A.I. Art Is Destroying My Life Purpose

[integral]

14 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

no

?God your the best

[thepixelmonk]

15 hours ago, illusory said:

Fixed that for you Leo, it's a little more respectful towards real artist who actually have some technical and draughtsmanship ability. It's also more specific and accurate.

lmao the butthurt is so palpable it's seeping through the screen.

[illusory]

14 hours ago, thepixelmonk said:

lmao the butthurt is so palpable it's seeping through the screen.

Why would I be butthurt, I have access to midjourney too, I'm not afraid of someone's keyword prompts, or envious about it.

Digital artwork is crap now, I can't appreciate it no longer knowing it could have been ai generated in seconds.

Edited September 18, 2022 by illusory

[Jacobsrw]

@Space Thank you for making such an important post. I myself as an artist truly appreciate this conversation. I was not aware of the A.I. based art already being on the market but I’m also not surprised. I’ve been contemplating this uprise of technological art hence why I have tasked myself to begin learning digital art. Something I have been putting off for years due to my love for traditional art.

Firstly, to your point about artists being replaced by technology, I feel that art is not about the finished product which we perceive and it also is not why people necessarily spend so much money on it. It’s about the sentimentality, the fact that so much work, thought and soul was put into it. This is something A.I. will never achieve in my view. It also puts you at an advantage. For instance, an A.I. can never be you nor accurately replicate you. There are unique things you about you A.I. can never imitate.

The fact A.I. May be able to create astounding art is of little significance if the meaning behind it is removed. If it takes you or I many hours to create a piece of art by hand and an A.I. 5 minutes do you think it holds equivalent value? Of course not. Anything quick and easy is cheap. This is the ultimate demise of A.I. in my view.

Secondly, I think it’s important to embrace this change. How can you use it to your advantage? I have begun this process of recent by using iPad and procreate to continue my drawing of realism and surrealism (something at first I did not want to do of course). One way I’ve begun doing this is by more recently giving each of my art pieces a biography and description of how they came to be. The name of the piece, what it represents and means, how it may relate to others, what was used to create it and so on. This is also something A.I. cannot do. Something else I plan to do is to merge my love for literature into my art. This will be much easier through digital since I won’t need to perfectly hand write out each letter and risk tarnishing the art work first created. Technology can be enjoyable and useful if you allow your creativity to adopt it as merely a tool. It’s not the means to an end, it’s just one tool and artist can use. It should never substitute the intrinsic qualities it takes to be an artist. 

In the meantime try not to get sucked into the mire and conveniences of technology. It will never be the same as an artist who has devoted their living and breathing energy to create something truly unique and unreplicable.

Edited September 19, 2022 by Jacobsrw

[Danioover9000]

@Jacobsrw

1 hour ago, Jacobsrw said:

@Space Thank you for making such an important post. I myself as an artist truly appreciate this conversation. I was not aware of the A.I. based art already being on the market but I’m also not surprised. I’ve been contemplating this uprise of technological art hence why I have tasked myself to begin learning digital art. Something I have been putting off for years due to my love for traditional art.

Firstly, to your point about artists being replaced by technology, I feel that art is not about the finished product which we perceive and it also is not why people necessarily spend so much money on it. It’s about the sentimentality, the fact that so much work, thought and soul was put into it. This is something A.I. will never achieve in my view. It also puts you at an advantage. For instance, an A.I. can never be you nor accurately replicate you. There are unique things you about you A.I. can never imitate.

The fact A.I. May be able to create astounding art is of little significance if the meaning behind it is removed. If it takes you or I many hours to create a piece of art by hand and an A.I. 5 minutes do you think it holds equivalent value? Of course not. Anything quick and easy is cheap. This is the ultimate demise of A.I. in my view.

Secondly, I think it’s important to embrace this change. How can you use it to your advantage? I have begun this process of recent by using iPad and procreate to continue my drawing of realism and surrealism (something at first I did not want to do of course). One way I’ve begun doing this is by more recently giving each of my art pieces a biography and description of how they came to be. The name of the piece, what it represents and means, how it may relate to others, what was used to create it and so on. This is also something A.I. cannot do. Something else I plan to do is to merge my love for literature into my art. This will be much easier through digital since I won’t need to perfectly hand write out each letter and risk tarnishing the art work first created. Technology can be enjoyable and useful if you allow your creativity to adopt it as merely a tool. It’s not the means to an end, it’s just one tool and artist can use. It should never substitute the intrinsic qualities it takes to be an artist. 

