WHY AI ART IS HARMFUL FOR ARTISTS.. AND YOU

Summary

In this video, the artist passionately discusses the controversial topic of AI-generated art, expressing deep emotional concern and outrage. They argue that AI art platforms like Lensa, which use models trained on copyrighted images without consent, are unethical and exploitative. The artist highlights issues of art theft, lack of consent, and the potential legal risks for users. They call for regulation, ethical labor practices, and the use of royalty-free images to prevent exploitation. The video serves as a rallying cry for protecting artists' rights and the integrity of creative work in the age of AI.

Takeaways

• 😤 The speaker is emotionally upset about AI art and its impact on artists.
• 💬 They are discussing the controversial topic of AI art theft, specifically mentioning the app 'Lensa' and the AI model 'Stable Diffusion'.
• 🚫 AI art is criticized for not asking for consent when using copyrighted images and private data.
• 🖼️ Artists are concerned about their work being used without credit or compensation by AI art programs.
• 💰 There's a financial issue with paying for AI-generated art that's based on unpaid labor from artists.
• 📉 The speaker discusses the problem of 'overfitting' in AI art, where AI creates near-replicas of the training images.
• 🇺🇸 The US government's stance on AI-generated images and copyright is mentioned.
• 🤝 The speaker calls for legislation and regulation to protect artists from AI art theft.
• 🌐 There's a call for ethical labor practices, including opting in or out of having one's work used in AI training.
• 🙏 The speaker expresses gratitude to their supporters and emphasizes the importance of supporting original art.

Q & A

What is the main topic of the video?

The main topic of the video is the controversy surrounding AI art, specifically the ethical concerns and potential harm it poses to artists.

How does the speaker feel about AI art?

The speaker is emotionally affected and upset by AI art, viewing it as a form of art theft.

What is the speaker's stance on AI art's impact on artists?

The speaker believes AI art is dangerous to artists as it uses their work without consent, credit, or compensation.

What is 'stable diffusion' mentioned in the script?

'Stable diffusion' is an AI model that scours the internet for images to create new artwork without the original creators' consent.

How does the speaker describe the process of AI art creation?

The speaker describes AI art creation as a process where AI models are trained on copyrighted images and private data to generate new images.

What is the significance of the website 'haveibeentrained.com'?

The website 'haveibeentrained.com' allows users to check if their images have been used to train the AI model 'stable diffusion'.

Why is the speaker concerned about the terms of service of AI art apps like Lensa?

The speaker is concerned because the terms of service may allow the company to avoid legal responsibility while users could face lawsuits for copyright infringement.

What is the issue with 'overfitting' in AI art models?

Overfitting occurs when an AI model creates an almost identical piece to one it was trained on, which is problematic as it can lead to copyright infringement.

How does the speaker feel about the argument that posting to a public platform makes art public domain?

The speaker refutes this argument, stating that copyright is inherent to creation and that AI art companies should not use social media images for training without consent.

What are the speaker's suggestions for improvement in the AI art industry?

The speaker suggests legislation and regulation of AI, ethical labor practices including opt-in and out options, and the use of copyright-free images like those used by human artists.

What is the speaker's final message to viewers?

The speaker expresses gratitude for support and emphasizes the importance of valuing original human-created art over AI-generated content.

Outlines

00:00

🎨 AI Art Controversy

The speaker begins by expressing their emotional investment in the topic of AI art, acknowledging the controversy surrounding it. They plan to share their subjective opinion on why they believe AI art is not just a fun tool but poses a significant threat to artists. The speaker clarifies their bias and invites corrections in the comments. They also mention they are not a legal expert but an artist sharing their research and opinions. The video includes a call to action for viewers to participate in a survey for an upcoming art retreat, suggesting places like Japan, Ireland, and Iceland as potential destinations.

05:01

🚫 AI Art Theft

The speaker argues that AI art, particularly through platforms like Lensa and models like Stable Diffusion, is a form of art theft. They explain that these AI models use copyrighted images and private data without consent to create new images, which they view as unethical. The speaker is upset that their own artwork has been used in this way without their permission or compensation. They also criticize the business model of charging users for AI-generated images that are based on unpaid labor from artists. The speaker points out that while the US government has passed laws preventing AI from holding copyright, this doesn't solve the problem of artists' work being exploited.

