The AI art situation

Summary

The video transcript discusses the controversy surrounding AI-generated art in a recently launched product. The creator, initially criticized for using AI instead of hiring artists, clarifies that the art was by a human artist who incorporated AI elements. Acknowledging concerns about AI threatening jobs and creativity, the creator commits to transparency, apologizes for insensitivity, and pledges to cease AI art usage until broader consensus is reached. The script also explores the complex relationship between AI and creativity, the impact on jobs, and the ethical considerations of AI training on copyrighted material, concluding with a decision to donate proceeds from the controversial product to a charity supporting arts for marginalized youth.

Takeaways

• 😔 The creator faced backlash for a product perceived as using AI-generated art to avoid paying artists.
• 👨‍🎨 The art was actually made by a hired artist who incorporated AI elements, not to save costs but as part of his creative process.
• 🤖 Concerns were raised about AI threatening artists' jobs and the perceived lack of 'soul' in AI-generated art.
• 💡 The creator acknowledges the controversy and promises to halt the use of AI in his work until broader issues are resolved.
• 🎨 The artist, Scott, used AI minimally and combined it with his own creativity and stock imagery to produce the card art.
• 🔍 The distinction between AI-generated and human-created art is becoming blurred, causing confusion and controversy.
• 🛠 AI can be a tool for creativity, helping with tasks and generating inspiration, but it's how it's used that matters.
• 📉 AI's impact on jobs is a double-edged sword; it can devalue certain skills while opening new opportunities.
• 🏛️ The ethical debate around AI training on copyrighted material without consent is complex and unresolved.
• 🌐 AI's pervasiveness in technology means it's difficult to avoid entirely, even for those with ethical concerns.
• 🔄 The creator plans to offer refunds for the AI-involved product, donate profits to charity, and avoid AI in future projects.

Q & A

What was the controversy surrounding the AI generated art in the product launch?

The controversy arose because people believed the images were fully AI generated to avoid paying artists, whereas they were actually made by an artist who used some AI elements.

What is the speaker's stance on AI's impact on human creativity?

The speaker acknowledges that AI can both kill and foster creativity, depending on how it's used. They believe AI can be a tool that empowers artists rather than diminishes their work.

How did the speaker address the concerns about AI art being too easy and lacking soul?

The speaker agreed that AI can make art creation easier but argued that it can also inspire and provide new perspectives, suggesting that the value comes from the artist's input and interpretation.

What was the speaker's response to the backlash regarding AI being trained on people's work without consent?

The speaker expressed understanding and respect for this concern, stating they will stop using AI art until these issues are resolved and will offer refunds to those who purchased the product.

How did the artist Scott incorporate AI elements into the artwork for the Book of Chances?

Scott used AI to generate some elements to incorporate into the pieces, but also applied his skills and creativity to manipulate stock images and create surreal collages.

What did the speaker learn from the artist Scott about the AI usage in the artwork?

The speaker learned that not all the art was AI-generated and that Scott used AI minimally, combining it with his own creative process and stock imagery.

What is the speaker's view on AI taking jobs away from artists?

The speaker acknowledges that AI is taking jobs but also believes it can be beneficial by giving more agency to people, similar to how digital technologies have impacted the music industry.

What actions will the speaker take regarding the Book of Chances product?

The speaker will offer refunds to those who purchased the product, donate the remaining sales to Sketch, and ensure the next batch of cards will have artwork completely redone without AI involvement.

What is the speaker's perspective on the ethical concerns of AI training on copyrighted material?

The speaker is unsure and acknowledges the complexity of the issue, recognizing both the potential for copyright infringement and the argument that AI learns patterns without storing original work.

How does the speaker plan to foster a healthy discussion about AI in art?

The speaker encourages respectful discussion in the comments section and expresses openness to learning from others and having their mind changed on the subject.

