Adam Savage's Issue With A.I.-Generated Art

How does Adam Savage feel about A.I. being used in filmmaking? What's something Adam never noticed about a prop until he saw it in person? What has the biggest impact on portraying emotion in a film: actor, script, score or lighting? In this live stream excerpt Adam answers these questions from Tested members @1J_Dellarosa, @ADHDMedia and @Koppa Kabanna, whom we thank for their support. Join this channel to support Tested and get access to perks, such asking Adam questions during live streams:

Intro bumper by Abe Dieckman

Thanks for watching!

[tested]

With thanks to Tested members @1J_Dellarosa, @ADHDMedia and @Koppa Kabanna for their support. Join this channel to support Tested and get access to perks, such asking Adam questions during live streams:

[annawildsville]

As a 30 year member of the entertainment industry, primarily working in visualisation these days, Im not a fan of A.I for final images. Yes, its very useful for non skilled producers to give me a flavour of what they are after, and thats great. The biggest problem it is creating at the moment, though (and no one is really talking about), is that it has created a change in peoples expectations of how much work can be done in a given amount of time. Ive seen a huge shift in people thinking we can do it all much faster. A.I may be fast, but bespoke hand created artwork, whether digital or analogue, still takes time to get just right. Im constantly having to tell producers that a job will take a few days, only for them to say that A.I does it in seconds. This is frustrating.

[chrishechtl]

Okay, that is just messed up. The YouTube algorithm interrupted his story with a commercial about AI replacing your workforce for answering questions, social influencers etc.

[geek-elite]

My favorite statement about A.I. "art" - and I don't know who originated it, but it was in reference to writing - is this:

If you couldn't be bothered to write it, why should I bother to read it?

That can be generalized to any artform.

If you can't be bothered to make it, why should I bother to consume it?

[MikeHayesDesign]

The same reason that whenever an artist I like sells a "sketchbook", I buy it right away. I love the process and the beauty in the exploration.

[v.r.i.d]

What about the simple fact that companies like OpenAI flagrantly stole copyrighted materials to train their LLM's and are now directly profiting from that? I mean, that's the Elephant in the room with all AI tech is it not? Just because something is "on the internet" does not mean it's public domain.

[BootsWalken]

My concern with AI is not that it will ever be able to capture the true essence of the human spirit in art, but that it will approximate it close enough that it can create things that the trend following masses will eagerly consume, making the former obsolete in the market. I don't think AI could write a show as good as something like Deadwood, but it could certainly make the majority of the content on the streaming services today. It will be able to create songs that sound like dead musicians, but never be able capture the depth of soul in the music. My concern is how few seem to find that important anymore.

[maestro_monk]

"lacks a point of view" the best summation i've heard so far. But also: AI never makes the subconscious connection between seeming unconnected images/ideas which is fundamental to most of the art i enjoy.

[ximauri]

AI is currently being used to frighten the working class into accepting low wages, poor treatment, exploitation. "We can always replace you so you better accept this job while you have it." It's completely anti human in every sense of the word. So it's incumbent for all workers to stand up against AI and against our collective exploitation. Only through struggle can we achieve dignity.

[vlanderable]

My biggest gripe with ai art, is the fact that no artist was informed their art was going to be used to train the ai that will ultimately replace them. There was no expressed permission and I bet the majority of the artists online whose art was scraped, when they put creative commons on their work, the intention was for other human artists to take inspiration.
The big issue is there was no protection for these artists.
Another element of this to consider: Peoples voices and likeness aka (faces) are also not protected, and there is nothing stopping these people from taking your face or voice and using it to create faces and voices.
I believe there should be protections automatically, in the case of someones likeness or voice, from the moment of birth, and anyone who wishes to use someones likeness, or voice, should have to ask permission before their allowed to be used in training these Neural network models.

[buddystewart]

"The computer can't tell you the emotional story. It can give you the exact mathematical design, but what's missing is the eyebrows"....Frank Zappa.

[dylanwignall]

It good to hear you pointing up the labor / commerce side - because tech folks often don't talk about it. So much of the buy-in and investment around this tech is with the end-goal of just reducing labor costs.

As huge conglomerates like Amazon just run out of ways to scale, the only route to increasing profits every quarter is to make the workforce as cheap as possible. It used to be outsourcing call centers overseas - now they want to outsource it to machines for even cheaper.

[kathyreston]

Revelation! I so relate to your father observing his art through a mirror. As a wedding and formal wear alterationist, I use the mirror to observe any fitting inconsistencies that somehow don't appear when I look directly at the garment. It make me see the garment as a whole, not in fragmented details.

[thetimelapsesketchbook.]

I was trained in the British Film Industry in Art Direction back in 2003. My Teacher was Terry Ackland Snow. Art Director on Batman, Aliens, labrynth, Dark Crystal. I was just one of many students he has taught over the years. I feel proud to have been taught by him. I never had a career in art though, its more of a hobby now. Anyway, it breaks my heart to think that all these art jobs will be lost to AI art. A few words into a seach bar and you get hundreds of designs in seconds. How can people in artistic industried even compete with that? People say its just a tool, yes for now. However i feel AI will eventually totally replace the illustrator consigning the art to just a hobby. Thing is people need a sense of purpose and AI on many levels will take theat sence of purpose away not just in the creative industries.