10:01

📜 Legal and Ethical Concerns

The speaker discusses the legal and ethical implications of AI art, including the potential for users to unknowingly infringe on copyrights by using AI to generate images from copyrighted sources. They highlight the disparity between how AI is used for art versus music, suggesting that musicians have more legal protection. The speaker also addresses the terms of service of companies like Lensa, warning that users could be at risk of lawsuits if they use copyrighted images in AI generation. They express concern over the misuse of AI to create non-consensual pornography and the lack of legal recourse for such violations.

15:03

🌟 Supporting Artists and the Future of AI Art

In the final paragraph, the speaker calls for legislation and regulation to protect artists from the misuse of their work by AI. They also advocate for ethical labor practices, where artists can choose whether their work is used in AI training and receive compensation for its use. The speaker emphasizes their preference for original, human-created art and their discomfort with the commercialization of their creativity without consent. They express gratitude for the support they've received and end on a hopeful note, envisioning a future where AI art is regulated and ethical.

Keywords

💡AI art

AI art refers to artwork generated by artificial intelligence algorithms. In the video, the speaker is concerned about AI art's implications for artists, arguing that it involves the unauthorized use of their work, which is a form of theft. The video discusses how AI art platforms like Lensa use AI models to create images without the consent or compensation of the artists whose work is used to train these models.

💡Controversial

The term 'controversial' is used to describe the divisive nature of AI art. The video suggests that opinions on AI art vary widely, with some seeing it as a fun and useful tool, while others, like the speaker, view it as a threat to artists' rights and livelihoods.

💡Stable Diffusion

Stable Diffusion is an AI model mentioned in the script that scours the internet for images to create new artwork. The speaker argues that this model is unethical because it uses copyrighted and private images without consent, thus constituting art theft.

💡Art theft

Art theft in the context of the video refers to the unauthorized use of artists' work by AI algorithms to generate new images. The speaker feels that AI art platforms are stealing artists' work without their permission or compensation, which is a direct threat to their creative rights and income.

💡Consent

Consent is a crucial concept in the video, where the speaker emphasizes that AI art platforms do not seek permission from artists before using their work. This lack of consent is seen as a violation of artists' rights and a form of exploitation.

💡Overfitting

Overfitting in AI refers to when an AI model generates an output that is almost identical to the input it was trained on. In the context of the video, this is a problem because it means AI art can closely mimic existing art, potentially infringing on copyrights and原创性.

💡Ethical

Ethical considerations are central to the video's discussion on AI art. The speaker argues that AI art is currently unethical due to its reliance on unauthorized use of artists' work, lack of consent, and potential for misuse, such as creating non-consensual pornography.

💡Copyright

Copyright is a legal right that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights to its use and distribution. The video discusses how AI art platforms may violate copyright laws by using artists' work without permission to train their AI models.

💡Terms of Service

The video mentions the 'Terms of Service' of AI art companies like Lensa, which the speaker argues places the legal risk on users rather than the company. Users could potentially face lawsuits if they upload copyrighted images to generate AI art, while the company claims no responsibility.

💡Representation

Representation in the video refers to the legal and industry support that artists receive. The speaker notes a disparity between artists and musicians, suggesting that musicians have better legal representation to protect their copyrights from AI misuse.

💡Legislation

Legislation is discussed as a potential solution in the video. The speaker calls for laws and regulations to govern AI art to protect artists' rights, suggesting that current legal frameworks are inadequate to address the challenges posed by AI art.

Highlights

The video discusses the controversy surrounding AI art and its impact on artists.

AI art is described as art theft, with apps like Lensa using AI models trained on copyrighted images without consent.

Stable Diffusion, an AI model, is criticized for using data sets without artists' consent.

The creator expresses emotional distress over AI art using their work without permission or compensation.

Lensa's business model is criticized for charging users for AI-generated art based on stolen work.

The video mentions the existence of a survey for an art retreat in 2023, indicating a positive engagement with the audience.

AI art is considered dangerous and ethically immoral due to its lack of originality and consent.

The video discusses the issue of overfitting in AI models, where AI creates near-identical pieces to the training data.

The US government's stance on AI-generated images and copyright is mentioned.

The video points out that signatures of artists appear on AI-generated images, indicating a lack of originality.