In the meantime try not to get sucked into the mire and conveniences of technology. It will never be the same as an artist who has devoted their living and breathing energy to create something truly unique and unreplicable.

   I think the point about artists being replaced by A.I is valid enough to contemplate and warrant further discussion. Just going out of context, and looking at what artificial intelligence did to the following human fields:

1. A.I has now replaced most aspects of the labor type portions of jobs in factories and manufacturing, look at automation of car and other machine parts for assembly, and computer components. In the past, most humans have and need to design these parts by hand, until technological development was enough that A.I and other tech aspects to it can be used instead of human labor.

Addressing the first point:

2. A.I is now capable of reproducing parts inside a software, and then print them in a 3d printer. Sculptors that sculpt wood, and from clay materials, and plastics, would have been used to create those parts, but A.I is now capable enough to create hard plastic guns from a 3d printer, or some other design with big enough 3d printer. 

3. A.I  can now, with machine learning and neural networking, with access to enough databases, can reproduce music and remix sounds, that musicians and other sound artists could have done, for example Vocaloid is a voice synthesizer software, and other A.I making programs.

4. A.I programs that can draw an image, from user prompts, in under1-3 minutes or less, with which would have taken a painter or traditional/digital artist 1-7hours or so to create. This is still a new technological development in this specific field, but soon A.I programs with enough data, machine learning and neural networking will likely be able to produce more complex images.

It's a huge competitive edge to be able to produce a product or service faster than your other competitors, putting aside collaboration. If it took you 7 days to make a video about your gaming playthrough, the click bait title, editing the audio and visuals for your video plus script work and presentation and persona. That's roughly 50 videos per year, 250 videos per 5 years. If I was a YouTube reactor, it would take me less than a day to react to your game playthrough video, upload my reaction video, then split and edit clips to create bloopers, highlights and compilations, which is roughly 30 videos a week, the original reaction video about 10-20 minutes, bloopers highlights and compilations 2-5-10 minutes long. That's approximately 300 videos a month, 3600 videos a year, and 18,000 videos in 5 years. Assuming that I'm more animate and lively in my personality, compared to how you present yourself in your original video, that's likely to help me take away more of your audience and potential viewers from watching your videos. Why should your followers and viewers watch your videos, when they can come to my channel, see the full content I'm reacting too, and enjoy that more than your original video? Even if I'm good faith and give a shout out to you, I'm showing them mostly your full content plus entertainment that is missing from your original content, incentivizing them to watch me more than you anyways. And the Algorithm, what would it side more: your fewer produced videos, or my more numerous videos? Also factoring in limited number of video thumbnails possible to view, even if your videos are showing 3 in the home page, my videos about your videos would be showing 10x way more, taking away attention from your content that could have been there.

 

Addressing the second point:

   This is something A.I cannot do. However, if you are intellectually honest, you shouldn't really say that in the absolute sense, because most people thought capturing images with a device wasn't possible, but it came one day. Same with telecoms, thought impossible, but made possible one day. Shrinking of size of other pieces of technology, and the phone we have today, thought impossible, but look at nowadays, so many smart phones. This idea that A.I is incapable , for now, to not be able to connect, abstract and perceive other parts and factors that go into art work and creativity, is a huge assumption to make. People thought A.I programs that play chess and Chinese Go, are not capable of beating professionals, until one day they did. Who is to say that A.I. that generate images, will eventually correctly create images that are highly tailored to specific biases of certain cultures and collectives? What's missing is technological development that can house massive data banks, say images in this case, that it can pull from almost any digital storage system, local or open source, and through some type of neural networking and advanced machine learning, and access to many other data sets about human cultures and trends, can eventually produce art work that will likely be more attention grabbing than yours. 