Outlines

00:00

🎨 AI Art Controversy and Responsibility

The speaker addresses the backlash they received for launching a product that was perceived as using AI-generated art. They clarify that while the art was created by a hired artist who incorporated AI elements, the intention was never to avoid paying an artist. The speaker acknowledges concerns about AI threatening artists' jobs and the debate over AI art's authenticity and creativity. They commit to transparency about the product's creation process and promise to stop using AI art until broader issues are resolved, emphasizing their respect for artists and their desire to maintain a welcoming community.

05:00

🤖 AI's Impact on Creativity and Jobs

The speaker discusses the dual nature of AI's impact on creativity and the job market. They admit that AI can diminish creativity by making art creation too easy and potentially displacing artists. However, they also argue that AI can foster creativity by providing tools that inspire and assist artists, much like other technologies have in the past. The speaker uses their experience in the music industry to illustrate how technology can both devalue and democratize art, ultimately benefiting artists and consumers. They emphasize the need for a balanced view of AI's role in the creative process.

10:03

🔮 AI's Ethical Dilemmas in Art Creation

The speaker delves into the ethical concerns surrounding AI art, particularly the use of AI trained on copyrighted material without consent. They acknowledge the tension between AI's potential to infringe on artists' rights and its capacity to generate new creative possibilities. The speaker explores analogies to human learning and photography to illustrate the complexity of AI's role in art. They express uncertainty about the ethical implications of AI training and usage, recognizing the need for ongoing discussions and legal clarifications.

15:07

📚 The Legal and Ethical Quandaries of AI in Art

The speaker further examines the legal and ethical issues of AI in art, focusing on the debate over whether AI models trained on copyrighted material constitute copyright infringement. They discuss the distinction between AI generating new images based on patterns and directly copying existing work. The speaker compares AI to human learning and the use of technology in other creative fields, suggesting that AI's role in art is not inherently unethical but requires careful consideration of consent and compensation. They also highlight the pervasiveness of AI in various industries and the challenges of maintaining ethical standards in a complex technological landscape.

20:10

🌟 Moving Forward with AI Art: Actions and Reflections

In conclusion, the speaker outlines their plan to address the AI art controversy. They will inform customers about the AI usage in the Book of Chances and offer refunds, while donating the proceeds to a local arts organization. The speaker also plans to redesign the cards without AI involvement for future batches. They express optimism about the resilience of creativity in the face of technological change and invite viewers to engage in a respectful discussion in the comments, showing a willingness to learn and adapt their views.

Keywords

💡AI generated art

AI generated art refers to artwork created using artificial intelligence algorithms, often based on a text prompt or learned patterns from existing art. In the video, the creator discusses the controversy surrounding the use of AI in the creation of a deck of cards, where people initially believed the art was entirely AI-generated, leading to backlash due to concerns about the impact on artists' jobs.

💡Artists' jobs

Artists' jobs in this context are the livelihoods and professional opportunities of those who create art. The video addresses the concern that AI-generated art might threaten these jobs by reducing the need for human artists, potentially leading to unemployment or underemployment in the creative field.

💡Human creativity

Human creativity is the ability to create, invent, and produce new ideas, concepts, or works of art. The video script mentions that some people feel AI art lacks the 'soul' of human-made art, suggesting that it is not as valuable or meaningful as art created by humans, which is a central debate in the discussion about AI's role in the arts.

💡AI elements

AI elements in the context of the video refer to the use of artificial intelligence in the creation process of the artwork. The artist hired by the creator used some AI tools in the creation of the cards, which became a point of controversy. The term highlights the blending of traditional art techniques with modern technology.

💡Book of Chances

The Book of Chances is the product mentioned in the script, a deck of cards with unique artwork and inspirational phrases. The controversy arose when people believed the artwork was fully AI-generated, which was not the case. The video discusses the creation process and the mix of AI and human elements in the art.

💡Transparency

Transparency in the video script refers to the creator's commitment to being open and honest about the creation process of the Book of Chances, including the use of AI. The creator aims to address misconceptions and provide a clear understanding of how the art was made, which is crucial in rebuilding trust with the audience.

💡Intellectual property

Intellectual property in this context refers to the rights of creators over their work, including copyright and the right to control how their work is used. The video discusses the ethical concerns about AI training on copyrighted material without the creators' consent, which some view as a violation of these rights.

