"What if Star Wars was a 1980s movie". Oh, man. Imagine that. What a wild, fantastical hypothetical.

@murphy7801

Ай бұрын

Yeah since it was a 1970s movie 😂

@TopLob

Ай бұрын

@@murphy7801 The first one was in 1977, yes, but the rest of the trilogy came out in 1980 and 1983. I think that's probably why the images didn't look very different from the original. The AI was like "So I'm just going to make it like it was? Ok.

0:43 - Nice to know Tom does the hat tip gesture while making the m'Journey joke, since I expect he does the same with m'circle whilst playing Peglin.

06:36 I'm 96% sure the AI used satyr's or straight up Mr. Tumnus from Narnia for Luke here. Just look at the ear in the hair.

@MrGamer-fw4hc

Ай бұрын

That is not how AI works

There was a Redditor who did a bunch of these. "Batman + The Warriors." "Batman + Mad Max." "Batman + Indiana Jones." "What If Wes Anderson Was The Set Designer For Star Wars?"

Wasn’t there a Yogs one of these way back?

The Marios look like Oscar Issac and Henry Cavill

@jonathanwells223

Ай бұрын

I mean, it does work

The Smash Bros one got me 😅

Well they are far off the designs of the actual live action 40k VHS movies of the 90s that a lot of fans wish never existed due to how bad they were 😂

AI art is just a tool if used properly, if you ask me. I can't find the artwork now, but I saw someone made a painting that was millions of pixels by millions of pixels and it starts off as just an art of a house then zooms out to the planet, then the solar system, then the galaxy, then multiple galaxies, then the whole universe. The entire time, maintaining a very pristine level of detail. That's something I don't think could be made without a tool to fill in gaps in an artwork and "non-detail" paint and have an AI clean it up. Then the detailed bits you want people to look at can be the focus, just as an example. In ye olden times, photography was seen like it would never be art...then it became something artists use. Next was digital artistry vs painting with a brush or drawing in real life...then it became something artists use. Now it's AI art, and I think embracing it and letting your imagination run wild if you are an artist with what you can use with that new tool should be inspiring. :)

If you ask a competent human to make something in the style of someone else they will be able to easily, you can’t point to an AI doing that when asked to as proof of theft. The question is whether or not you think the training process of the AI constitutes stealing or not.

@Peron1-MC

Ай бұрын

i mean you cant blame the AI for stealing. blame the people who programmed it to do so. "copying is the sincerest form of flattery" but that only works if you actually put your time and skill into it.

@Emperorhirohito19272

Ай бұрын

@@Peron1-MC I don’t think it is stealing

@Peron1-MC

Ай бұрын

@@Emperorhirohito19272 if someone would copy my art(hypothetically im not an artist) i would be less offended if someone actually put alot of effort into it. if the AI training is stealing is hard to say but surely the most ethical thing to do would be for the company that created the ai to only use their own assets and then have people submit art that it can use in the future.

@Emperorhirohito19272

Ай бұрын

@@Peron1-MC would it? I don’t think the training process constitutes stealing the training data so I don’t see the ethical superiority of asking first. Is it better for me ask an artists permission to view their art in a gallery?

@legonalas

Ай бұрын

The reason it's stealing is because ai is a product which requires parts to run. Parts that were taken for it without proper compensation. This blurring of how it's "learning" is using a lie to get away with it. They need to take the copyrighted material to put it in their program. They need the copyrighted or owned marerial to put into and make part of their product. So, the artwork made isn't necessarily stolen art. It's what needed to be done to create it in the first place.

In my mind, AI art is useful for conceptualisation and generating images for non-profit ventures (experimentation, research, fun.etc), but I believe profit should not be derived from datasets that cannot be proven to NOT contain copyrighted art that has been taken without consent. I feel like the burden of proof should be flipped in this situation as it’s hard to prove is something is stolen/“appropriated” but it should be easier to prove it is legitimate by being able to evidence that you own the asset or the asset/s owner has given their permission for its use in writing. This would allow for more transparency and credibility. This is how I’d manage it. But anyway, that’s just my two cents as an aspiring game designer. What do I know?

AI doesn’t rip any single component wholesale. It “memorizes” attributes and then combine them based on prompts. These attributes often are things and concepts that humans can’t readily recognize/identify (hence why they are black boxes). They are also based on combinations of input data/art, not on individual drawings. That being said, they are still taking/stealing some essence of already made art. Usage of works from non-consenting artists for training data is a big problem, so is the automation of art for commercial purposes.

i think the difference between taking inspiration from someone elses art and using AI to rip it is that it requires alot skill and a steady hand to replicate someones style doing it by hand. its alot of time invested in doing that. where as with AI you just tell it to use a certain style and then pick the ones you like. "copying is the sincerest form of flattery" but that only works if you actually put your time and skill into it.

Skynet coming for me first. Let me say im the biggest hater

the legality is you can not copyright AI art. so feel free to sell it without a copyright, but we can all steal the art and use it for anything we want and that is legal. so don't get mad when your AI stuff gets stolen, 'cause that's all legal.