The terms of service for Lensa are criticized for potentially exposing users to lawsuits.

The video raises concerns about AI-generated content being used to create non-consensual pornography.

The argument that posting art online makes it public domain is debunked.

The video calls for legislation and regulation to control AI art.

The creator advocates for ethical labor practices, including compensation for artists whose work is used in AI training.

A comparison is made between AI art and music, noting that AI music uses royalty-free sources to avoid copyright issues.

The video concludes with a call for support for artists and a hope for a future where AI art is regulated and ethical.

Transcripts

hello my friends today's video is going

to be a wild one I'm going to be talking

about something controversial slash

something that has taken the Internet by

storm at least in my corner of the

internet which is AI art I'm personally

pretty emotionally affected by this

pretty upset so I'm hoping that this uh

video essay commentary is going to be as

subjective as possible and I'm going to

be trying to tell you about my opinion

and the facts that I believe support my

opinion against AI art but at the end of

the day I'm emotionally and subjectively

biased so if I'm saying anything that

isn't correct please just let me know in

the comments I would love to make sure

that I am informed and not believing

something that is not true I also want

to say that I am not a lawyer obviously

I'm just an artist I don't understand

the ins and outs of everything that I'm

talking about so again I might be

incorrect just let me know this is just

what I've researched and what I have

come up with in my opinions okay before

we begin I do want to mention that I am

taking a survey to see where you guys

would like to go on another art treated

2023 I just hosted an art Retreat this

past year in September I thought it was

a very successful art Retreat so if

you'd like to go with me in 2023 fill

out the survey please it's just to let

me know where you'd like to go what your

budget is and what time of year that

would be there are so many good places

to go such as Japan Ireland Iceland

France Italy Greece ton of places to go

it's just going to be at the top of my

description that is it thank you so much

okay let's get into the video the topic

of discussion today is going to be why

AI art is not just fun or useful why I

believe that it is pretty dangerous to

artists right now and just in general

ethically immoral the very first

argument and the largest argument

against air especially in the mindset of

artists is that AI art at the moment is

just art theft lenza is extremely

popular right now and has grown in

popularity especially the past couple

weeks and is one of the largest AI art

apps out there lenza uses an AI model

called stable diffusion stable diffusion

scours the internet for millions and

millions of photos create new images

this is not original or new artwork I

think that's like the easiest and

simplest way to describe what stable

diffusion is stability AI is essentially

a parasite without artists creating

artwork and posting it online it would

have no data sets to train from and to

create its own art the biggest problem

with this is the fact that stability AI

does not ask for consent it uses

copywritten images along with private

medical records violent images and

non-consensual pornography this is

because AI has absolutely no moral code

obviously air is programmed and so

therefore it will scour any image on the

internet and use it in its data sets if

you follow any artists online myself

included you will have noticed that a

lot of us are posting about how our

images are being used without our

consent to inform this paid to use app

and program you can check if any of your

own images have been used for training

stability by going to the website have

ibentrained.com you can just put in

keywords or photos and see if they have

been used I've easily found my work on

have I been trained and so I know that

my own artwork has informed stability Ai

and lenza which is extremely upsetting

because I've not given any consent for

my work to be used in this capacity I

have not been credited nor have I been

paid apps like lens that are charging uh

fifty dollars a year you can get a free

trial for a week but as people forget to

pay subscriptions you could just be

instantly charged 50 a year plus you

have to pay like what 3.99 nine dollars

or something like that for however many

images you want to receive there's two

big problems with this for one you're

paying a programmer essentially for

pre-commissioned art that program has

been trained off of somebody like me who

has I've been working on my skill set

for years put in countless hours every

day put in physical labor emotional

energy into my work for it to be stolen

from me without any kind of credit or

compensation and then have somebody

innocently pay a program

three nine fifty dollars for hundreds of

generated images some of which are

whack kind of like a slap in the

face it's not supporting small creators

it's theft from small creators paying

programmers who have essentially just

created an AI to steal from other

artists stability diffusion is currently

valued at 550 million dollars based on

unpaid labor they have not paid for any

of the images that they are using for

this this is not original you know

they're not creating something new uh an

AI cannot think like a human being

cannot make rational judgments like a

human being none of it is original based

on Snippets of other people's work and

creating something new based on it I

