OpenAI’s Sora is receiving heat from the art community. China believes they are falling behind US AI. Show hosts Joe (Eng VP) …
32 Comments
2 years ago I saw programmers mocking artists about how art job is soon gonna be obsolete while "they" will take over everything soon thanks to AI and they will thrive. Artists kept replying that AI makes tons of mistakes that average people do not notice as they are not trained into it. Nowadays I see same programmers saying that CGPT is overrated at programming and they are tired of seeing self-proclaimed programmers just using AI to spew out broken coding that they are forced to fix manually. Some youtubers a year ago said that artists losing their jobs is "their own fault for not adapting fast enough". Now that sora is announced I saw plenty of videos of youtubers questioning the ethics of sora and if maybe it would be better to not release such technology. I am quite sure once it is out we will see same people claiming that those AI clips are full of mistakes that average people do not see and that "people do not understand the amount of damage this is bringing".
People will only notice the problem brought by AI only when it's their expertise to be affected. Until that, all they do is mocking and laughing at those hanging onto the edge of the cliff, not realising they're in line to eventually be kicked off from it as well, to be laughed at by everyone else that has not been hit yet.
Artists saying human art is superior is like the diamond miners saying, "Lab grown are inferior because there isn't blood on them." Not only are lab grown superior in quality there are also so many other additional benefits.
12:00 – This is exactly what I've thought for a long long time. The last creative human jobs will be curation jobs. It won't just be books. It's a desire for the consumer to temporarily exit the algorithm.
Welcome to the 3rd round of Weavers Guilds vs the Cotton Loom, 21st century edition. The fanatics will always come out of the woodwork, yes some of them will be violent because they perceive technological encroachment as a mortal threat. While I feel sorry for them my only statement is that AI is here to stay and no amount of regulation will stop it. Good and great artists will adapt and use the technology to be more effective and efficient, mediocre artists and below are not going to fare so well. The same happened with Photoshop, a lot of photographers were completely freaked out about digital photography and digital editing tools, the best ones adapted and thrived, the worst ones left photography or learned other skills to enhance themselves.
Those artists thinking lawsuits will save them are in for a very rude awakening, AI art is here to stay, open source will make sure of that and they can't ban open source effectively when it's worldwide.
The amount of people I’ve spoken with be the amount of people making complaints on AI is saddening. It’s like watching the traditional artists rise up again to complain that digital art and 3D art shouldn’t be considered, or become limited.
It’s going to happen guys, Pandora’s box has already been opened. Adapt or don’t, it’s your choice. Building legal walls for online content never worked in the past, it’s only slowed progress.
We won't be able to progress as a species if people keep thinking as individuals and stay protective of their own jobs. If everyone is going to stay protective, it will slow us down so much today there won't be a cure for cancer tomorrow. If we all want better lives, we have to stop attacking progress and start working together. Embrace progress, don't fight it. Only then we can reach utopia. Fighting progress is the same as embracing the current slavery we are living under.
When economics takes over an entire culuture and turns it into nothing but a commodity what you destroy matters little. Amazon destroys the mall, who cares, malls destroys the mom and pop shop who cares because the mass produced thing is cheaper and what i can afford is tied to a wage.
It's nice you have a dog- would you replace it for a perfectly convincing robot dog that was superior in every way because it would never get old or sick and it's AI brain could be trained to do exactly what you wanted it to do? If not- why not?
The quality argument seems convincing- if an AI can generate something that looks as good as a human artist- but for much lower cost- then it makes sense to replace all the human artists with AI- and same goes for writers, musicians, Actors ect- just replace all human culture with AI Generated culture- it's cheaper and more efficiant to do this.
But this argument assumes that culture is just a product, to be consumed like any other product- but is this really true? Take, for example, the cultural phenomena that is the Comicon. Why do people travel to these events-often over large distances and at considerable expense- to gather together and meet the writers and artists of their favourite comics? They don't need to go to a comicon to buy and consume comics- but something draws them to these events, some intangible desire to come together in a shared celebration of the things they enjoy and beyond that, the things in which they find a shared meaning.
