It depends entirely on what "artists" you're talking about and when. Commercially it's a whole other ball game. "Artist" conjures Van Gogh, maybe Sargent, but rarely does it bring about Andrew Loomis or Disney's 9 old men, or even rarer the current landscape of illustration and the commercial venues with which people have made a meager but consistent living up to this point.
It's like comparing the vast array of different types of writer in the 21st century to some foppish 19th century dandy poet who writes the gardener's daughter and dies of Cholera and a broken heart.
Anyway, as an industry-wide thing, when you lose your entry-level jobs that usually means top guys will be a legacy hires pretty soon and you essentially have something that is completely different from what inspired you come into the fold (when I left, pretty much everything was photobashing and 2.5D paintovers). Behind the scenes mediocrity is king, and AI does mediocrity very well - hell, people love soulless dogshit too so there goes freelance. When it all distills, and all that is left is legacy hires and machines - all you are is a name at that point and really who is to say AI won't be better than say Dave Rapoza or Craig Mullins within 5 years?
You kick the ladder, the whole thing falls over.
As for any hopefuls and hangers on, and dare I say "good" artists out there? Good luck competing with posts perfectly timed with the algorithms of each each platform; completely drowning out your visibility even if your work is masterful. What sliver of hope you have left for in-studio work is smothered by political nepotism and hardline DEI - you better have a three adjective gender identity if you are an unestablished white biological male.
You might straggle along with your own IP and use AI as a force multiplier, but visibility is already brutal as is.
On an optimistic note, I don't think this is entirely the case. I have had a long time to think - and truth be told, I want and intend to create an entire culture of aesthetics with the tools I am given.
Heh, failed artist once again tries to shape a culture to bring out the best in its constituents. What can go wrong? hahahaha
[Auf der Heide blüht ein kleines Blümelein!
und das heißt! Erika!]
It's too bad 90% of the voice actors that defined my formative years turned out to be low IQ, emotionally unstable wrecks who hate their audience and their country.
That's because 90% of voice actors honed their "talents" by spending their childhood talking to themselves in multiple funny accents in lieu of having friends.
It remains to be seen what laws come out of this, but ironically all these actors demanding more pay and more work are only going to accelerate the demise of their profession and improvement of the tech.
That's why they are going in hard on needing "legislation" now.
They want to strangle AI in its crib before it can even begin to threaten them. Because the tech won't improve, or mean anything if it does, if its literally illegal or cost 2654236534$ in licenses to use.
Overreactions from these assholes voice actors have gotten funnier to watch blow up.
But there is a serious rabbithole with regards to voice AI. "There will be consequences", but I dont see much discussion surrounding those consequences. One popular thing I see currently on YouTube seems to be having specific VAs or live/dead singers sing songs they never sung. Seems harmless, but since these use potential copyrighted recordings, I have no clue if its fair use or not, maybe they qualify as "mashups". So far it seems pretty much everyone using voice AI admits it upfront.
However with future concerns, if the AI gets good enough, how does this play into falsifying evidence, fake phonecall transcripts, etc? I know these AI leave some sort of fingerprint one could identify their use, though I can't cheer on this sort of AI improving.
From the one side, singing a cover requires permission or licensing. Many studios ignore this, but that technically puts their copyright at risk.
If you HAVE that license, or if the song is old enough to be public domain/creative commons, or if it's an original work, then I see no issues with AI use: The core programming is NOT the training data, you can't teach an AI to sing with just 2 minutes of audio, it takes hours and hours of "core" training data, which you "culture" with 2-3 minutes of training data for the specific voice. The proof for this lies in "joke" AI voices, you can get training data for purely non-vocal sounds, like R2D2 or meme sound effects, and make a human voice out of it, which would be impossible if it didn't have a HEALTHY dataset of human voice to build it on. If a human has lots of "core" training data, then spends a fraction of the time learning how to imitate someone, then singing in that voice, it's A-OK.
And I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords. They should be held to the same standard as humans.
I do understand that getting the AI to work for oneself can take some finagling. You can have an art AI put out freaky junk (like by injecting a set with rare Pepes), or have it create masterpieces in one's own style. Error probability in a set does reduce and smooth out the larger the set becomes, but yeah, accuracy comes from healthier data. Lobotomizing it (like the woke-types) with biases only cripples the quality output.
And I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords. They should be held to the same standard as humans.
I'm fine with that so long as the overlords leave me alone.
It's most likely NOT fair use, but neither is posting your own karaoke cover of a song. Thankfully the studios don't often go after people for that, but that might change when enough of these mashups become super popular. (and the studios realize it's become acceptable for them to make money from it)
I seriously hope any laws that apply to "AI" are only ever limited to stopping deceptive and fraudulent practices, of the kind you mention.
