A.I. Art Is Destroying My Life Purpose

[ZzzleepingBear]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@ZzzleepingBear Have you ever heard of stock photography? Most images used by businesses and on YT are stock photos and stock art, which literally means they are taken from artists.

Most of business runs off stock photo databases.

I am well aware of stock photography. And that's not comparable with this AI rendering stuff.

[Girzo]

1 hour ago, ZzzleepingBear said:

I am well aware of stock photography. And that's not comparable with this AI rendering stuff.

If you argue against work of an AI being your work, then it perefectly compares. Typing a prompt is like a skillful search of the stock database and you should credit Midjourney as a creator, the same as you credit an original photographer when asked who made the photo.

There's way more nuance to every question, because even phot is not made by single person often. Who's the author then, the guy has pressed the button, or both he and the guy who setup lightning? A lot of nuance both for photography and AI art. But I think it's comparable, very well comparable.

[DrugsBunny]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

So by demonizing this AI as a copycat, you end up shooting yourself in the foot.

Just because the AI is ultimately good for making artistic expression more accessible doesn't mean there aren't negative aspects.

It seems you're completely ignoring the capacity for Midjourney to literally copy and steal an orthodox artist's personal style and apply it to and endless array of newly generated images. In such scenarios the original artist would not even need to be credited nor compensated for their contribution to the AI's creation.

There are obviously severe negative aspects to this technology, nobody is denying the positive value, but it's good not to be entirely insensitive to the detriments this imposes towards ordinary artists.

[Danioover9000]

@DrugsBunny

17 minutes ago, DrugsBunny said:

Just because the AI is ultimately good for making artistic expression more accessible doesn't mean there aren't negative aspects.

It seems you're completely ignoring the capacity for Midjourney to literally copy and steal an orthodox artist's personal style and apply it to and endless array of newly generated images. In such scenarios the original artist would not even need to be credited nor compensated for their contribution to the AI's creation.

There are obviously severe negative aspects to this technology, nobody is denying the positive value, but it's good not to be entirely insensitive to the detriments this imposes towards ordinary artists.

   I think we have probably hit the bottom end of this argument now, because what Leo has done is equated a human being's capacity to copy and emulate, with the copying and emulation aspect of the A.I program's capacity, and made the two equally valid, because if I raise an issue with credibility, then no matter how many times I raise the credibility of an artist's ownership of an image at stake, he could say that the credibility of the A.I program is also at stake. Why? Because the sub argument that is also made is that we don't know enough of the potential harm of this A.I program, as much as we don't know how a baby human being could potentially harm others and the environment in some way.

   This also raises another issue, one of, like I've brought up, the intellectual rights an artist has over their own image, saved in the cloud or file. Siy this artist had 10 years' worth of drawing experience, and that catalogue of work is mostly in some file or archived in their account. So, if this A.I program is collecting images from open source, does it also collect from the cloud? And at the thousands? That is not only a lot of copywrite violations, but also worth considering, is this: Does the A.I program know which image came from which artist, to give credit when it's due?

   If someone can answer me whether the A.I program isn't violating or infringing copywrite of artist's images, then I'd stop in this point.

   If someone can explain to me, that this A.I program isn't going to replace illustrators/graphic designers/digital artists of every type of digital art, in terms of employers hiring, then I'm happy to read it.

   I don't think anyone has addressed the skill development of an artist being impacted by this A.I program, and overuse and over reliance of a program for your drawing pursuits. If someone can explain to me how it may or may not affect the motivation of drawing the image yourself, please explain.

[Danioover9000]

@LordFall

4 hours ago, LordFall said:

Well yes actually, if you add your original thoughts/edits to it then you're creating your art. Its then subjected to the market, just as any and every other commodity, idea or creation that we have.

   What if I add little, to very little of my thoughts and edits? If I only added a single edit, or a comment, does that count as justification of me creating my content, by stealing a YouTuber's potential viewers? Let's say it's the opposite, suppose I'm a big enough YouTuber, I do add a bunch of my opinions and edits, but I separate them into 10-20 video edits of that original YouTuber's video consisting of highlights and bloopers and compilations, am I not manipulating the algorithm to choose my many numbers of videos over the originals, because there's only so many videos that appear in one page?

