People are concerned with "Artificial Intelligence". As long as there are folks creating artwork, traditionally or digitally, there should be no concern. It's when someone decides to create laws and rules against creating, traditionally or digitally that we should concern ourselves. As a person who witnessed the ushering of technology into our current generation I declare we have to adjust to changes, but, always remember, "when we rely on too much of something, we destroy our creativity and become dependent". Everything in life is creative, even the way we live.
Your comment is a shame, because it shows that:
1. You didn't understand any of the topics Zapata discussed in his video
2. You don't know how technically AI image generator works. It's plagiarism, but based on billion of pics that we, of course, cannot recognize. It's not "art", it's plagiarism!
AnonVagabond (not verified)Wed, 14 Dec 2022 - 07:56
Every human artist learns their craft from other artists and sources, and uses various references in creating their artwork. The AI just does that on a far larger scale, with greater memory retention.
Having watched the Zapata video, these are my thoughts:
1. Given existing legal precedents in USA, I believe the law is in favour of AI art generators.
Even if the courts were to ban AI from using copyrighted images, there would still be massive tomes of non-copyrighted images for the AI to learn from. Furthermore, these AI companies are technological giants - and, if profitable, can employ artists to create new artwork to be fed into their machine.
2. If one were to toy around with the various AI tools we have today (e.g. AI image generators, ChatGPT) - one thing which stands out to me is that AIs do not have values, opinions or judgments. At best, an AI can only reflect - in a limited way - the values and intentions of its creator.
This realization brought relief to me - why? Because much of human endeavour - including art - requires personal values and judgment. Art is *precisely* an expression of an artist's values, opinions and judgment.
3. Many AI image generators utilize the "stable diffusion" algorithm. As it turns out, there are newer implementations which allow you to run the algorithm on a home computer now. This heavily reduces man's reliance on the mega-corporations which own the commercial AI image generators.
So given the reasons I outlined above, I've become an optimist with regard to AI's impact on the art industry. Job losses will be mitigated, and I believe AI could eventually be just another handy tool in the artist's toolbox.
AI art has utility and will continue to grow and evolve.
However If you want to make AI art, label it as AI art. Otherwise when you're found out, you will be labeled a plagiarist, and your art career will be destroyed. If you think it's worth it, go ahead.
AI isn't exactly art, same as photography isn't neccesarily art. The concept of art will evolve to be more intimate with human interaction, and there are many mediums to which AI can't yet interact or complete: analog painting/drawing, or complex media like movies, be it 2D or 3D.
If anything this is a cheap and massive resource for a lot of people and bussineses. It doesn't replace human ingenuity.
Newsletter subscription
Click here to subscribe to my monthly newsletter (reviews roundup).
Comments
People are concerned with
People are concerned with "Artificial Intelligence". As long as there are folks creating artwork, traditionally or digitally, there should be no concern. It's when someone decides to create laws and rules against creating, traditionally or digitally that we should concern ourselves. As a person who witnessed the ushering of technology into our current generation I declare we have to adjust to changes, but, always remember, "when we rely on too much of something, we destroy our creativity and become dependent". Everything in life is creative, even the way we live.
Your comment is a shame,
In reply to People are concerned with by Gustavo Pabon (not verified)
Your comment is a shame, because it shows that:
1. You didn't understand any of the topics Zapata discussed in his video
2. You don't know how technically AI image generator works. It's plagiarism, but based on billion of pics that we, of course, cannot recognize. It's not "art", it's plagiarism!
Every human artist learns
Every human artist learns their craft from other artists and sources, and uses various references in creating their artwork. The AI just does that on a far larger scale, with greater memory retention.
Having watched the Zapata video, these are my thoughts:
1. Given existing legal precedents in USA, I believe the law is in favour of AI art generators.
Even if the courts were to ban AI from using copyrighted images, there would still be massive tomes of non-copyrighted images for the AI to learn from. Furthermore, these AI companies are technological giants - and, if profitable, can employ artists to create new artwork to be fed into their machine.
2. If one were to toy around with the various AI tools we have today (e.g. AI image generators, ChatGPT) - one thing which stands out to me is that AIs do not have values, opinions or judgments. At best, an AI can only reflect - in a limited way - the values and intentions of its creator.
This realization brought relief to me - why? Because much of human endeavour - including art - requires personal values and judgment. Art is *precisely* an expression of an artist's values, opinions and judgment.
3. Many AI image generators utilize the "stable diffusion" algorithm. As it turns out, there are newer implementations which allow you to run the algorithm on a home computer now. This heavily reduces man's reliance on the mega-corporations which own the commercial AI image generators.
So given the reasons I outlined above, I've become an optimist with regard to AI's impact on the art industry. Job losses will be mitigated, and I believe AI could eventually be just another handy tool in the artist's toolbox.
Addendum:
Addendum:
These series of posts (by a Google AI engineer) explain for the layman how AI image generators work: https://twitter.com/fchollet/status/1563153087514419206
They are essentially search engines which perform "interpolation" on the search terms.
AI art has utility and will
AI art has utility and will continue to grow and evolve.
However If you want to make AI art, label it as AI art. Otherwise when you're found out, you will be labeled a plagiarist, and your art career will be destroyed. If you think it's worth it, go ahead.
AI isn't exactly art, same as
AI isn't exactly art, same as photography isn't neccesarily art. The concept of art will evolve to be more intimate with human interaction, and there are many mediums to which AI can't yet interact or complete: analog painting/drawing, or complex media like movies, be it 2D or 3D.
If anything this is a cheap and massive resource for a lot of people and bussineses. It doesn't replace human ingenuity.