[Jacobsrw]

12 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Jacobsrw

   I think the point about artists being replaced by A.I is valid enough to contemplate and warrant further discussion. Just going out of context, and looking at what artificial intelligence did to the following human fields:

1. A.I has now replaced most aspects of the labor type portions of jobs in factories and manufacturing, look at automation of car and other machine parts for assembly, and computer components. In the past, most humans have and need to design these parts by hand, until technological development was enough that A.I and other tech aspects to it can be used instead of human labor.

Addressing the first point:

2. A.I is now capable of reproducing parts inside a software, and then print them in a 3d printer. Sculptors that sculpt wood, and from clay materials, and plastics, would have been used to create those parts, but A.I is now capable enough to create hard plastic guns from a 3d printer, or some other design with big enough 3d printer. 

3. A.I  can now, with machine learning and neural networking, with access to enough databases, can reproduce music and remix sounds, that musicians and other sound artists could have done, for example Vocaloid is a voice synthesizer software, and other A.I making programs.

4. A.I programs that can draw an image, from user prompts, in under1-3 minutes or less, with which would have taken a painter or traditional/digital artist 1-7hours or so to create. This is still a new technological development in this specific field, but soon A.I programs with enough data, machine learning and neural networking will likely be able to produce more complex images.

It's a huge competitive edge to be able to produce a product or service faster than your other competitors, putting aside collaboration. If it took you 7 days to make a video about your gaming playthrough, the click bait title, editing the audio and visuals for your video plus script work and presentation and persona. That's roughly 50 videos per year, 250 videos per 5 years. If I was a YouTube reactor, it would take me less than a day to react to your game playthrough video, upload my reaction video, then split and edit clips to create bloopers, highlights and compilations, which is roughly 30 videos a week, the original reaction video about 10-20 minutes, bloopers highlights and compilations 2-5-10 minutes long. That's approximately 300 videos a month, 3600 videos a year, and 18,000 videos in 5 years. Assuming that I'm more animate and lively in my personality, compared to how you present yourself in your original video, that's likely to help me take away more of your audience and potential viewers from watching your videos. Why should your followers and viewers watch your videos, when they can come to my channel, see the full content I'm reacting too, and enjoy that more than your original video? Even if I'm good faith and give a shout out to you, I'm showing them mostly your full content plus entertainment that is missing from your original content, incentivizing them to watch me more than you anyways. And the Algorithm, what would it side more: your fewer produced videos, or my more numerous videos? Also factoring in limited number of video thumbnails possible to view, even if your videos are showing 3 in the home page, my videos about your videos would be showing 10x way more, taking away attention from your content that could have been there.

 

Addressing the second point:

   This is something A.I cannot do. However, if you are intellectually honest, you shouldn't really say that in the absolute sense, because most people thought capturing images with a device wasn't possible, but it came one day. Same with telecoms, thought impossible, but made possible one day. Shrinking of size of other pieces of technology, and the phone we have today, thought impossible, but look at nowadays, so many smart phones. This idea that A.I is incapable , for now, to not be able to connect, abstract and perceive other parts and factors that go into art work and creativity, is a huge assumption to make. People thought A.I programs that play chess and Chinese Go, are not capable of beating professionals, until one day they did. Who is to say that A.I. that generate images, will eventually correctly create images that are highly tailored to specific biases of certain cultures and collectives? What's missing is technological development that can house massive data banks, say images in this case, that it can pull from almost any digital storage system, local or open source, and through some type of neural networking and advanced machine learning, and access to many other data sets about human cultures and trends, can eventually produce art work that will likely be more attention grabbing than yours. 

Thank you for your response.

I agree it definitely warrants further discussion. Especially considering the many concerns surrounding it. At the same time there is much we have to learn regarding integrating A.I. as a reliable utility in many of the areas here.

I feel fairly aware of many of these developments you shared here. Yet they don’t surprise me either. It’s part of our inevitable development integrating technology. Is it good? Well that’s probably a different discussion. 