[petermot]

As an old art student when I now build models or I am creating a diorama, there’s nothing like reference, I use my phone or Pad to always check for tones & detail.
So you using your father as a reference to detail, brings me back to my old art teachers/professors. Great video.

[treborsf]

@3:19 I work in telephony, this reminds me of a project many years ago with an early voice recognition system, based on phonetics, nothing to do with AI. All through the design/planning stages, line staff and low-level management to a person brought up the fear of job replacement. Every time, the project manager and sales person assured, "This is a tool to make everyone’s job easier, those answering and transferring the calls today, will be freed up do more important tasks." Late in the project, in case there were technical questions, I was included a meeting with some director level person in the organization. It was very depressing and angry-making, uninterested in the details, his only question was when the head count reductions he’d been promised would finally happen...🤬

[Lily-grct]

"the thing itself is not as interesting to me as the mind and heart about that thing"

Completely agree, and this is always where AI can fall short. AI is just inherently disposable. Seeing art in context is incredibly important. For example, if a wooden box was made on a factory floor, all CNC and robotic assembly and you got it for very cheap, you'd probably use it for simple storage and not think twice. If a wooden box was made by a professional woodworker by hand, you would inspect and care for it, look at how it was made and probably use it to store something much more important, as well as display it and not just stash it away

Imperfection in industry is a manufacturing error. Imperfection in art is what makes it human. Knowing the love and care put in by someone to make something, especially if it's someone you know making something specifically for you, is incredible. If there is artwork that captures me in a gallery, I read the notes on the painting to get more insight on the artist. I'll study the brushstrokes or linework, and see the human aspect.

AI will get to a point where it can mimic art perfectly, but context matters in art as much as the work itself. It's why the Klein Blue painting and his blue era has such impact when seen in person. Looking up pictures is pointless to the work because it's just a blue rectangle. Seeing it in context, seeing that specific colour that was handmade and reading more about it makes it matter, and makes it an international art piece, even if you dislike the painting/modern art in general

[maweitao]

The problem with AI is highlighted perfectly by that director describing how much it helps them iterate. Mustache twirling capitalists aren't the only ones driving automation; it's legions of people who aren't looking beyond their immediate wants. The implications for creative fields include the decimation of mentorship, collaboration and diversity of ideas. Output becomes increasingly insular and derivative and opportunities scarce. It's long been a problem in some industries but AI is pushing it into overdrive.

[OVFP]

I am an illustrator/concept artist for large feature films (the batman, guardians of the galaxy 3, etc) and one of the people at risk of being displaced by AI generated images right now. In fact, my union (IATSE, specifically local 800) is negotiating with the producers right now about AI and a bunch of other things.
My concerns with AI are many, and I love the way Adam put several of them.

1) you dont know who you are plagiarizing from. companies have been putting in barriers to generating images of mickey mouse for instance, but they are artificial and can be bypassed. mickey mouse was used to train the ai, so it will always be there in some fashion. also, it is trained on data stolen from the people the companies want to replace without pay or consent. i prefer to have at least some control over my sources both for nuance and i dont want to use something that is stealing food off my friends (or my) table. the issue of copyright is also a massive anvil hanging over our heads right now. depending on how things go legally there could be massive lawsuits

2) the internet’s (and whatever company’s ai you are using’s) internalized baises are now yours. AI generators are trained on the internet, including all its racism, sexism and other horrifying things.
a while back some journalists asked midjourney to create large numbers of images of doctors (no minorities or women), prisoners (all minorities and men). i did the same for my industry, every director/production designer/DP it generated was an old white man. every actor was white, every costume designer was a white woman. this is neither reality nor the world i want to live in
As we have recently seen with google’s ai, companies attempts to correct this dont remove the problem, only shift it (they had a problem where it wouldnt generate white people in images) they are trying to force diversity by changing the prompts under the hood, not my looking at the actual problems and it is not going well
so when using them you not only have to be aware of fighting what you unconsciously bring to the table, but the amplified internet unconscious as well.

3) the companies producing these ai want to replace people/force the remaining people to work for as little money as possible. this is an inherit problem with capitalism.
in the film industry we already have a huge problem with underpaying and overworking vfx artists, PAs and a lot of other positions. this technology will only make that worse as it encourages a race to the bottom. to adams example, why pay an artist when a PA can do “the same thing”

4) ai images have a specific look. and the more some directors are trained on that look, the more they want it. I have friends working who have had to make their digitally painted, non-ai images look more “AI like” as a result.

[Khotetsu]

"To a creative person, regardless of the medium, creating art is as much a part of processing the experiences we go through in life as dreaming at night is. -Paraphrased from a video I saw recently