also like knit two grabbing a bunch of

copywritten images based on let's say of

Vogue photographer's work photo

manipulating them together and saying

that you've created something new and

original you have just stolen from

somebody else

AI models using stable diffusion also

employ something called overfitting

which is when an AI model creates an

almost identical piece to the one that

it's being trained on this is

problematic in many senses I think the

US government has recently passed some

laws that say that AI created images

cannot have copyright on them you can

take somebody's photograph or painting

that it has a copyright on it throw it

into lensa to change it just barely and

then overfit it and create something

that is completely new sell it for your

own and get away with it essentially

think like The Smoking Gun and this

whole argument is that you can see

signatures from artists appear on these

AI generated images it's not like the

program has it programmed in it to

create fake signatures so it looks more

authentic these are like the little

ghost remnants of signatures from

artists that it's taken from I think the

very interesting part to this

conversation is the fact that stability

has a music generating AI as well and it

does not employ this same model they've

essentially said that they know that you

using copy written music would be

problematic they are not going to do

that so they only use copyright free

music and royalty-free music I cannot

help but think that this is because

musicians larger musicians at any rate

have producers agents legal teams behind

them that can help them in these sort of

lawsuits while smaller artists like

myself don't have legal representation I

am a literal normal ass human being I

don't have a lawyer so I cannot in any

way defend my copyright unless I want to

go broke I live in America the system is

not set up to help a freelancer protect

their own copyright protect their living

it's something that's Bleak abysmal

there's nothing really in place for me

legally like any kind of protection I

think it's fair to say that artists in

general lack representation the way that

musicians do and so therefore stability

has used two separate models for artists

versus musicians

something that I haven't seen a lot of

people talk about but I think is

extremely important probably one of the

craziest parts of all of this is the

fine print the terms of service of a

company like lenza I'm going to talk

about them specifically because

I've pulled this quote from their terms

of service you're a non-artist you might

be just sitting there and thinking okay

this is affecting artists this is not

affecting me what if I just put in my

own photo and I come out with an artwork

this is in no way something that is

affecting me negatively it's just fun

you know like I understand that way of

thinking I kind of think it's a selfish

way to think but I understand it you

know self-preservation all that kind of

stuff you don't have to worry about

everybody else's problems it's just fun

for you you also might be in danger of

a lawsuit lenses terms of service say

both your original content and your

edited or AI generated content belong to

you and may claim no ownership over such

content if you take a photo that is

professionally taken of you for your

wedding your engagement family photos

that a photographer has copyright over

and you put them into lenza come out

with essentially an overfitted image and

post it online that photographer could

potentially sue you not lens it because

they have completely washed their hands

of any kind of involvement into this you

could potentially be faced with a

lawsuit not the company that is a

multi-million dollar company that is

profiting it off of artists with unpaid

labor but you a regular ass person who

just wanted to have some fun with this

program the next thing I want to talk

about is probably one of the Graver ones

I touched on it when I mentioned the

private medical records and the

non-consensual pornography this is sort

of similar to this stability AI how has

just released a second version and like

late November I believe that had an

update where you cannot directly copy

another specific artist's work and you

cannot create an sfw content it's great

that they've released this update the

problem with this is that it's happened

before and will likely happen again

because there's no regulation against

creating essentially pornography with

somebody's likeness can you imagine if

somebody used your own face to create

pornographic images that they post

commercially for somebody to pay for

this is like opening a completely new

can of worms on sexual harassment

consent indecency it's happened before

you know now that there's an update and

that you can't do this doesn't mean that

there's any kind of legal repercussions

for somebody doing this this is talking

about your privacy and sexual consent as

well it's a big deal again I understand

being like listen this is taking this

topic too seriously it's just fun I'm

just making a profile picture for my

Instagram no big deal there are just so

many ethical problems with AI art at the

moment that I just cannot endorse it

it's dangerous for artists it's

dangerous for users there's no legal

ramifications for misuse of the systems

and the models now that I've talked

about what I think is really wrong with

AI I'm going to talk about some of the

rebuttals I've seen online one of these

being that posting to a public platform

makes your art public domain this is not

the case copyright is inherent to when

you create something I've talked about