I’m not sure the comparison with traditional art and video editing is an appropriate comparison. After all art was never first initiated through technology. Expedience does not equate to quality. Providing efficient video editing provides many benefits to its user, art on the other hand is not made for this same purpose. Art is more about sentimentality than anything else for the person whom purchases it. This is why hand created art is still so highly demanded. To know A.I. created a piece of art in such a convenient window of time does little increase its value. Art is not about expedience it’s about process and and the inherent meaning behind it. Again from what I can see A.I. is not functioning for this purpose but for the convenience and utility of production. Traditional art is also often embedded with imperfections since it is prone to human error which ironically becomes an important addition to the final work. I assume A.I. will bypass this as it has with programming. 

Although I see what you are saying. I’m not sure I share this view. As said I’m not convinced A.I. can replicate the intrinsic qualities of creativity. And even if it can at some point in time I still don’t consider this at all the equivalent to a human creating it. Just as do not consider a telephone text message equivalent to sending a hand written letter, the same principle applies here with A.I. As an artist this is a very hard point to convey since there is far more in art than the perceiver knows. A.I. may be able to create breath taking art far more appealing than a traditional artist but as said this is not the same. Trying to make a rational and convincing argument about this is futile for any creative since what is being pointed to can not be simply put into words. 

A.I. based art may speak more to a general audience who are not art collectors or drawn to the sentimental aspects of art. A lot of your points here are focused on outcome and expediency, which is not the equivalent to art itself. As humans we can disseminate this difference. This is an important distinction to make I feel.

Ps. My aim here was not to ensue a debate but to bring attention to the other side of what @Space was sharing.

If this is shifting towards a debate I’ll leave our discussion here. Thanks for your contribution nonetheless.

Edited September 20, 2022 by Jacobsrw

[Leo Gura]

On 9/17/2022 at 9:53 AM, Danioover9000 said:

The hardest part about youtube is not creating an amazing video, it's getting thosuand, millions and billions of organic views on it.

This is true of all business. Marketing is the hardest part of business. It's never enough to just have a good product.

Edited September 20, 2022 by Leo Gura

[The Mystical Man]

I'm not a big fan of making tools and platforms more accessible, because accessibility doesn't lead to much good. Steam is a good example. It used to be quite difficult to get your game on Steam, but now everyone can upload their game to Steam, and what good comes from that? Steam gets flooded with mediocre games. Steam was better when they reviewed every single game to make sure that the games meet a quality standard.

I miss the gatekeepers of yore; they filtered out the low-quality stuff, and because not everyone could publish stuff, the event of publishing something used to mean something. Now everyone can publish whatever they want, and it means nothing. Everyone can be an artist, a writer, a filmmaker. You can say that that has advantages, but, the way I see it, there are more disadvantages: we get flooded with low-quality stuff, and the event of publishing loses its value. 

All the great artworks that I love were created by people who had to convince gatekeepers: the studios and the publishers. I haven't found a single work of art that I like and that exists by virtue of the accessibility of tools and platforms. Making tools and platforms more accessible doesn't unlock creativity, talent, and genius. It unlocks mediocrity, which previously was getting filtered out. 

Edited September 20, 2022 by The Mystical Man

[Leo Gura]

24 minutes ago, The Mystical Man said:

Steam is a good example.

Steam is a bad example. A lot of great titles exist on Steam that could never be made outside of Steam's open system. Steam created an entire industry of indie gaming, which was a huge plus for the game industry which was dominated by top-heavy companies unwilling to take creative risk.

You could say exactly the same thing about YT. From a cable TV perspective, YT is shit because it allows any idiot to post any nonsense without even setting up his camera properly. Yet obviously this is the wrong attitude on the matter.

The solution to the problem of a glut of low-quality content is simply much better search and discovery tools.

Edited September 20, 2022 by Leo Gura

[LSD-Rumi]

@The Mystical Man AI will  reduce the time and staff required for developing a quality content by many times. It will also allow for a flood of mediocre and bad content, but who cares? we already have review systems for almost everything.

 

[The Mystical Man]

21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Steam created an entire industry of indie gaming, which was a huge plus for the game industry which was dominated by top-heavy companies unwilling to take creative risk.

Yeah, but they did that with Steam Greenlight, which was a nice quality control system that allowed cool games like Antichamber to exist. Then they replaced Steam Greenlight with Steam Direct, and I don't think that was a good call.