Culture is not just about the consumption of art or music or writing, it's also about that sense of shared meaning. Now imagine a future comicon where all those human artists and writers have been driven out of business by AI. Sure there will 'prompt engineers' to talk to, who will no doubt be happy to tell you exactly what clever combinations of words they used to persuade their AI's to create things for them- and the Art will be glossy and the writing will be as flawless as Chat GPT can make it.
And yet, as I visualise those comic book fans wondering about the halls I can't help but feel that something important has been lost. In place of the passion and-yes-love that once drove those human creators we have instead machines that, having fed upon that human love and passion, will generate an endless stream of iterations that look amazing but mean absolutely nothing.
In the case of cultural expression to ' know the price of everything but the value of nothing' is a tragedy because it will in the end leave us all bereft- starved of meaning amidst an ever growing glut of 'content'.
AI will offer us wow moments just like smart phone did. I suspect ye all saw the OpenAI interview where that was mentioned.
The difference is that Apple and Damsung had to make a profit selling a piece of hardware – this ties them ibto a 2 year release cycle, and woe moments every couple of releases.
AI works through a browser and there is no need to recover the cost of a consumer product.
We should expect woe moments every few months instead of every few years for smartphones.
I think these woe moments are coming so fast that most people do not believe it is happening.
They are watching the tsunami form, but since they have never seen one before they just stand there.
I like the idea of 100x as many creators 99% of them having been enabled by the new wave of AI.
That will impact supply/depending, and if as an artist I cannot beat AI-artist collaborative efforts I am not a good enough artist to compete without AI.
Solution: artists who want to remain relevant must begin to use AI to aid in their work.
Legislation that restricts the use if AI or the data that can be used in AI seems like a very bad idea to me.
telling people to go die is pretty apathetic . which makes you sound 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 smart ! you are All so far up the steel pipe of open ai , that you don't see how this will kill you after you've completely apatheticly killed everyone else .
i understand though , it's here now , made in your own image .
My thing is ! don't shit and poke and call people whining when open ai very literally stolen their craft . I think it makes sense that folk like to get things done fast , but in contrast would it makes sense that an artist may have an intense emotional response when art in their style is now available on open ai ?
I said this before, and I'll say it again. Us artists for over 100 years provided our skills and craft to corporations and money-hungry wealthy men, and facilitated the exploitation of the masses through marketing and brainless entertainment and commercialization
now we are no longer needed , big surprise there , the bosses of this world are done with us , our creativity is not worth anything anymore ….was it worth anything before ???
what's changed so much in 140 years of "commercial" "trendy" creativity
nothing
nothing has changed
and this is also partly our fault
if i had a dollar for every time another artist told me about being more commercial and about creating "what people want" and how my work is meaningless UNLESS i fit in to a f ck ng BOX.
Very, very few artists and authors make enough money from their creations to live on. The arrival of AI won't change that. Top artists and authors will still do well – and may even use AI tools to boost their quality and/or pace. Of course, a successful class action kicked off by a group of whining artists and/or authors might make them some money for the first time in their lives!