how they do not condone the use of

content on their platform for AI

training now there's a debate about

these companies and these social media

platforms taking some sort of

responsibility to protect their users

which I agree with if it's against your

moral code or your terms of services the

fact that millions of images have been

taken from these social media sites to

be used for these the AI data sets is

incorrect and something that

multi-million dollar social media

platforms need to address another thing

that I've seen people talk about is that

AI art helps disabled artists I am not

disabled I cannot speak to my experience

obviously I really have no right to be

talking about this however I've seen

online several disabled artists

mentioned that AI art is not in any

capacity helping them and art is one of

the most easily accessible Hobbies

careers to some disabled people at the

end of the day a lot of people using AI

generated art apps are saying things

like Artistry gatekeeping artists just

want more money this argument also

implies that artists can copy from other

artists and that there are no

repercussions or there is no moral

problem with this there are so many

artists that say please do not repost my

art do not copy my arc at the end of the

day I know it's going to happen and I'm

not okay with it but I understand it's a

fact of life however this doesn't mean

that I just have to accept that my art

is going to be stolen by stability Ai

and have to be okay with it if you've

heard everything that I've said and you

still disagree you think I'm butt hurt

you think I'm gatekeeping respectfully

you if you don't hear what all

these other artists are saying what I'm

saying and you don't see how this is

dangerous to our livelihoods you have no

appreciation for art but you're still

using a model that is based off of

stolen work from artists you clearly

don't appreciate art you clearly don't

support small businesses I'm not going

to apologize for being angry at you if

you don't like this type of content if

you don't like seeing original work then

kindly off there's other channels

you can watch I'm not on board with

shitty people being here there are so

many other moral dilemmas involved

things like the guy that wrote and

Illustrated a children's book uh in like

the shortest time span with AI generated

words and images I don't I don't know

what to say to that I'm

it's crazy getting kind of upset so

let's talk about positives and what I

want the very first thing is legislation

and regulation of AI I understand that

AI is not going to be able to uh go away

it's like Pandora's Box it's opened the

technology is out there the programming

has been done would be unreasonable of

me to assume that this will all go away

and that's not exactly what I'm saying

either I can see how AI art could be

extremely useful in many capacities but

at the moment I believe it is completely

unethical second thing I would like is

ethical labor being able to opt in and

out of your work being used in stability

ai's training paid labor for copywritten

images if my work is going to be used

I'd like to be paid and the thing is I

don't want my work to be used this is

not about money for me this is about my

work being duplicated and my Humanity

being commercialized it's not my

Vibe dude I don't want it keep it away

from me I try to give ethically when

possible I like to shop small when

possible I like to put my money where

it's important I'm not in my abilities

trying to consume any kind of fast

fashion fast content fast art it's not

my Vibe I don't want it I don't

like that I'm forcefully being put into

this conversation it makes me

sick dude I don't want to be here I want

artists that sign up for this to be

involved and for AI art to be its own

thing but I don't want my own

work

involved okay it's taken without consent

oh my God I'm getting angry thirdly I

have like stability AI for art to be

using the exact same models that it uses

for a music using copyright and royalty

free images like pixels or unsplash the

way that human being artists also use so

that they don't steal from other artists

work

just a thought thank you for listening

to me rant I'm upset right now for

somebody else this might just be a fun

way to have a new profile picture just a

fun way to see yourself drawn for me

it's my literal livelihood it's my work

stolen from me imagine somebody came to

your workplace and completely stole all

of your ideas all of your work and got a

promotion for it how would you feel

let's end on a positive note if you've

supported me any other artists liked

commented followed bought a print bought

a sticker bought an original been a

patron to me or somebody else I

appreciate you so much thank you so much

for helping me do this as my job for

letting me live out my dream to learn

more creative self-expression to be able

to teach what I've learned I'm just so

grateful for everything that you have

brought me for supporting me and I hope

for a future where AI art is regulated

and ethical and we can all enjoy it and

it can have some great purposes at the

moment it's not the case we don't have

to talk about that thank you so much for

supporting me and every other artist

that you have supported uh it means a

ton let me know if I said anything that

was incorrect I

am over it at the end of the day these

are my own images these are my own

paintings drawings thank you so much for

supporting me this is what a human being

who has emotions and has been doing this

for eight years this is what my artwork

looks like and no AI can ever

replicate that thank you good night