze size doesn't change, there is no compression, sampling or gathering new data - just the changing of weights.

The file can than be used, OFFLINE if you chose so, to create new pictures. From what it learned. At no point after the ML is it necessary to be connected to the internet. Even if it wanted to - it CAN'T combine images because it doesn't have any image file in it.

Interesting take on the rest though, not antagonizing at all. Thank you. Really appreciated. Hope my explanation helped.

[ismaeel]

AI’s a tool that will give more people the power to create, so I think it’ll be great, stumbles and all!

[PhuongNguyen-btbv]

Maybe A.I get smarter in the future or skynet come true.