Why We Should Protect Human Made Art

The speaker argues that artificial intelligence (AI) art is not a significant form of art, and that the current environment around AI systems is unethical and threatens to take things in a very unartistic direction. The speaker also notes that even if we don't extrapolate into the future and contend only with the current state of the art, the way AI systems are being trained, released, used, and marketed right now is already grounds for serious concern. If these AI systems are allowed to propagate unchecked, a dangerous precedent will be set revealing that visual artists are unwilling to defend themselves and their work against theft and exploitation.

The video argues that image AIs (software that can recognize and reproduce paintings and other images) will create a maelstrom of history, but that artists need to be willing to defend themselves. The narrator discusses the data sets used to train image AIs, noting that the input images are what define the model's potential. If you want to update the model, you must retrain it from scratch on the entire modified data set.

The video argues that image AIs are indiscriminately collecting copyrighted data and are not following research privileges. This is a problem because it is making it difficult to avoid accountability and legal liability.

The video argues that image AI will replace human artists, and suggests that this is bad because it will reduce the need for human creativity. It also argues that image AI will be able to create stunning images and videos without human input, and that this will be a bad thing because it will reduce the need for human creativity.

The speaker argues that the sheer volume of image AI output will allow the AIS (artificial intelligence system) and their handlers to manipulate the market, flood feeds with images when they want something to disappear, and ease off when they want something to get attention. They also argue that this will affect every sector of the commercial art market, including hobbyist and fine art. The speaker concludes that these technologies are tools, not replacements, and that artists should focus on telling stories through video games, animations, and comics.

The video discusses the potential for artificial intelligence to take away jobs from human artists, and the potential for AI to change the laws and dissuade humans from creative pursuits. It concludes that the people making AI art will depend on people thinking that they hold the silver key to the artist's vision, and that this will lead to people supporting the companies financially and helping to change the laws to allow more AI art.

The video argues that because the source code for stable diffusion is available, AIS (artificial intelligence software) companies will likely switch to different tactics in the future. It points out that people do not copy references exactly the same way that AIS do, and that even if AIS could replicate references perfectly, this would not be the same as creating original artwork. The video concludes that art making should be reserved for human beings, and that AI can never replace the soul of an artist.

The video argues that artificial intelligence (AI) is capable of creating art, but that it is not fair because companies can use opt-out options to create art without the consent of artists. The video also argues that humans are still capable of creating art, and that the use of opt-out options does not allow for the creation of art that is truly ethical.

The author of the video argues that image AIs are unethical and should be dismantled. He points out that before the release of these systems, most people would not have thought they could get even as good as they currently are. He also argues that if we allow image AIs to take over our jobs and hobbies, we will be relinquishing our work to machines and setting a dangerous precedent.

1

The video argues that artificial intelligence (AI) is capable of creating art, but that it is not fair because companies can use opt-out options to create art without the consent of artists. The video also argues that humans are still capable of creating art, and that the use of opt-out options does not allow for the creation of art that is truly ethical.