💡Surreal style

Surreal style is a term used to describe the dreamlike, fantastical, and often unrealistic visual elements in art. The artist Scott was hired for his surreal style, which became associated with AI-generated art due to its high detail and softness of lines, leading to the initial confusion about the source of the artwork.

💡Stock images

Stock images are pre-made, royalty-free images that can be used in various projects. In the video, Scott, the artist, used stock images as part of his process, manipulating them to create the artwork for the Book of Chances. This practice is common in art and design but became a point of discussion when AI was also involved.

💡Ethics

Ethics in the video script pertains to the moral principles and values that guide the use of AI in art. The creator acknowledges the ethical concerns about AI training on copyrighted material and the potential negative impact on artists. The discussion reflects the ongoing debate about the ethical use of AI in creative fields.

💡Artistic skills

Artistic skills refer to the abilities and techniques required to create art. The video script mentions the concern that relying on AI could lead to a decline in the development of traditional artistic skills, as artists might opt for AI shortcuts instead of honing their craft.

Highlights

Creator faced backlash for using AI elements in art for a product launch, sparking discussions on AI's impact on artists' jobs.

Art was made by a hired artist who incorporated AI elements, causing controversy over originality and authenticity in art.

Transparency about the product creation process, addressing concerns about AI's role in art generation.

Apology for not being sensitive to the concerns of artists regarding AI's threat to their jobs and creativity.

Commitment to stop using AI art until issues are resolved, showing respect for artists' concerns.

Introduction of the Book of Chances, a deck of cards with unique art, chords, rhythms, and notes for inspiration.

Hiring of artist Scott for his surreal style before the AI art phenomenon, emphasizing the original intent to support human artists.

Scott's process of using third-party images and assurance of legal use in commercial products.

The rise of AI art during the card creation process and its influence on the final art style.

Community reaction to the Book of Chances being perceived as fully AI generated, leading to public scrutiny.

Engagement with Scott to clarify the extent of AI use in the artwork and the demonstration of his creative process.

Debate on AI's role in creativity, with arguments both for and against its impact on originality and artistry.

AI's potential to enhance creativity by handling mundane tasks and providing new perspectives for artists.

Economic impact of AI on jobs, drawing parallels to past technological shifts in the music industry.

Ethical concerns about AI training on copyrighted material without consent and its legal implications.

Personal stance on AI's ethical use, acknowledging the complexity and ongoing legal battles in the field.

Optimism for the future of art and creativity despite technological advancements, citing historical resilience.

Decision to offer refunds for the Book of Chances and donate proceeds to Sketch, an arts organization for marginalized youth.

Plans to redo the art for the next batch of cards without AI involvement, respecting community feedback.

Call for a respectful discussion in the comments to foster understanding and learning from differing viewpoints.

Transcripts

Hey everyone.

So we've got a bit of a mess on our hands

involving AI generated art.

I recently launched a product that got an immediate

and a very large backlash.

People thought I had generated a bunch of images with AI

so that I wouldn't have to pay an artist.

The art was actually made by an artist I hired,

but he did choose to use some AI elements.

And I'd like to discuss that today

and take responsibility for it

because a lot of you raised very valid concerns

about how AI is threatening artists jobs.

Some of you said that you feel AI art

is in opposition to human creativity.

It's too easy.

It's making us lazy.

It doesn't have the same soul as human made art,

things like that.

And some people said that they were against any use of an AI

that was trained on people's work without their consent.

So I'll address all of this.

And I also want to be transparent

about how the product came together.

I'll show you how the art was made.

But the most important thing I'd like to say

is that I understand that it's a worrying time for artists.

And I'm sorry for not being more sensitive

about these issues until now.

I think I've been in a bit of a bubble

with a lot of friends who are artists and are okay with AI

or who even have embraced AI.

But of course I'm aware

that not everybody's on board with it and I'm hearing you.

And I will entirely stop using any AI art in my work until,

and unless we reach a point where things have changed

and we generally feel like these issues have been resolved.