21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You could say exactly the same thing about YT.

YouTube would benefit from a quality control system, too.

[LSD-Rumi]

4 minutes ago, The Mystical Man said:

YouTube would benefit from a quality control system, too.

the like button, the views, the algorithms. What are you talking about? 

I think you are mistaking what quality content means. Quality content dosen't mean intelligent or smart content, it means the content that people like made in a good way. 

Edited September 20, 2022 by LSD-Rumi

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, The Mystical Man said:

YouTube would benefit from a quality control system, too.

If YT had a gatekeeper system I would be the first to be banned.

Edited September 20, 2022 by Leo Gura

[The Mystical Man]

19 hours ago, LSD-Rumi said:

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about the fact that everyone can publish whatever they want. Maybe you like that, but I miss the days when not everyone could call themselves an artist. Thirty years ago, nobody would dare call himself a writer unless he had a literary agent and a publishing house. These days, if you publish your writing on Amazon, you're a writer, but nobody wants to read your writing; I certainly don't. If you're on Instagram, you're a photographer. If you're on YouTube, you're a filmmaker. If you're on Steam, you're a game maker. If you use Midjourney, you're an artist. If everyone can do it, what's the point?

The making and sharing of art used to be reserved for the talented. George Lucas and his friends needed to break into the equipment room just to make a film; that's how inaccessible tools used to be, and I have a fondness for that kind of inaccessibility, because people who were talented enough would find a way to share their art with the world, but now everyone finds a way. I don't think the world needs everyone's content. 

Who is going to make the mature masterpieces of the future? When you look at the TikTok generation and the kind of content that they're growing up with, the future of art looks hopeless. I tried to read to my sister from the first Harry Potter book, and she kept saying that it's boring. But she always watches these bizarre videos on YouTube. 

[Danioover9000]

@Leo Gura

On 9/20/2022 at 10:26 AM, Leo Gura said:

This is true of all business. Marketing is the hardest part of business. It's never enough to just have a good product.

   To clarify, I don't think I written my post about YouTube views being different between a content creator and YouTube react like that before, but thank you? I think I was talking about how YouTube Reactionaries are taking up more digital space in the market compared to original content creators they are reacting to and trying to make a point that there are more people out there that will copy in some way versus the few that did most of the work. The mindset of an average person, who relies on A.I generated images only, without doing any kind of drawing later, would be more comparable to a YouTube Reactionary, make drama with least resistance.

   I guess the point was, is to not fully over rely on A.I generated art and doing so makes you more or less lazy minded, on average, not counting the exceptions to the rule. 

   

[Danioover9000]

@The Mystical Man

50 minutes ago, The Mystical Man said:

I'm talking about the fact that everyone can publish whatever they want. Maybe you like that, but I miss the days when not everyone could call themselves an artist. Thirty years ago, nobody would dare call himself a writer unless he had a literary agent and a publishing house. These days, if you publish your writing on Amazon, you're a writer, but nobody wants to read your writing; I certainly don't. If you're on Instagram, you're a photographer. If you're on YouTube, you're a filmmaker. If you're on Steam, you're a game maker. If you use Midjourney, you're an artist. If everyone can do it, what's the point?

The making and sharing of art used to be reserved for the talented. George Lucas and his friends needed to break into the equipment room just to make a film; that's how inaccessible tools used to be, and I have a fondness for that kind of inaccessibility, because people who were talented enough would find a way to share their art with the world, but now everyone finds a way. I don't think the world needs everyone's content. 

Who is going to make the mature masterpieces of the future? When you look at the TikTok generation and the kind of content that they're growing up with, the future of art looks hopeless. I tried to read to my sister from the first Harry Potter book, and she kept saying that it's boring. But she always watches these bizarre videos on YouTube. 

   I understand where you're coming from. The strongest case I could think of, against the use of A.I generated art, is both the following: Copywrite issues and change in employer-employee dynamics.

