The Truth About AI Getting "Creative"

Dude, when that Vsauce melody kicked in and you came up with that twist, I got goosebumps all over😂 well done👌🏻

I played around with chatGPT regarding coding. I asked it to create a simple calculator app in python. It did and it worked perfectly for simple operations. Then I asked a follow up question if it could add an UI and it did. Then I wanted the possible operators as buttons and it did. The context awareness and understanding of what it’s answering is scaringly good

They said that machines would take mundane physical jobs from us and leave us with creativity. But it turns out that creativity is easier for algorithms than digging a ditch and more profitable. We are giving AI high skill creative work and leaving humans back breaking dull work. Well done.

As a creator who is not necessarily an illustrator/digital art creator, it means a ton to see you speaking out on the issues of AI and defending the art community. Thank you

It's insane that AI has gotten to the point where these ethical conversations are already being discussed seriously

Something to keep in mind about your iPhone script example is the information cutoff date. ChatGPT was only trained on information up to 2021 and doesn't have access to the internet. The script it wrote was wrong because it has no actual information on the iPhone 14 Pro, which came out in 2022. I think the fact that it was still able to generate a convincing output based on it's current knowledge is very impressive!

My trust broke after 1:44 💀

I feel like a line should be drawn between using AI art for reference, inspiration, or even concept art and using AI art as the final product. I think it is an incredible tool for quickly getting an image from a few words and exploring different concepts very quickly. I also think AI can be really good at doing complex, but repetitive tasks quickly. Things like texturing a 3d model, motion capture, or photogrametry can all be benefited from AI. But when the AI is making the actual end product it will become boring. I honestly believe that people will still be able to discern when a real artist makes something because they will have more purpose behind what they do. AI art will become corporate art. Devoid of any purpose, meant to meet it's 1 sentence instruction.

That's wild, it's insane to think we might start needing disclaimers to tell us what's human vs AI generated

1:50 You know it’s getting mindblowing when the vsauce music kicks in

This reminds me of helicopter parenting, the more Ai helps you the more you'll think you cant do anything yourself and you'll depend more and more in Ai.

Couples of months ago, I saw a courtroom drama web-series where a guy creates an AI software which can generate full song by using snippet of music available online. Song produced by the software were superhit. When the world came to know about this, all the music producers & artist filled a lawsuit against the guy claiming "CREDIT" & infringement of copyright. Everyone claimed that part of the song was their music & they should get compensated for their creativity.

About Iphone 14 part - 6:00 . The ChatGPT was trained on a data in internet before September 2021. That's what they say in their webpage. So it's not search engine, you cannot expect it to have fresh information. I think that's also why it mentions iPhone 12 colors and camera specs.

Professional Artist here As an artist, what bothers me the most isn't that people can recreate my art style or make pictures that look like I painted them, it's that they are now saying that my art looks AI generated and just dismiss it at a glance. Especially since I dabble in surrealist art sometimes, people just accuse me of using an AI and claim that I didn't do it whilst I was spending hours to days in front of my screen painstakingly painting the damn thing. I am very much in support of people using AI images to do what they otherwise couldn't. I'm even ok with people using and recreating my work, even if I'm not being credited. What hurts my income isn't that people can recreate my art, it's that they think my art isn't genuine anymore and therefore think I'm a fraud. Even if I provide proof like making ofs most people are too lazy to check and simply dismiss it at a glance, so the never look into it. Even just looking at it for more than a second would make it clear, because there are no AI artifacts for example. But most people can't even be bothered to do that. My biggest problem are the morons shouting "YoU diDN't MaKe thAT, You JuSt TYpeD iN SomE WoRDs". Like B*tch, I trained your bot, have some respect! Edit: To all you geniuses typing: "You should just upload a making of", do you really think I haven't tried that? Like I said, people just dismiss you at a glance, to the point where they don't even bother to swipe left. It doesn't work! Just read what I wrote above, it's not that hard. Seriously, stop spamming that shit and actually think about it for a second. Everyone has had that genius idea of yours. You're not as smart or original as you think you are.

can't believe nobody yet mentioned the VSAUCE inspired moment using his track too, loved it!

It hurts the most to me when people use these apps to create these things while I spend my time in college paying for my degree then a new technology "tool" comes and take bits and pieces of other artwork and call it new. You can't compare it to inspiration. When we are inspired we gain a feeling of creativity not a feeling to what we see. With the use of this new ai it's sad because some artists who are struggling to become recognized with now be brushed under the rug because their art is no longer unique to them all because an ai create create a replica or rather "inspired" piece from their artwork

The impressive thing is how good of an actor you are to make that script sound natural

I'm worried that the accessibility to use stylized libraries of other peoples art will 100% desensitize people to the creativity required to create the original pieces. Once we've started working with compounded data it will give a perception of quickness and ease that devalues the source material.

The fact that I went “I am getting all the information I need in the first couple minutes” and then realized “wait, this is an MKBHD video, they aren’t this short”

The conversation of copyright by AI has actually been discussed for some time now wherein the US Patent and Trademark Office hosted a conference back in October 2021 to discuss this very matter. One of the more interesting points of discussion stem from a dispute dating back to 2011 regarding a selfie taken by a monkey where it was argued that a monkey cannot hold copyrights because it is a non-human creator (not being a legal person). This eventually lead the US Copyright Office to issue a statement in December of 2014 that reaffirmed that works created by a non-human, such as a photograph taken by a monkey, are not copyrightable. Although some argued that the photographer's role in the photographic process may have been sufficient to establishing a valid copyright claim (the photographer set the camera up on a tripod, preset the proper settings, and basically created the opportunity for the monkeys to take a "selfie" style picture or otherwise help the photographer take the intended close-up photo he couldn't get), it was ultimately not brought as a point of contention and the photos remain in the public domain because the "work's copyright cannot vest in a human, [and thus] it falls into the public domain" or more simply said, because it lacked a copyright holder. This inevitably served as the basis for a case that arose when an individual, who sourced the images, prepared and trained an AI model and whatnot for the said AI to generate art and wherein the individual and the AI were denied the ability to obtain any copyright over the "creative" works of the AI because it was considered to be created by a non-human. So similarly to the photographer's role arguably being sufficient to establish a valid copyright claim, it could be argued that the individual who prepared the source work and/or created the programming language of the AI to generate the artwork would be sufficient for establishing a valid copyright claim but apparently not. So to tie this all back to what you mentioned in your video and bare with me, currently nearing the end of 2022, as it stands from a legal perspective, copyright is not defined by the inspiration or creative aspects of a work, but seemingly rely more or less simply on whether or not the origin of creation is from a human. That being said, if copyright is more or less a right to "credit" of the work, it can be said that these applications of law further exacerbates the uncertainty being asked here whereby if an AI is incapable of holding copyright, how is it considered capable of violating copyright? In other words, if it can't take credit for itself in terms of copyright, is it somehow capable of taking credit from someone even if it can't metaphorically give that credit to itself? Lots of unanswered questions...