In whatever ways we might not agree

on everything in this video,

I want you to know that I respect you as artists

and as people, and I want you to feel welcome

in this community if you want to be here.

So all of that is much more important to me

than any reason why I might do anything more

that involves AI art.

So here's what happened.

I created this deck of cards.

It's called the Book of Chances.

Here's an example card.

Aside from the normal playing card stuff,

you've got an inspirational phrase,

obviously the artwork, which is unique on each card.

And then there are things like chord symbols

and rhythms and notes.

So you can draw cards out of this deck

and get some random inspiration.

The art actually wasn't part of my original idea

for the deck and it doesn't change how it functions,

but I ended up thinking that it would be extra special

if each card had some unique art on it.

So when I decided to bring this project to life,

I found this artist named Scott who I hired

because some of his pieces had this really surreal style

that I liked, and this was in 2021.

So it was before the AI art phenomenon took over.

We didn't have any of the tools like we have today

for just generating this stuff from a text prompt.

I wasn't trying to cheap out on the art by using AI.

It just wasn't even an option at the time.

I was trying to find a real human artist

and pay them whatever they needed

and let them take whatever time was needed.

So Scott started working on these cards

and sending me a lot of cool looking art.

And I knew that his process involved incorporating

different third party images that he would Photoshop

and manipulate in different ways.

So I confirmed with him that we'd be legally allowed

to use any of these assets in a commercial product.

And he assured me that would be the case.

He only used royalty-free stock images.

During the process of working on these cards,

AI art exploded in popularity.

At one point, I did ask Scott if he had started using AI

on the cards and what he described to me

sounded pretty minimal.

So I just left it at that.

And I was willing to believe that he was still doing

all this work on the cards because for months already,

before any of the AI tools existed,

he had been sending me stuff in the same style.

Of course, this became a problem

when the Book of Chances came out

because the cards struck a lot of people

as being fully AI generated.

And that's fair.

The style that they use is now associated with AI

in a lot of ways.

There's high detail,

but also a certain softness to the lines.

A lot of the images are kind of surreal or unrealistic.

So people were upset about this.

And I wasn't able to tell anyone very much about the art

because I just didn't know.

So I went back to Scott and I got him to go through

a lot of the cards with me.

He showed me what was AI and what was just stock imagery.

And he made it very clear that there was nothing

that was fully AI.

And there was a lot of art that was not AI at all.

But of course we can only take his word for it.

I did ask him to send me a screen recording of his process

so that we could understand how a lot of things

that we might interpret as AI generated

could be created by a person manipulating stock images

and creating these surreal collages.

This is a long video, so I won't show you the whole thing,

but for full transparency,

I will upload it as an unlisted video

and link it in the video description.

I'll just let you know that in this example,

Scott generates three things with AI

to incorporate into the piece.

But I think it's also clear

that he is putting a lot of work into this.

He's exercising a lot of skill and creativity.

And I also don't know that many people could reliably guess

what was or wasn't AI in this image.

You can let me know if I'm wrong,

but I believe this demonstrates

that a lot of the art people reacted to

could have been made by a person rather than AI.

And I actually had someone comment

that they had a terrible experience

of being accused of generating AI art

when they had made it all themselves.

So we're living in a time where some people

might want to avoid some types of art

because of anti-AI sentiment,

but AI is just gonna keep getting better and better.

So unless we wanna keep reducing the range

of our expression to fit in

with what AI can't yet do well,

I think we need to exercise both skepticism and trust

and be aware that there are very real risks

because we can't fully believe everything we see online,

but also it's possible that we can overcorrect.

Of course, none of this changes the fact

that the Book of Chances does contain things

that were generated with AI.

And depending on how much trust you're willing to give Scott,

maybe you think it contains a lot of AI.

So I wanna respond to the major issues

that you raised with me.

And I would love if this could turn

into a healthy discussion in the comments

because I certainly don't have all the answers

and I'm open to being wrong, but given the situation,

I feel I should be transparent about where I stand on things.

And I would just like to remind you

that I'm not an expert.