   For example, if I'm moderately successful in YouTube, I could, in theory, do this to one of Leo's 3 hours long videos, give my reactions whether scripted or genuinely emotional, then edit into multiple clipped videos, a bunch of shorts, a bunch of 10-5 min highlights, maybe bloopers, and even give a multiple video review of that video. I'm easily making 50-100 videos of mixed low-high quality takes of just that one video, that could easily take up digital space in YouTube's pages, while taking away potential viewers of his, while making it harder to reference to the original. Am I not causing long term harm to the original YouTube artist, if I continue to also do this with every video per week, of generating 10x as much while taking away more potential viewers? If not, then why should the A.I program be justified and pardoned for any potential long-term harm to visual artists and digital artists?

[ZzzleepingBear]

3 hours ago, Girzo said:

If you argue against work of an AI being your work, then it perefectly compares. Typing a prompt is like a skillful search of the stock database and you should credit Midjourney as a creator, the same as you credit an original photographer when asked who made the photo.

There's way more nuance to every question, because even phot is not made by single person often. Who's the author then, the guy has pressed the button, or both he and the guy who setup lightning? A lot of nuance both for photography and AI art. But I think it's comparable, very well comparable.

None of this flies as a counter-argument to what I said. It's just mental gymnastic at this point, it's that obvious. Feel free to disagree though, I rest my case.

[LordFall]

3 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@LordFall

   What if I add little, to very little of my thoughts and edits? If I only added a single edit, or a comment, does that count as justification of me creating my content, by stealing a YouTuber's potential viewers? Let's say it's the opposite, suppose I'm a big enough YouTuber, I do add a bunch of my opinions and edits, but I separate them into 10-20 video edits of that original YouTuber's video consisting of highlights and bloopers and compilations, am I not manipulating the algorithm to choose my many numbers of videos over the originals, because there's only so many videos that appear in one page?

   For example, if I'm moderately successful in YouTube, I could, in theory, do this to one of Leo's 3 hours long videos, give my reactions whether scripted or genuinely emotional, then edit into multiple clipped videos, a bunch of shorts, a bunch of 10-5 min highlights, maybe bloopers, and even give a multiple video review of that video. I'm easily making 50-100 videos of mixed low-high quality takes of just that one video, that could easily take up digital space in YouTube's pages, while taking away potential viewers of his, while making it harder to reference to the original. Am I not causing long term harm to the original YouTube artist, if I continue to also do this with every video per week, of generating 10x as much while taking away more potential viewers? If not, then why should the A.I program be justified and pardoned for any potential long-term harm to visual artists and digital artists?

 I mean that does happen today and copyright law is an interesting field but I tend to fall to the opinion that almost everything should be fair use. It's up to the individual to incorporate this into their business model.

For example, Andrew Tate did this where he ran his whole operation based on people reposting his content and then getting fueled to his paid community. Why not do something similar? If as a man(especially) your livelihood can be destroyed by a 15-year-old kid reposting your content, are you sure you and your survival strategies are not the problem there? 

[ValiantSalvatore]

Found this video with some tool on YouTube on how to create Art with A.I.

---

Posting on intuition here did not read 17 pages as I am not that interested in A.I art making, more watching lol.

Edited September 14, 2022 by ValiantSalvatore

[Scholar]

On 13.9.2022 at 7:33 AM, Leo Gura said:

Some of you guys here are missing the big picture.

In the big picture, everything in society is constantly evolving in radical ways. No job or business is ever secure. All jobs and businesses require evolution, or you go extinct. So this AI stuff is just the natural evolution towards greater things. Rather than resisting it and being upset, embrace the change and adapt to turn it into your strength rather than your weakness.

This is how technology has always worked. Nothing new here. Every technology that makes life easier puts someone out of business. The name of the game is to avoid becoming obsolete by adapting in creative and intelligent ways. Stay competitive by becoming more intelligent and valuable.