Re : National competition We need to avoiding believing in any 'urgent' political message about international AI threats or "AI gaps". We have been through that circus before in around 1960 with the PERCEIVED "missile gap" in the Cold War. These concerns were fuelled by intelligence reports that were later found to be – surprise, surprise – inaccurate or misleading. Luckily more honest analysis by the RAND corporation in the early 1960s managed to dispel these concerns before the missile rattling by the US got out of hand. (RAND still exists, so maybe they should now set their analysts onto the international AI situation)
I have a criticism to make about this take: "I don't go by…is not just the final product is the salt /soul put into it" To me this is a missreading of artistic endeavours. Art is made of two major ingredients, the craft (the technical) and the meaning (therorical/emotional): the degree in which theses two elements appear in an artwork give it value. It can be a technically amazing feat (look at hyperealistic paintings) or it can be a deep research of the human experience (espressionist painting for example)… or it can be any degree of a mix of the two. Can also be, in some cases of excellence both (A statue of Botticelli). AI generated art is art that favor heavily the technical aspect, that is obvious, but it incorporates also the second aspect ina very peculiar way that we have not seen before: it is an expression of GENERALIZED human experience (imagine all humans as one entity whose point of view is the result of the single point of views). However this will never replace (at least not in any visible future) the PERSONAL human experience, as AI is not human, is not a person, and there is no way for it tounderstand what that singular experience is … if there was art would not exist itself, as what art is is exactly that.. the struggle to even be able to communicate those feeling (refer to the famous sentence by Michelangelo to his statue "why don't you speak"). What we are seeing is not AI art replacing human artists. It is a new form of expression.
Also a small philosophical tease: "you assume that AI has not got a soul, and humans do" well…i say… "you assume that the person next to you has a soul like you" 😁
High FTA episode. People who see scifi tech that can create any video you can imagine and their initial reaction is "I can't see any positive uses for this whatsoever, only bad uses" are soulless zombies and have zero enthusaism about art. Artists who don't see any positivity in the fact that art is easier to make are people who became artists just to chase clout and make people like them.
We are really missing the days when we where forced to gather food from nature to survive. Or perhaps not. When your art has value it might survive, don't expect the world to accept your art as valuable just because you say it. When your followers appreciate/support your art you might be able to make a living? Some followers might pay for the art, most will probably not. How many artists have been successful due to lack of hard competition in the past? 🤔
that megan chick scares me. her words are dangerous. i love Ai, love ai art gens, am thoroughly looking forward to using ML in UE5 to train models for cinematic use. the way this landscape is going, a moron like me can actually do things like animate and make games without a lot of help, and only using ai. im not good with a pen, but i can come up with great ideas for ai art gens and it opens doors for me. so, i hate to hear people who say Ai art is bad, and Ai in general is a negative thing. humans worry me honestly. i dont see how people aren't thrilled at whats coming and the possibility's. people would rather our world stay the piece of shit that it is then advance it for us all. 😒
Take a simple industry like art and design. I actually went to university for a degree in graphic design. I also took fine arts.
I'll be the first to say that it's foolish to go to school for fine arts or design, other than for a hobby. The enrollment in universities and colleges is going to drop significantly. This will lead to most art and design colleges going out of business.
A few prestigious programs will remain as they incorporate Ai into the curriculum. It was dumb to go to college for art and design before Ai, and now it makes zero financial sense.
The film industry is also going to change completely. I'm not even sure if most studios will survive. If I can make a film that looks as good as a $200 million Hollywood film, and it's good, traditional films will be an anomaly, only made by a handful of proven directors.
The ripple effects will astound us. Nobody is connecting the dots.
Creativity will become one of the most valued skills. The ability to think, reason, plan, and solve problems (with Ai) will be the traits that survive.
I always found creating final art and designs to be tedious. I enjoy the conceptual, but i am much happier letting somebody else do the grunt work of making the final art.
If you think AI is disruptive, you are in for a very big surprise ounce general robotics starts to come on line in a few years, you ain't seen nuthin yet
2 years ago I saw programmers mocking artists about how art job is soon gonna be obsolete while "they" will take over everything soon thanks to AI and they will thrive. Artists kept replying that AI makes tons of mistakes that average people do not notice as they are not trained into it.
Nowadays I see same programmers saying that CGPT is overrated at programming and they are tired of seeing self-proclaimed programmers just using AI to spew out broken coding that they are forced to fix manually.
Some youtubers a year ago said that artists losing their jobs is "their own fault for not adapting fast enough". Now that sora is announced I saw plenty of videos of youtubers questioning the ethics of sora and if maybe it would be better to not release such technology. I am quite sure once it is out we will see same people claiming that those AI clips are full of mistakes that average people do not see and that "people do not understand the amount of damage this is bringing".