I'm just a guy who wanted to make a deck of cards.

Issue number one, AI is killing creativity

and I'm someone who's been a big supporter of artists

and creativity, so it's shocking or disappointing

that I would engage with AI art at all.

Going forward in this video,

there will be a little recurring theme,

which is that two contradictory things

will be true at the same time.

I do believe that AI is killing creativity.

I also believe that AI is fostering creativity.

I'm a person who deeply believes in the importance

and the joy of people expressing themselves,

making art and empowering others to be able to do that.

I'm also someone who's interested

in what technology is capable of

and how it can support our ambitions

and what it can create when we just give it

a few parameters and also more broadly,

just how our art can be expanded upon

by expression that's not necessarily our own,

by ideas that come from other people

or from nature or even from machines.

You've seen my ridiculous synthesizer over there.

I get that to generate melodies for me all the time.

I think like many tools, it depends how AI is used.

Certainly someone can just type in a prompt

and take the resulting art

and try to pass it off as their own, and that sucks.

Someone could decide that they'd rather do that all day

than develop any traditional artistic skills.

But like most technologies,

there are ways to use it that are malicious or lazy,

and there are ways to use it that are empowering

or that make life better.

I believe AI can be one more tool

that artists can use in ways that I don't think take away

from the humanity or the creativity of their work.

It can generate inspiration or different perspectives.

It can be used to quickly iterate on things

or prototype an idea,

and it can take over a lot of the tasks

that you don't find meaningful

so that you can spend more time on what is more creative

or rewarding or fun or whatever it is

that you wanna get out of your process.

I think whether Scott is using an image generated with AI

or a stock photo or a 3D asset he created himself,

his work displays a ton of creativity.

I also think there are always going to be the people

who want to do the hard work

regardless of what shortcuts exist,

and there are always going to be people who appreciate that.

In music, we've had royalty-free loops around for decades

that anyone, musician or not, can mash together,

and sometimes those kinds of assets can show up

in powerful works that touch a lot of people.

But the part that touches people

and what stands the test of time is the human part.

It's not which loop is the coolest,

even in the most loop-based forms of music.

It's never about that.

It's always what did the artist do with it

and what did they add to it that came from them?

Issue number two, AI is taking jobs away from artists.

This is absolutely true.

AI is taking jobs away from a lot of people.

The labor market changes with every big technological shift.

As a musician, I've seen music become continually

more devalued in my lifetime

because of technologies like digital media and the internet,

making it really easy to copy music and distribute it.

And at the same time, I really believe

that it is the best time in history to be a musician

because of those exact same technologies.

My music can be heard around the world instantly

without having to mail anything, without having to tour.

Social media allows me to build an audience

without having to deal with any gatekeepers.

I don't have to work with a record label,

so whatever your feelings on record labels,

maybe you'd consider that a job loss,

but now I am paying a social media manager.

The availability and the value of jobs under capitalism

has always changed with technology,

but I believe as a whole that technology

has been beneficial and has given more agency

to the average person, and I wanna believe

the same can be true for AI.

Now, I'm open to the idea of things going

in many different directions.

I'm not some huge AI lover.

If it comes across that way, it's just because

in this video I'm responding only to anti-AI comments,

and some of them were kinda mean.

Two opposing things are true.

I think AI is bad, and I think AI is good.

I'm not attached to a particular outcome

for its place in our lives.

If AI ends up being banned or severely limited

or whatever the case may be, I will not be fighting

to get my AI back.

I just hope that wherever we land with it

results in the betterment of people's lives.

What I'm trying to do is face the likely reality

that AI is here to stay, and it's not like

I don't have concerns.

It could negatively affect my career

and probably already is.

Many people believe that streaming services

are filled with passable AI-generated music

so that the platforms don't have to pay artists as much.

Just like the generative AI art tools,

there are generative AI music tools with parallel threats.

Companies hire me to make music,

but if they can get something good enough with AI,

they might just go with that.

And then on the YouTube and social media side

of my career, AI's are churning out content these days.

There's more to compete with than ever,

but even with all that, I'm not anti-AI.

