AI ART - a reflection of our SOCIETY

#aiart #noai #ai

AI art & authorship: 00:00 - 03:03
Consumer – the new ''artist'': 03:03 - 05:38
Artistic process vs. instant gratification: 05:38 - 10:11
Learning by copying: 10:11 - 13:54
The future of art: 13:54 - 18:05

AI ART - Where The Line Must Be Drawn by Adam Duff:

Free music:

Ambient Piano by Balancebay via Pixabay Music

[OseronPhaer]

I would definitely argue that the creative process is an integral part of our humanity. It very much defines us as beings, given we're only beings in the known universe with such a capacity for imagination and the capability to appreciate the results of imagination. I'm still pretty on the fence about AI art...but I find automating something that should be full of the heart and soul of people to be very spooky. Having worked with a couple of artists for art commissions, seeing the time and effort that goes into said works and the idea that such people could be, essentially, replaced by computers...bothers me. A lot.

[nalublackwater]

AI art should have been a tool to help artists envision their concept better, or customize a reference image. But they have turned into a toy to churn out content.

Art should the the expression of the artist. The moment you turn it into mass-produced content, is the moment you will kill what little humans had left to tell us apart from animals in stalls, mindlessly consuming content without ever asking ourselves anymore those questions that sparked the birth or great artworks in visual art, writing, sculpting...

Kill art and you will kill the human soul.

[APOLLOPATRIOT]

Outstanding video you're the woman of culture I enjoy your Outfits ❤ 😎👍

[A.Elbereth.Gilthoniel]

Very well said. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

[geoffreyburton]

I enjoy your content it is good to listen your view on this I think you are right. AI will not replace a true artists work. Why I remember I did also enjoyed your two "Edwardian" videos and they prove art comes in many forms and is a reflection of the artist.

[wdj]

this is a well thought out, intelligent video that points out exactly my problems with the concept of AI art

[thegoblonoid]

In making art, I find the end result is never really the satisfying part. It's cool to have finished work but it's usually the process that I remember more about.

[Flippotycoon]

Ive been wondering about this myself Ive played around with AI programs because I like to write and as far as I can tell the writing programs are not very helpful.
But the art is a different matter and it should be interesting to see what the future developments of those programs will be.
I just hope we wont lose our creativity allong the way :)

[nuca]

art has always been a way of self expression of an artist. behind a piece of art stands hours of dedication, emotion, STORY. AI is the lowest low of art. it takes away the human part of the creation, ending up with shallow, meaningless imagine resembling an actual art. ai is also terrifying for another reason. its how realistic it looks. yesterday i overheard my mom talking on the phone “omg donald trump got arrested, there are pictures of the police dragging him inside their car!”. and later turns out the images which were all over the internet have been AI generated. it scares me how basically anyone with a computer can create such images for profit and attention. i truly hope that the day never comes when the real art becomes overlooked. being an artist is already such an under-appreciated profession, and artists being replaced by machines sounds just horrific.

i enjoyed your video so much🤍 i really love how diverse your channel is!

[JMulvy]

Well, thankfully there is a bit of legal framework on the books now. Just a few weeks ago the US Copyright Office released new policy that states AI generated images can not be eligible for copyright and that prompt writing does not constitute enough human authorship to warrant copyright protection. Also much like the Zaria of the Dawn case, you can get a copyright for the arrangement of images used in a photo edit/ bash or other publication that uses AI art but not over the individual images themselves. Finally, if you want to register for a copyright and your creation used AI generative software such as Stable Diffusion, Midjourney or Chat GPT then you are not only required to disclose that information when applying but you also have to provide evidence of how much you personally contributed to it. The jury is still out as to whether or not training models on copyright data is copyright infringement or not, even though every copyright lawyer that has spoken on the subject say "it most definitely is copyright infringement" and "intellectual property theft."

[harbor_music]

Anyone standing up against the unlawful use of other artist's work need to continue to push. Don't let it become normal for companies to use the hard work of traditional and digital artists in their AI generations. The fuel that these AI generators are burning comes from a source that is not theirs. This is digital theft, art laundering, masked as "technological advance."

Again, to all those that refuse to let this happen, never let them burn fuel that isn't theirs. Angry people on reddit can continue to enjoy their use of AI generation and enjoy making artists mad with it, but let them do it with their own shit stock images, royalty free, and see how much fun they have then.

They are using fuel that isn't theirs.

[lal]

I think sampling the internet is fine. A human artist does that too. And as long as the result is not to similar to a source it is not a problem.

Copyright on AI content though should not be given, I think copyright law is already way too strong, compare to technical inventions and parents e.g.

[reign]

The only way AI "Art' can be seen as Art is if you look at it from the perspective of the programmer making the program from scratch to create an image. Because that's *way* different then just plugging in some prompts; Which is no way shape or form "Skill" or "Creating Art." Overall, though, I'm against AI "Art."

[facundobastoni]

I just hate the soulesness in AI art. It would probably evolve so that it looks as if it made art out of pasión or love, but i would still lack humanity.

[wzxxzw]

AI arts have no soul, same goes with people who steal other people's creations just to create shallow artworks out of them.

[ct]

Copyrights laws are an insult to art, to the world of ideas, to freedom of sharing. It's just capitalism applied to ideas. We've learned that is good to "protect" our art, because capitalism forces us to make money out of everything.

There is artistic process into ai art. There is many, everyone has his own. Saying the opposite juste proves you have not learned how to use that tool.
Its not about instant gratification at all, its about expressing yourself in a easier way. Just like the internet made everything faster. Just like photography made capturing every moment instantly and affordable. Did it ruin painters ? Did ruin it creativity or birth a new one ?


Ai art is just the start.