Yeah, fraud is the biggest concern to me, given how much "deepfakes" have evolved over recent years.
Still my own personal concern with AI in general is if creative people who work with their hands start dropping their chisels and pens. I believe the future landscape will be the unskilled using AI to make "new content" based off what exists, creators using it to fill in for they don't have resources for, and the skilled using it to speed up their processes. I'm unsure if any digital creatives will create things fully by hand anymore for money, but hey, hobbyists still make oil paintings to this day.
Kind of lame for the creator to hedge with "I am not a fan of AI" though. Most people would have no problem with non-profit parodies using AI voices, but own up to it as a legitimate path for anyone to take.
If anyone is wondering why it's so short, it's missing a segment where Velma devises a plan to capture the monster and then they accidentally capture shaggy and scoob instead.
If you’re a fan of Scooby-Doo, FNAF, ’70s stop-motion puppet films, and/or analog media, you should really check out this film. Aside from pushing the boundaries of cinema, it’s genuinely a well-made, well-written tribute to the more innocent and thoughtful children’s entertainment of old. I hope Tilghman doesn’t get discouraged from making stuff like this because of the frankly malicious response to his usage of AI.
I made a derisive post chastising you in a mocking manner that was designed to convey the reason your behavior was inadequate. You being too smooth brained to understand that is on you.
Post an archive link every single time in the future to avoid this browbeating.
It's not his job, or any of our jobs, to track down the source of something you post. That is your job. Don't get pissy because you were made to look the fool.
Considering its a fan creation using two different licensed properties (one of which is overplayed to death in these types of things), I don't think any would accuse it of being incredibly creative to begin with.
The same thing was said of photoshop and digital art in general not 30 years ago. And prior to that, industrialisation in general. But I doubt you, or any of the AI critics, are actively eager to give up Ikea furniture for custom made pieces crafted by traditional artisans, and pay the appropriate prices for such a service and good.
The working class has faced their jobs being eradicated for decades, often to a lower but standardised quality, and very few people have given a fuck. Why should artists, the majority of which are side-hustles, get any special treatment for what has clearly been the status quo?
And I should note, I'm not some fan of AI art. If given the choice, I'd prefer artisans were the dominant market, and I've never really gone looking for AI art outside a couple of curiosities fairly early on. But artisans aren't the dominant market, and it's not been the status quo. The status quo has been to industrialise everything, and that includes the cushy white collar workers.
Oh, and before you bring up that things like Ikea and other non-artisan goods are completely different, let me quote you. "It doesn't enable creativity, it enables mimicry." These goods are not created. They're mimicked.
Interesting that we're focusing solely on the woodwork here and not the larger issue of you, like most I've found complaining about muh AI, turning a blind to the entire industrial process.
My point was that I doubt you're going Ted Kaczynski on us. You're willing to bitch that AI isn't CrEaTiVe, but you'll ignore the near death of entire professions that have taken place over your life.
Cry over all the lost horses because cars were invented while you're at it, because it's clear you're not interested in discussing the point that AI isn't as revolutionary as AI-critics are making it out to be. It's the status quo, and none of you gave half as much a shit about any of that than you do about white-collar side hustles losing their grift.
More artist (and voice actors) should starve.
Especially when they blacklist and/or falsely accuse great talents like Vic Mignogna, Chuck Huber and Wally Wingert just for voting for the wrong guy
I used to be against it, but the arts are so corrupted by political nepotism that it really should all burn.
What is an artist if he can only produce propaganda for people who want him dead, his culture destroyed, and his kids raped and brainwashed?
Beauty can come from none of it.
All the best artists were so tortured by their muses they would continue even as they starved anyway, we'd only lose the mediocre stuff.
It depends entirely on what "artists" you're talking about and when. Commercially it's a whole other ball game. "Artist" conjures Van Gogh, maybe Sargent, but rarely does it bring about Andrew Loomis or Disney's 9 old men, or even rarer the current landscape of illustration and the commercial venues with which people have made a meager but consistent living up to this point.
It's like comparing the vast array of different types of writer in the 21st century to some foppish 19th century dandy poet who writes the gardener's daughter and dies of Cholera and a broken heart.
Anyway, as an industry-wide thing, when you lose your entry-level jobs that usually means top guys will be a legacy hires pretty soon and you essentially have something that is completely different from what inspired you come into the fold (when I left, pretty much everything was photobashing and 2.5D paintovers). Behind the scenes mediocrity is king, and AI does mediocrity very well - hell, people love soulless dogshit too so there goes freelance. When it all distills, and all that is left is legacy hires and machines - all you are is a name at that point and really who is to say AI won't be better than say Dave Rapoza or Craig Mullins within 5 years?