Sure but there is a great irony in telling people to get into AI art and right after having a post about Mastery. These AI's are the most magic pill thing I have ever seen in the history of mankind and it will discourage an entire generation to learn and master art, which could very well lead to a temporary degradation of the evolutionary process of art, because of how much time investment it takes to get to a point to evolve art, and because these AI's are not capable of generating genuinely novel styles in the way humans can.

 

Again, AI = Visualization, not Art Creation. There is a big difference and one should contemplate it. Just to understand how art evolves in fields like animation for example, I can recommend the book Disney Animation: The Illusion of Life.

[Girzo]

On 14.09.2022 at 0:04 AM, ZzzleepingBear said:

None of this flies as a counter-argument to what I said. It's just mental gymnastic at this point, it's that obvious. Feel free to disagree though, I rest my case.

It wasn't a counter-argument to what you said. Turn off the debate mode, please.  I have been supporting your argument. I have said the photography stuff applies if someone takes your position.

I assume we are on the forums and everyone has to have strong opinion and be cut-throat, otherwise we don't know who is who, where is up and where is down. 

[Danioover9000]

@Scholar

4 hours ago, Scholar said:

Sure but there is a great irony in telling people to get into AI art and right after having a post about Mastery. These AI's are the most magic pill thing I have ever seen in the history of mankind and it will discourage an entire generation to learn and master art, which could very well lead to a temporary degradation of the evolutionary process of art, because of how much time investment it takes to get to a point to evolve art, and because these AI's are not capable of generating genuinely novel styles in the way humans can.

 

Again, AI = Visualization, not Art Creation. There is a big difference and one should contemplate it. Just to understand how art evolves in fields like animation for example, I can recommend the book Disney Animation: The Illusion of Life.

   That's actually true to some degree.

   If I was more pro A.I. drawing program, the only argument that could save me here, is the potentiality and utility aspect of using an A.I program, to justify continuing using the A.I. program, for myself, on an individual level. However, that does not account for when we scale the program use up to hundreds to millions of users using A.I programs for 80% of the workload, while the rest is spent either brainstorming or repeatedly cycling through the use of other artist's images, re-cycling and reusing other material and sources to spark further inspiration and creativity.

   Yes, there's the big that we probably are missing, but what makes up that big picture is the millions of smaller pictures that ultimately give meaning to the overall picture. I'm and few others here are just pointing out the potential misalignment of some of those small pictures that could give an already distorted big picture, more distortion. It would be a shame that this program takes the lives of potential artists and inflict more procrastination and justified laziness than already was before the overuse of the program, that's I think one of the fears of this things getting out of hand, but that's with mediocre safeguards in place.

   As I've said long ago, as long as you take inspiration from A.I generated images and draw something that's about 80% different than the one the robot provided you, where you actually apply some real effort in designing the image yourself, then it's an exception for the individual and draw from observing the image, not some freaking copy and paste in a lazy way. We need more hard-working artists.

   For recreational and hobby use of these robots, that's also debatable, but for me I think it's fine. It's one thing to use the program for personal reasons, but commercializing and claiming that's mostly done by you, without telling them it's either done mostly by A.I program, and intentionally lying about that is clearly unethical to me. I don't care enough for infinite creativity or comparable to it when it is likely to harm the skill development of those future artists and those who use very advanced insights to justify harm.

   Ultimately, if you can't see what I'm seeing, I can't make you imagine and see, what I see, could be a future issue for future generations, so we ultimately have to agree to disagree, and commit to see through our decisions to the full ramifications of how it impacts other groups and the world at scale.

   However! That doesn't mean I'm not using A.I. drawing programs for experimenting further image creations in my mind. I do use the thing occasionally when needed, just as a smart chess player uses a program to discover other variations of chess moves that are possible. Fair use and responsible usage is important.

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, Scholar said:

Sure but there is a great irony in telling people to get into AI art and right after having a post about Mastery. These AI's are the most magic pill thing I have ever seen in the history of mankind and it will discourage an entire generation to learn and master art

Such nonsense.

It's a tool! Like any other tool in a master's toolbox.

Edited September 15, 2022 by Leo Gura

[DrugsBunny]

Honestly, I don't think inputting a prompt and sifting through generated images makes one an artist anymore than google-searching two rabbits fucking makes you a biologist.