People will only notice the problem brought by AI only when it's their expertise to be affected. Until that, all they do is mocking and laughing at those hanging onto the edge of the cliff, not realising they're in line to eventually be kicked off from it as well, to be laughed at by everyone else that has not been hit yet.
Artists saying human art is superior is like the diamond miners saying, "Lab grown are inferior because there isn't blood on them."
Not only are lab grown superior in quality there are also so many other additional benefits.
12:00 – This is exactly what I've thought for a long long time. The last creative human jobs will be curation jobs. It won't just be books. It's a desire for the consumer to temporarily exit the algorithm.
Actors, politicians, celebrities, sports figures are all overrated and overpaid. I have zero sympathy 😅
Welcome to the 3rd round of Weavers Guilds vs the Cotton Loom, 21st century edition.
The fanatics will always come out of the woodwork, yes some of them will be violent because they perceive technological encroachment as a mortal threat.
While I feel sorry for them my only statement is that AI is here to stay and no amount of regulation will stop it.
Good and great artists will adapt and use the technology to be more effective and efficient, mediocre artists and below are not going to fare so well.
The same happened with Photoshop, a lot of photographers were completely freaked out about digital photography and digital editing tools, the best ones adapted and thrived, the worst ones left photography or learned other skills to enhance themselves.
Those artists thinking lawsuits will save them are in for a very rude awakening, AI art is here to stay, open source will make sure of that and they can't ban open source effectively when it's worldwide.
The amount of people I’ve spoken with be the amount of people making complaints on AI is saddening. It’s like watching the traditional artists rise up again to complain that digital art and 3D art shouldn’t be considered, or become limited.
It’s going to happen guys, Pandora’s box has already been opened. Adapt or don’t, it’s your choice. Building legal walls for online content never worked in the past, it’s only slowed progress.
We won't be able to progress as a species if people keep thinking as individuals and stay protective of their own jobs.
If everyone is going to stay protective, it will slow us down so much today there won't be a cure for cancer tomorrow.
If we all want better lives, we have to stop attacking progress and start working together.
Embrace progress, don't fight it. Only then we can reach utopia.
Fighting progress is the same as embracing the current slavery we are living under.
When economics takes over an entire culuture and turns it into nothing but a commodity what you destroy matters little. Amazon destroys the mall, who cares, malls destroys the mom and pop shop who cares because the mass produced thing is cheaper and what i can afford is tied to a wage.
It's nice you have a dog- would you replace it for a perfectly convincing robot dog that was superior in every way because it would never get old or sick and it's AI brain could be trained to do exactly what you wanted it to do? If not- why not?
The quality argument seems convincing- if an AI can generate something that looks as good as a human artist- but for much lower cost- then it makes sense to replace all the human artists with AI- and same goes for writers, musicians, Actors ect- just replace all human culture with AI Generated culture- it's cheaper and more efficiant to do this.
But this argument assumes that culture is just a product, to be consumed like any other product- but is this really true? Take, for example, the cultural phenomena that is the Comicon. Why do people travel to these events-often over large distances and at considerable expense- to gather together and meet the writers and artists of their favourite comics? They don't need to go to a comicon to buy and consume comics- but something draws them to these events, some intangible desire to come together in a shared celebration of the things they enjoy and beyond that, the things in which they find a shared meaning.
Culture is not just about the consumption of art or music or writing, it's also about that sense of shared meaning. Now imagine a future comicon where all those human artists and writers have been driven out of business by AI. Sure there will 'prompt engineers' to talk to, who will no doubt be happy to tell you exactly what clever combinations of words they used to persuade their AI's to create things for them- and the Art will be glossy and the writing will be as flawless as Chat GPT can make it.
