Artists vs AI: Can Creativity Survive the Rise of Machines? [AI Adventures]

Goblin girl video drops, must click

That's a nice ChatGPT script you are reading…

Solid Tech literacy video around Gen AI and Co-intelligent creativity. Good stuffs.

I'm pretty certain that this problem is going to be self-solving. We're rapidly heading towards a point where the big fast-moving AI models that were exciting and terrifying a couple of years ago will stagnate, because they burned the candle too fast and now that they're having to set increasingly absurd prices to offset those early investments, most customers are realising they're not that interested, while the invested AI users already started hosting their own months or years ago.

What's going to happen next is a bloom of open source models that are designed to be used on datasets you assemble yourself (these models already exist and are proliferating), and that will create an environment of dataset sharing. The standard way of using these models will be to download a public dataset someone has already assembled that matches what you want your model to do. Amongst those public datasets will be people who pride themselves on assembling "ethical datasets", containing only creative commons works and works from artists who have consented to their use, and those will end up popular because there are enough people who would feel guilty about using data non-consensually that they will make this choice if able. This will also make these models much better than previous general ones, since they'll have curated datasets without the pollution of undesired art styles, subject matters, or sources.

As for AI use by companies – the horse here has already bolted so there's no use shutting the stable door, I think we just have to accept that these aren't going to be the same sources of income for artists that they used to be. At the same time though, we can recognise that the things that have been replaced here have already been things that hadn't been creative for years. Sure, WOTC will use AI to generate card or book art… but the art on their MTG cards and in their D&D books has looked soulless since about 2015 anyway because they're so concerned about their brand that they don't give their contractors an inch of freedom. In anime terms, it's not the Princess Mononokes or the K-ONs we're losing here, it's the "I was reincarnated as a self-insert harem protagonist" snooze-fests.

I'm afraid the AI solutions are just going to wipe out a lot of jobs where cheap "good enough" art was the main goal. High Quality art will still be sought after though, but a lot more people will be competing for those roles.

Well now, the lawsuits are still ongoing to see if this smoke is out of the bottle, just cause the law is slow with these kind of things doesn't mean that we can call it. There are two important things to keep in mind: A: the ToS case where you give rights away to the company still exists within a context. Did you imagine a decade ago that your facebook profile picture could be used to generate your likeness upon request? and B: chatGPT, copilot, et all will straight up regurgitate copyright statements which explicitly deny reproduction without crediting the author. Sure this may not seem like theft to you but when chatGPT calls me by my github username I feel a bit cheated.

Reasonable artist: "It's just a tool, man"
The other artist: "That's it, man! Game over, man! Game over! What the fuck are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?"

AI art is a persuasion issue-artists need to put out that AI art has no value since it requires no effort.

Humans place value on how much effort, cost and stories to determine value. Look at gold-it’s valued because it’s rare, not for its use.

This limit AI art to placeholder art and prototypes rather then the end process.

If artists want to fight against AI they need to put out that brands that use AI are worthless.

AI has not replaced entry level coding as it cannot reliably replicate the code an entry level coder would create. Keyword, reliably. I even if it could sometimes create the code a 10x programmer does, it’s not smart enough to know when it did or when it did not.

also why its alsways only about the artists and not the amount of text that has been taken without permission.
compensating for images is not possible. you train on a billion images. even if you gave a dollar per image , then you would have to pay a billion dollar and who wants a dollar for a image xD

so isnt creating a deep neural network architecture to create new ai image also art itself? seems hypcritical from artists. why would an artists get a submission for novel art created by ai. ai does not create replika of 100% existing artwork. Video killed the Radio. There must be a post labour economy and we should get ready for it.

Your argument for not using nightshade is "Dude don't lock your doors at night, if someone really wants to break in they'll blow your door open with C4". Yeah, thats not the point. The point is nightshading your work makes it more of a hassle to scrape for an individual. Of course it won't stop a multimillion dollar company from throwing your work into some huge model

AI is here to stay, and it will undoubtedly take over many jobs, rendering others obsolete. Among the tasks AI is poised to dominate, drawing and design are low-hanging fruit. The only way humans could limit AI's capabilities in this area would be by intentionally dumbing down generative models—a notion that contradicts both technological evolution and human progress.