You kick the ladder, the whole thing falls over.
As for any hopefuls and hangers on, and dare I say "good" artists out there? Good luck competing with posts perfectly timed with the algorithms of each each platform; completely drowning out your visibility even if your work is masterful. What sliver of hope you have left for in-studio work is smothered by political nepotism and hardline DEI - you better have a three adjective gender identity if you are an unestablished white biological male.
You might straggle along with your own IP and use AI as a force multiplier, but visibility is already brutal as is.
Consumers don't give a shit about genius and originality. The Art Industry as we know it is absolutely dead.
On an optimistic note, I don't think this is entirely the case. I have had a long time to think - and truth be told, I want and intend to create an entire culture of aesthetics with the tools I am given.
Heh, failed artist once again tries to shape a culture to bring out the best in its constituents. What can go wrong? hahahaha
[Auf der Heide blüht ein kleines Blümelein! und das heißt! Erika!]
Hunger, published 1890, by Knut Hamsun kind of touches on this. Not very long, very much worth a read.
It's too bad 90% of the voice actors that defined my formative years turned out to be low IQ, emotionally unstable wrecks who hate their audience and their country.
Like all actors they are prostitutes, they can give you a good time but don't expect them to be good people.
Rome considered actors to be below prostitutes, and "morally unsavory."
We must return to Roman times.
A prostitute is at least honest about what they are.
The actor will lie about it.
"Everyone famous sucked a dick to get where they are today. It's just that some of them swallowed."
That's because 90% of voice actors honed their "talents" by spending their childhood talking to themselves in multiple funny accents in lieu of having friends.
:(
I'm sure he'll pay for voice actors on his next project now that he's blacklisted...
It remains to be seen what laws come out of this, but ironically all these actors demanding more pay and more work are only going to accelerate the demise of their profession and improvement of the tech.
It's mcdonald's all over again.
15/hr doesn't get you more money, it just gets you made redundant.
That's why they are going in hard on needing "legislation" now.
They want to strangle AI in its crib before it can even begin to threaten them. Because the tech won't improve, or mean anything if it does, if its literally illegal or cost 2654236534$ in licenses to use.
At this point the VAs are just being petulant teenage girls about their breakup with gainful employment.
"No I dumped him first!"
Lmao such a stupid thing, "this guy won't hire voice actors, so I'll make sure to tell all voice actors to NEVER work with him! That'll show em!"
"He'll have no alternative but to... Keep using AI voices now. That'll show him"
It's high-quality screeching because they're professional voice actors, after all.
SensibleChuckle.mp3
Overreactions from these assholes voice actors have gotten funnier to watch blow up.
But there is a serious rabbithole with regards to voice AI. "There will be consequences", but I dont see much discussion surrounding those consequences. One popular thing I see currently on YouTube seems to be having specific VAs or live/dead singers sing songs they never sung. Seems harmless, but since these use potential copyrighted recordings, I have no clue if its fair use or not, maybe they qualify as "mashups". So far it seems pretty much everyone using voice AI admits it upfront.
However with future concerns, if the AI gets good enough, how does this play into falsifying evidence, fake phonecall transcripts, etc? I know these AI leave some sort of fingerprint one could identify their use, though I can't cheer on this sort of AI improving.
From the one side, singing a cover requires permission or licensing. Many studios ignore this, but that technically puts their copyright at risk.
If you HAVE that license, or if the song is old enough to be public domain/creative commons, or if it's an original work, then I see no issues with AI use: The core programming is NOT the training data, you can't teach an AI to sing with just 2 minutes of audio, it takes hours and hours of "core" training data, which you "culture" with 2-3 minutes of training data for the specific voice. The proof for this lies in "joke" AI voices, you can get training data for purely non-vocal sounds, like R2D2 or meme sound effects, and make a human voice out of it, which would be impossible if it didn't have a HEALTHY dataset of human voice to build it on. If a human has lots of "core" training data, then spends a fraction of the time learning how to imitate someone, then singing in that voice, it's A-OK.
And I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords. They should be held to the same standard as humans.
I do understand that getting the AI to work for oneself can take some finagling. You can have an art AI put out freaky junk (like by injecting a set with rare Pepes), or have it create masterpieces in one's own style. Error probability in a set does reduce and smooth out the larger the set becomes, but yeah, accuracy comes from healthier data. Lobotomizing it (like the woke-types) with biases only cripples the quality output.
I'm fine with that so long as the overlords leave me alone.
It's most likely NOT fair use, but neither is posting your own karaoke cover of a song. Thankfully the studios don't often go after people for that, but that might change when enough of these mashups become super popular. (and the studios realize it's become acceptable for them to make money from it)
I seriously hope any laws that apply to "AI" are only ever limited to stopping deceptive and fraudulent practices, of the kind you mention.