And yet, as I visualise those comic book fans wondering about the halls I can't help but feel that something important has been lost. In place of the passion and-yes-love that once drove those human creators we have instead machines that, having fed upon that human love and passion, will generate an endless stream of iterations that look amazing but mean absolutely nothing.
In the case of cultural expression to ' know the price of everything but the value of nothing' is a tragedy because it will in the end leave us all bereft- starved of meaning amidst an ever growing glut of 'content'.
Loved the conversation! Thank you!!
Godzilla vs. Gamera. 30 minutes of fighting. Go!
"Learn to code".
I mostly agree…but this technology could make our echo chambers that much louder. Politics is wild now, but it’s gonna be fucked in a few years
Great talk.
AI will offer us wow moments just like smart phone did. I suspect ye all saw the OpenAI interview where that was mentioned.
The difference is that Apple and Damsung had to make a profit selling a piece of hardware – this ties them ibto a 2 year release cycle, and woe moments every couple of releases.
AI works through a browser and there is no need to recover the cost of a consumer product.
We should expect woe moments every few months instead of every few years for smartphones.
I think these woe moments are coming so fast that most people do not believe it is happening.
They are watching the tsunami form, but since they have never seen one before they just stand there.
I like the idea of 100x as many creators 99% of them having been enabled by the new wave of AI.
That will impact supply/depending, and if as an artist I cannot beat AI-artist collaborative efforts I am not a good enough artist to compete without AI.
Solution: artists who want to remain relevant must begin to use AI to aid in their work.
Legislation that restricts the use if AI or the data that can be used in AI seems like a very bad idea to me.
telling people to go die is pretty apathetic . which makes you sound 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 smart !
you are All so far up the steel pipe of open ai , that you don't see how this will kill you after you've completely apatheticly killed everyone else .
i understand though , it's here now , made in your own image .
My thing is ! don't shit and poke and call people whining when open ai very literally stolen their craft . I think it makes sense that folk like to get things done fast , but in contrast would it makes sense that an artist may have an intense emotional response when art in their style is now available on open ai ?
AI is like reverse Hitler, we keep waiting for it to conquer the world, but all it wants to do is create art.
Full John Henry, that's hilarious. However, we can only hope that AI comes up with an alternate economy soon.
I said this before, and I'll say it again. Us artists for over 100 years provided our skills and craft to corporations and money-hungry wealthy men, and facilitated the exploitation of the masses through marketing and brainless entertainment and commercialization
now we are no longer needed , big surprise there , the bosses of this world are done with us , our creativity is not worth anything anymore ….was it worth anything before ???
what's changed so much in 140 years of "commercial" "trendy" creativity
nothing
nothing has changed
and this is also partly our fault
if i had a dollar for every time another artist told me about being more commercial and about creating "what people want" and how my work is meaningless UNLESS i fit in to a f ck ng BOX.
Well….
…..here's the proverbial "box" gentlemen.
Enjoy it.
Very, very few artists and authors make enough money from their creations to live on.
The arrival of AI won't change that.
Top artists and authors will still do well – and may even use AI tools to boost their quality and/or pace.
Of course, a successful class action kicked off by a group of whining artists and/or authors might make them some money for the first time in their lives!
Re : National competition
We need to avoiding believing in any 'urgent' political message about international AI threats or "AI gaps".
We have been through that circus before in around 1960 with the PERCEIVED "missile gap" in the Cold War.
These concerns were fuelled by intelligence reports that were later found to be – surprise, surprise – inaccurate or misleading.
Luckily more honest analysis by the RAND corporation in the early 1960s managed to dispel these concerns before the missile rattling by the US got out of hand.
(RAND still exists, so maybe they should now set their analysts onto the international AI situation)
I think cave art artists may be going out of business but I may be mistaken.