Just my hot take.

[AtheisticNonduality]

49 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Such nonsense.

It's a tool! Like any other tool in a master's toolbox.

LEO IS AN ART MASTER NOW.

[Vajra]

@Space Hi man!

This is not actually a 'you vs AI' problem. This is, above all, a problem with believing in scarcity.

A collapsed mind, not an Inspired mind. 

And it's fine that your fantasies were destroyed and you feel depressed. This is what actually forces you to drop even deeper into your own Self. 

Life is not stupid, there is some evolutionary potential to what you are going through. Find it.

[TheAlchemist]

On 13.9.2022 at 3:14 PM, Leo Gura said:

A human artist's brain is a neural network which contains thousands of reference images and ideas which were copied from culture and other artists. It then remixes those to create original works. Not only do you copy from other artists, you copy from nature. Even your DNA is just a remix of copies from your parents.

So by demonizing this AI as a copycat, you end up shooting yourself in the foot.

There is no creativity without diverse, intermixed input. One of the most important things a good artist does is imbibe lots of diverse source material, because it's necessary to fuel the neural network.

It would behoove you "artists" to contemplate more deeply how your art is sourced.

#StopAIRacism

Point well made.

But do you think it would be fair to say this also applies to your creative work and your teachings/videos? 

On 13.9.2022 at 3:14 PM, Leo Gura said:

Leo's brain is a neural network which contains thousands of reference images and ideas which were copied from culture and other artists. It then remixes those to create original works/insights/videos. Not only do you copy from other artists, you copy from nature. Even your DNA is just a remix of copies from your parents.

So by demonizing this AI as a copycat, you end up shooting yourself in the foot.

There is no creativity without diverse, intermixed input. One of the most important things a good artist/Leo does is imbibe lots of diverse source material, because it's necessary to fuel the neural network.

It would behoove you "artists" to contemplate more deeply how your art is sourced.

#StopAIRacism

Does creativity and art ultimately boil down to mixing and matching existing figments of mind OR is it possible to imagine something totally new from nothing? 

I think this discussion about AI vs human art boils down to this. The human artists like to think they are doing pure art, which they see as spawning something from outside of existing reality into reality through their imagination, whereas the AI is seen as just rearranging figments of current reality/what has been imagined already. 

"What is creation?" is an extremely interesting question for sure.

Edited September 15, 2022 by TheAlchemist

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, TheAlchemist said:

But do you think it would be fair to say this also applies to your creative work and your teachings/videos? 

Obviously.

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, TheAlchemist said:

Does creativity and art ultimately boil down to mixing and matching existing figments of mind OR is it possible to imagine something totally new from nothing? 

A neural network is not merely mixing and matching, it is making novel connections. And that's creativity.

You can imagine something totally new, but it will be inspired by something.

Edited September 15, 2022 by Leo Gura

[TheAlchemist]

38 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

A neural network is not merely mixing and matching, it is making novel connections. And that's creativity.

You can imagine something totally new, but it will be inspired by something.

Ok got it, fair point. Creativity is making novel connections.

What about that which is the "first" thing imagined? Is there a mode of imagination that isn't inspired by anything?

[Scholar]

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Such nonsense.

It's a tool! Like any other tool in a master's toolbox.

Sure it's a tool, but the unwise will use to the detriment of their own craft. Looking at the most recent thumbnail for your video as an example.

 

It does seem like you are jumping onto it just for the sake of jumping onto it, rather than actually asking yourself whether it improved the quality of your art.

 

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

A neural network is not merely mixing and matching, it is making novel connections. And that's creativity.

You can imagine something totally new, but it will be inspired by something.

Yes, but human visual art is not inspired by mere visual information, and that's all the AI could possibly do. That's it biggest limitation, it has no unified, multidimensional, "self-aware" consciousness that is capable of understanding. It does not know what it is creating.

The human mind is not a neural network, rather neural networks are part of it. Having a very reductionist view of creativity will of course make you think the AI is doing the same the human is doing, but that's simply not the case. It does seem to me like you have not contemplated this in depth.

Edited September 15, 2022 by Scholar