I'm also not pro-AI.

I just don't think it's going away,

so I'm trying to be optimistic about how we move forward.

So looking at the good, there are ways that AI

can help artists with their work as well.

AI can take care of a lot of the really mundane parts

of the creative process, like sorting samples

or cleaning up audio.

My editor was just telling me about all the hours

he used to spend rotoscoping,

and now instead of frame by frame tracing people

out in a video, he can just click his mouse a few times.

I've seen an AI platform where artists can train a model

on only their own work so they can create stuff

in their own style more easily,

and that of course allows them to work faster

and even take on more gigs.

Again, I have to come back to the world I know.

When computers got good enough,

all of a sudden it was possible

to do all this music creation

without having to hire session players or engineers.

You could just do it by yourself at home,

and maybe that made it so that there was less work

for engineers and session players,

but it also made it so that millions of kids

who couldn't afford session players and engineers anyway

could learn their craft, could create art,

could express themselves and develop skills

that they eventually could turn into their own career.

I was one of those kids, and in this situation

that I found myself in right now,

AI did not replace any artists.

Scott chose to use AI, but if he hadn't had access to it,

he would have just kept on going with his usual process

of manipulating stock images.

In the screen recording I showed you,

maybe he couldn't find the right image

of a kid sitting on a dock, but if AI wasn't around

or if he was anti-AI, he wouldn't have asked me

to hire another artist or photographer to create that asset.

He would have just changed his idea.

Issue number three, AI should not be able to train on anyone's intellectual property without their consent.

Some folks came around when I shared that Scott had only used some AI on some cards,

and it was very much his own creativity at work in the project.

But others said that they believed that these AI tools were trained unethically,

and so any use of them at all was unacceptable.

A few people told me that after following my work for years,

just seeing these cards made them instantly done with me.

So it's a very strong feeling, and I can understand that a tool like this feels wrong or threatening.

And as I said earlier, I want to respect this perspective, and I won't be using these tools anymore.

But I know this is not the answer that some people are hoping to hear.

Where I personally stand on the issue is that I just don't know.

There are two opposing ideas, and I see them both.

I agree that it doesn't seem fair that an algorithm should be able to learn from someone's work

without their consent when it can so easily reproduce their work.

Also, I agree that this technology is so new and so completely different from what's come before

that it doesn't seem to fit in to our current understanding of copyright.

So just to make sure we're all on the same page,

I feel like it may be necessary to address that some people think of a generative AI art model

as a massive library of all different kinds of images, and when it's given a prompt,

it takes a bunch of little pieces of whichever images it needs to in order to create what you asked for.

And while it can produce results that appear that way, what it's actually doing is creating a new image

based on all the patterns it's detected in language, in images, and in the associations between the two.

The big issue is whether training a model on someone's work without their permission

amounts to copyright infringement.

Many artists feel that this is a rights violation, and they should have a say over whether they allow

an algorithm to be able to learn and reproduce their style, and they should be able to be compensated

if they opt in.

I absolutely understand this.

It feels unfair and scary that a computer should be able to so easily do something

that humans work so hard at and hold dear.

The other side of the argument is that a machine learning algorithm extracts patterns

from what it trains on and makes connections between all these different patterns,

but it doesn't actually store any of the original work to be used when it does its image generation.

However, it is so well trained and so good at image generation that it can create an image

that looks like a copy of something it was trained on.

So the point where it would become copyright infringement is if an AI generated an image

that looked like a copy of someone else's work and then someone used that image in an illegal way.

Some people compare it to human learning.

You could look at as many SpongeBob pictures as you want.

You could draw as many SpongeBob pictures as you want.

You could get really good at drawing SpongeBob, and you could use those drawing skills to draw other things.

The point at which it would become copyright infringement is if you released a commercial product

that was covered in your SpongeBob drawings.

Another analogy is photography.

Cameras are able to very easily capture copyrighted visual work,

and in the case of cameras, they actually do store everything they capture.

Taking a photo of something copyrighted is not illegal.

Storing those images is not illegal, but there are ways that you might use those images

which would be considered copyright infringement.