I have a criticism to make about this take:
"I don't go by…is not just the final product is the salt /soul put into it"
To me this is a missreading of artistic endeavours. Art is made of two major ingredients, the craft (the technical) and the meaning (therorical/emotional): the degree in which theses two elements appear in an artwork give it value. It can be a technically amazing feat (look at hyperealistic paintings) or it can be a deep research of the human experience (espressionist painting for example)… or it can be any degree of a mix of the two. Can also be, in some cases of excellence both (A statue of Botticelli).
AI generated art is art that favor heavily the technical aspect, that is obvious, but it incorporates also the second aspect ina very peculiar way that we have not seen before: it is an expression of GENERALIZED human experience (imagine all humans as one entity whose point of view is the result of the single point of views).
However this will never replace (at least not in any visible future) the PERSONAL human experience, as AI is not human, is not a person, and there is no way for it tounderstand what that singular experience is … if there was art would not exist itself, as what art is is exactly that.. the struggle to even be able to communicate those feeling (refer to the famous sentence by Michelangelo to his statue "why don't you speak").
What we are seeing is not AI art replacing human artists. It is a new form of expression.
Also a small philosophical tease:
"you assume that AI has not got a soul, and humans do"
well…i say…
"you assume that the person next to you has a soul like you"
😁
High FTA episode. People who see scifi tech that can create any video you can imagine and their initial reaction is "I can't see any positive uses for this whatsoever, only bad uses" are soulless zombies and have zero enthusaism about art. Artists who don't see any positivity in the fact that art is easier to make are people who became artists just to chase clout and make people like them.
I‘m much more concerned that people will use ai on their job, and nevertheless expect human wages. 😂
We are really missing the days when we where forced to gather food from nature to survive. Or perhaps not. When your art has value it might survive, don't expect the world to accept your art as valuable just because you say it. When your followers appreciate/support your art you might be able to make a living? Some followers might pay for the art, most will probably not. How many artists have been successful due to lack of hard competition in the past? 🤔
Will there soon be something against data poisoning? I heard that artists want to poison all their data?
I can not believe that. I'm losing my business.
that megan chick scares me. her words are dangerous. i love Ai, love ai art gens, am thoroughly looking forward to using ML in UE5 to train models for cinematic use. the way this landscape is going, a moron like me can actually do things like animate and make games without a lot of help, and only using ai. im not good with a pen, but i can come up with great ideas for ai art gens and it opens doors for me. so, i hate to hear people who say Ai art is bad, and Ai in general is a negative thing. humans worry me honestly. i dont see how people aren't thrilled at whats coming and the possibility's. people would rather our world stay the piece of shit that it is then advance it for us all. 😒
The only thing that stays the same is change. Innovations lead to job losses and NO, new jobs do not replace all of the job losses.
Is the iPad still even relevant 🤔
I can't imagine companies putting effort to develop a iPhone, iPad and now Vision OS.
Remember the controversy with colorization of movies. Or the CG of scenes in sci fi movies? Now if Spielberg uses ML to redo ET or close encounters ?
The world is changing boys
Humans are not prepared for what's coming.
Take a simple industry like art and design. I actually went to university for a degree in graphic design. I also took fine arts.
I'll be the first to say that it's foolish to go to school for fine arts or design, other than for a hobby. The enrollment in universities and colleges is going to drop significantly. This will lead to most art and design colleges going out of business.
A few prestigious programs will remain as they incorporate Ai into the curriculum. It was dumb to go to college for art and design before Ai, and now it makes zero financial sense.
The film industry is also going to change completely. I'm not even sure if most studios will survive. If I can make a film that looks as good as a $200 million Hollywood film, and it's good, traditional films will be an anomaly, only made by a handful of proven directors.
The ripple effects will astound us. Nobody is connecting the dots.
Creativity will become one of the most valued skills. The ability to think, reason, plan, and solve problems (with Ai) will be the traits that survive.
I always found creating final art and designs to be tedious. I enjoy the conceptual, but i am much happier letting somebody else do the grunt work of making the final art.
If you think AI is disruptive, you are in for a very big surprise ounce general robotics starts to come on line in a few years, you ain't seen nuthin yet