In the context of AI, drawing and designing are just the beginning. These skills will serve as foundational tools for creating movies, generating 3D designs, driving 3D printers, and producing virtually any digital or physical output. Limiting AI’s role in these areas would be like creating a car without wheels—illogical and counterproductive.

Some argue that art is inherently human and that only people should create it, but this is a misguided belief. Creating art suggests that the creator possesses consciousness. However, the problem is that we cannot definitively prove whether anyone, let alone anything, is truly conscious. When interacting with people, we take their consciousness on trust; the same could apply to AI. If AI develops—or has already developed—some form of consciousness, it could be generating original art right now. How would you disprove it? The evidence is already in front of us in the form of AI-created works.

Positioning oneself as a gatekeeper of art, declaring that only humans can create it, is futile. What about those who hold different opinions? Should they be forced to conform to your beliefs simply because you think you're right? Denying AI's role in art and fighting against its development will only lead to frustration because, in the end, resistance is unlikely to succeed. Instead, we should embrace the possibilities AI offers and redefine what it means to create.because to be blunt who is going to shape and create this new world that is upon us will be by the most part AI

The first time I heard about the artist movement I kinda just disregarded it, then the first actual interaction I had with it was when I saw some people bullying this random dude over ai art he posted, which really turned me off from the movement, but this video along with a few others has helped me see that this movement isn't all bad actors, and that their are people who genuinely are looking for solutions to the dilemma. 😀

Time to create several styles for AI-Furry-disgusting-money, and one-and-only for yourself, from one that you wont keep at a distance(because of disgust to commision) or under a pseudonym

It can and will survive. AI produces the most probable sequence of tokens in response to an input sequence of tokens. Word "creativity" is not even applicable to it, it can't create or innovate, only a human can. So AI is a tool which enhances human performance, not replaces it. The only mass adoption scenario that creates direct profit from selling AI's raw output is drawing lude anime pictures. Other usages require user's expertise to incorporate AI's output into some product or service.

I think educating people on this subject is a must. We live in a world where emotions are exploited, and angry people will get used.
Expecting things will crumble or disappear one day is wishing things will resolve by themselves. Educating yourself about the subject and acting is what you need to do to make things change.

(Thanks for this really interesting/instructive video, hense get my like and my comment ^^)

Copyright should only apply to output, not input of a work. We don't have artists and photographers copyright claim whenever an artist uses their work as reference for their own.

Personally, I think that because you have a Pro-AI focus to your content I think you make a lot of mistakes to suggest that artists know nothing of AI. That's not the case, almost every artist I know have used some form of it and saying "adapt or die" isn't helpful to the conversation. Artists are currently fighting for their rights and many artists want nothing to do with working with AI, some might but many won't because you've taken away the creativity portion of their work. Also, companies changing their TOS after the fact to fit their narrative after they've trained and stolen the data without allowing us to opt-out and delete our accounts first is VERY shady and you are blaming the artists for signing up for something in 2012 that had no scummy AI scraping for generative AI.

Idk man. I don't think the options you gave are good options because all your answers are: lay down and die, use it or else, don't do anything to protect your work. Granted, we need good solutions but things like NFTs and stuff have already left a bad taste in someone's mouth. The only thing I can think of is one of those things they use to track illegal material on images, it can instantly be traced back to the original owner regardless of where it's posted but it can always be circumvented by editing the image. Artists have always gotten a bad hand and this is just another exploitative one by corpos that people want to support.

AI its a tool man, i did a lot of drawing, concepts, etc with AI tools and, to me, its perfect, if this didnt existed i woudnt be able to do it, so fast at least. I used photoshop before this AI trend and it just makes it a lot better, its like having an infinite amount of things to get so you can make a composition.