1.   If you are an artist, and spent many years training in the art fundamentals, even gone to an art school or an atelier, gone through the business and marketing side of illustrators or concept artists for either environments or character design, even trained a few years using digital drawing software, then find out that on average now most employers, art directors, want the artists that use A.I generated platforms versus an artist with many years of experience, then I see that there can be a problem in getting hired on those skills that are progressively being seen as more outdated compared to A.I generated art. I can see those job opportunities narrowing as time passes. It's a scary feeling, to have your LP dwindling before you.

2.   Because of increasing demand and popularity of A.I generated art, and exposure, those bosses that only know of A.I generated art, and have little to no knowledge of traditional, orthodox, and digital means of making art, would be more impatient and don't appreciate the art making processes of an illustrator or comic book artist/writer. Worse, is because this is a new budding field, there's very lax restrictions around copy writing of images generated. For example, you manage to use A.I generated images, and you don't like about half of the image, so you go in and spend 4 hours of touching it up, and adjusting proportions, perspectives, shading, grey tones and color values if color is used, get almost the composition right. Great, then when you think you can sell that image, you can't, because the group that allowed those images to be sold, changed their copywrite policies. I can see how frustrating it can be.

[Danioover9000]

@Leo Gura

22 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

If YT had a gatekeeper system I would be the first to be banned.

   Would this also imply that other self-help gurus and life coaches as well? And other spiritual teachers with YouTube accounts?

   I won't deny the possibility, but I think having a gate keeper system that adheres to guidelines very strictly, means that it's more likely to ban content that breaks guidelines, like pornographic or very graphic videos, videos that incite violence, hate speech, cyber bullying, maybe reactionary content makers that steal and issue copywrite strikes to silence critics and reviews and so on. I think it banning or temp banning YouTube channels about spirituality and self-help is on a lower priority list. Maybe a gate keeping system similar to Actualized.org, that also issues warning points, but in YouTube's case, the warning points lowers the income earned per view, so 1 point is like a 1% reduction in overall salary earned at the end of a 24 hour cycle, I think that's gonna be a better system.

[LSD-Rumi]

@The Mystical Man sorry but  This is really  stupid. We already have review systems to weed out bad bad content. You can call yourself an artist but if you are bad, you are bad, nothing will change. Humans have always produced bad content and they will keep doing it with or without AI.

Another important point is that Humans are really the ones who determine the quality of content. 90% of all the content that people consider good is basically garbage. and this is why we get garbage content, because it sells.  You see, Changing that is what really matter. If people become smarter, we get smarter content. You ain't gonna get quality content by limiting the tools of production. Guess what? crappy companies will be first to aquire and use those tools, before your genius creator And will flood the market with all sort of mediocre content. 

 

[The Mystical Man]

41 minutes ago, LSD-Rumi said:

@The Mystical Man sorry but  This is really  stupid. We already have review systems to weed out bad bad content. You can call yourself an artist but if you are bad, you are bad, nothing will change. Humans have always produced bad content and they will keep doing it with or without AI.

Another important point is that Humans are really the ones who determine the quality of content. 90% of all the content that people consider good is basically garbage. and this is why we get garbage content, because it sells.  You see, Changing that is what really matter. If people become smarter, we get smarter content. You ain't gonna get quality content by limiting the tools of production. Guess what? crappy companies will be first to aquire and use those tools, before your genius creator And will flood the market with all sort of mediocre content. 

 

Of course, there was bad content even when there were gatekeepers. But it was much less. Imagine there weren't any gatekeepers to becoming a doctor. There are bad doctors, but thanks to the arduous process of becoming a doctor, there aren't that many. Bad artists are also harmful to society, even if we have review systems. Everything is becoming dumber. How are we supposed to produce a genius like David Chase, for example, if kids are growing up with TikTok and other bizarre videos on YouTube?

Edited September 21, 2022 by The Mystical Man

[LSD-Rumi]

@The Mystical Man 

Most geniuses are born not made. This is the sad truth about reality. The problem is not with tiktok or youtube, the prblem goes far deeper than that. When the society doesn't teach wisdom, There is  a huge waste of potential and people will not unlock the genius in them, I am wondering how many millions of geniuses we lost because of this?  you asking how we are gonna get geniuses, I tell how by becoming more wise. It is not a problem of AI, or youtube, or steam or anything like that. Humans are not wise, that's it.