Yeah, fraud is the biggest concern to me, given how much "deepfakes" have evolved over recent years.
Still my own personal concern with AI in general is if creative people who work with their hands start dropping their chisels and pens. I believe the future landscape will be the unskilled using AI to make "new content" based off what exists, creators using it to fill in for they don't have resources for, and the skilled using it to speed up their processes. I'm unsure if any digital creatives will create things fully by hand anymore for money, but hey, hobbyists still make oil paintings to this day.
Kind of lame for the creator to hedge with "I am not a fan of AI" though. Most people would have no problem with non-profit parodies using AI voices, but own up to it as a legitimate path for anyone to take.
Thanks for the outrage, I wouldn't have heard of it otherwise. Here is the video if you want to check it out.
One guy did that? I feel so amateurish
If anyone is wondering why it's so short, it's missing a segment where Velma devises a plan to capture the monster and then they accidentally capture shaggy and scoob instead.
If you’re a fan of Scooby-Doo, FNAF, ’70s stop-motion puppet films, and/or analog media, you should really check out this film. Aside from pushing the boundaries of cinema, it’s genuinely a well-made, well-written tribute to the more innocent and thoughtful children’s entertainment of old. I hope Tilghman doesn’t get discouraged from making stuff like this because of the frankly malicious response to his usage of AI.
I'm never going to hire Jay or Gary. I'm sure they're devastated.
https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Agreydelisle%20trans&src=typed_query&f=top
https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Agreydelisle%20black%20lives%20matter&src=typed_query&f=top
Etc. Fuck her. Glad she's mad about this guy's fan project.
Post archive of the link you photoshopping hoodlum.
Photoshop?
Seriously?
In the time it took to type that, you could have gone to X, put the text of this post in quote marks, searched for it, and found it very easily.
But since people keep demanding I do the work for them, here you go.
It's your responsibility and you are shirking and then getting mad that you're getting called out on it. Don't be a lazy faggot next time.
You accused me of faking it.
I showed proof I did not.
You could have just looked it up yourself, and you call ME lazy?
I made a derisive post chastising you in a mocking manner that was designed to convey the reason your behavior was inadequate. You being too smooth brained to understand that is on you.
Post an archive link every single time in the future to avoid this browbeating.
You made a false accusation that I proved was false.
And you backpedaled.
You're a retarded nigger who's mad you got called out.
Nothing more and nothing less.
JackieChanWhy.jpg
It's not his job, or any of our jobs, to track down the source of something you post. That is your job. Don't get pissy because you were made to look the fool.
Can we get an early-life check on Jay Lender?
AI made you irrelevant, like mechanisation did to so many lower class before you.
Learn to coal ( because AI will code too ).
I am okay with this.
AI synthesis threatens to be even worse than recording in its impact on creative media.
To the extent that it equalizes creators, it does so by appropriation. It doesn't enable creativity, it enables mimicry.
Considering its a fan creation using two different licensed properties (one of which is overplayed to death in these types of things), I don't think any would accuse it of being incredibly creative to begin with.
The same thing was said of photoshop and digital art in general not 30 years ago. And prior to that, industrialisation in general. But I doubt you, or any of the AI critics, are actively eager to give up Ikea furniture for custom made pieces crafted by traditional artisans, and pay the appropriate prices for such a service and good.
The working class has faced their jobs being eradicated for decades, often to a lower but standardised quality, and very few people have given a fuck. Why should artists, the majority of which are side-hustles, get any special treatment for what has clearly been the status quo?
And I should note, I'm not some fan of AI art. If given the choice, I'd prefer artisans were the dominant market, and I've never really gone looking for AI art outside a couple of curiosities fairly early on. But artisans aren't the dominant market, and it's not been the status quo. The status quo has been to industrialise everything, and that includes the cushy white collar workers.
Oh, and before you bring up that things like Ikea and other non-artisan goods are completely different, let me quote you. "It doesn't enable creativity, it enables mimicry." These goods are not created. They're mimicked.
Interesting that we're focusing solely on the woodwork here and not the larger issue of you, like most I've found complaining about muh AI, turning a blind to the entire industrial process.
My point was that I doubt you're going Ted Kaczynski on us. You're willing to bitch that AI isn't CrEaTiVe, but you'll ignore the near death of entire professions that have taken place over your life.
Cry over all the lost horses because cars were invented while you're at it, because it's clear you're not interested in discussing the point that AI isn't as revolutionary as AI-critics are making it out to be. It's the status quo, and none of you gave half as much a shit about any of that than you do about white-collar side hustles losing their grift.