For another example of training, the MP3 encoder was developed by listening to lots of tiny snippets of audio

over and over to see how well they'd compress, and copyrighted material was used in that process.

I don't know if I can say that those copyright holders should have had to consent or be compensated

for their work being used in this way, even though the

resulting product could be used in ways that infringe on their rights.

So these are some of the ways that I think about it and why I don't feel I can say that it's a cut and dry issue

even though the products can be damaging.

A bunch of people right now are fighting it out in the courts to try and figure this out, but it is tricky.

We have never seen anything like this before.

So that's why right now it's not illegal to train an AI on copyrighted material.

It's not illegal to charge people to use that AI that was developed with copyrighted material,

and it's not illegal to commercially use the assets generated with that AI

except when those assets happen to look like a direct copy of someone else's work.

And all of that, of course, is really bad when you're thinking about

the use case of being able to easily copy an individual artist's style,

but there are lots of other roles that AI can play.

My team and I use AI for noise reduction, rotoscoping, subtitling, all kinds of things,

and we have no idea what these tools were trained with.

These tools have improved the quality of our work and have

rerouted countless hours of our lives away from mundane tasks

and into more meaningful creative work.

And it's not just niche audio tools either.

AI is unavoidably pervasive now.

If you believe it's unethical to use a model that trained on copyrighted work without permission,

that includes chat GPT, which most coders now use regularly.

I was recently talking with someone who works at Shopify.

They use chat GPT at their job.

At this point, the platforms we're engaging with daily on our devices almost certainly contain chat GPT-assisted code,

and then there's the fact that the devices themselves are usually

made with conflict materials by exploited workers in terrible conditions.

So like many things with ethics, it's very hard to be ethical unless you remove yourself from the entire messy system.

People have asked how I'd feel about a model being trained on my work without my consent,

which has probably already happened.

They're scraping up everything.

I'm pretty sure that chat GPT learned from me because once I asked it for video ideas

and it gave me exactly a video format I'd already done years before, including the exact same title.

Of course, I don't like the idea that somebody could use AI to create work exactly like mine with little effort,

but AI or not, there are already people out there trying to copy my ideas or pass my work off as their own.

And of course, I think the whole situation would be better if we can figure out consent and compensation,

but if you were coming to this video hoping I'd take a hard stance on the ethics one way or another,

I'm sorry to disappoint you and I don't just want to tell you something that I think you want to hear.

Again, I'm not trying to argue for or against AI.

I'm just trying to be honest about how little I really know,

and that's why I'm not full steam ahead with these tools even though I've tried them a few times.

That's also why I'm not ready to condemn or tear down any artist who might choose to use them.

But let me end by trying to share my optimism.

We know that the arts have been through ridiculous technological changes before,

and it's my belief that great art always perseveres.

Sometimes its shape changes or it grows to include things that we never before knew were possible.

But recording didn't kill live music, photography didn't kill painting,

printing didn't kill storytelling.

From where I'm looking, creativity and humanity have always shone through more than anything else.

So lastly, let me tell you what I'm going to do with the Book of Chances.

I'm going to reach out to everybody who currently has an order in.

I'm going to tell them about how the AI was used.

I'll share this video with them and I'll offer them a refund if they want it.

I'm not shutting down the orders because I believe it will be a bigger positive to donate

the remaining money than to just cancel everything in the name of not printing some art that

incorporated some AI-generated assets.

So I will not be profiting from these sales.

I'm going to give all the money to Sketch, which is an organization here in Toronto

that provides arts programming and meals for marginalized young people.

I've known this organization for a long time.

I have a couple friends who used to work there.

So I know they're making a big difference to a lot of people.

For the next batch of cards, the art will be completely redone.

And of course, AI will not be involved.

I hope there's one other small positive that can come out of this,

which is if we could have a respectful discussion in the comments.

I think we all could learn a bit from each other and understand things better.

I probably won't have time to respond to everybody, but I am reading the comments.

I am listening to you.

I'm open to having my mind changed on things.

Thanks for watching.