body { -ms-overflow-style: scrollbar; overflow-y: scroll; overscroll-behavior-y: none; } .errorContainer { background-color: #FFF; color: #0F1419; max-width: 600px; margin: 0 auto; padding: 10%; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; } .errorButton { margin: 3em 0; } .errorButton a { background: #1DA1F2; border-radius: 2.5em; color: white; padding: 1em 2em; text-decoration: none; } .errorButton a:hover, .errorButton a:focus { background: rgb(26, 145, 218); } .errorFooter { color: #657786; font-size: 80%; line-height: 1.5; padding: 1em 0; } .errorFooter a, .errorFooter a:visited { color: #657786; text-decoration: none; padding-right: 1em; } .errorFooter a:hover, .errorFooter a:active { text-decoration: underline; } #placeholder, #react-root { display: none !important; } body { background-color: #FFF !important; }

JavaScript is not available.

We’ve detected that JavaScript is disabled in this browser. Please enable JavaScript or switch to a supported browser to continue using twitter.com. You can see a list of supported browsers in our Help Center.

Terms of Service Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Imprint Ads info © 2023 Twitter, Inc.

Conversation

1/ After following the AI conversation for so long there is one argument that is made over and over, by well meaning and not so well meaning folk. “AI is inspired by artists the same way humans are”. As a professional artist I can safely say that's nonsense. Lets discuss 🧵

10:44 PM · Nov 28, 2022

Who can reply?

People @kortizart follows or mentioned can reply

Replying to

2/ First and foremost note that I am not a AI engineer, a neurologist, a scientist or a lawyer. I am however a professional artist with over 13 years of experience in film, games, etc, who teaches art via workshops all over the world. Creativity is certainly my wheelhouse ✌️

1

22

772

3/ Before we begin let's take a quick moment to address the technical aspect of this from a person who knows about this subject:

Quote Tweet

Replying to @JerryJDavis and @DeviantArt

thank you for the question! to answer, there are two lines of thought that can help guide why i think human creativity is different than the synthesis process taken by a machine learning model. 1) the limitations of latent space in machine learning (cont'd)

1

22

513

4/ Let’s state the obvious. Humans are not AI/ML models. A human doesn’t just look at data (much less look at hundreds of thousands of data) to then immediately and perfectly archive it in their minds. A human is incapable of dissecting all this data and reassemble (cont.)

1

25

663

5/ it via diffused dots generating hundreds finalized images in less than an hour. Stating the obvious again, Machine learning (ML) models (known as "AI") are not human. AI/ML models can only generate what is instructed. It can only generate content based on instructions given.

1

19

566

6/So if the statement "Humans are not computers" and " AI/ML models are not human" why do we see the talking point of " AI models are inspired by artists just like you!" so often in these discussions? I've seen this argument be used primarily from two groups (cont. )

1

21

553

7/ IMO folks advocating that "AI is inspired just like artists" either: A. Do not understand the process of art and how inspiration for art works or B. Do not fully get how exploitative and messy AI/ML models currently are. (to those in B please read:twitter.com/kortizart/stat )

Quote Tweet

Replying to @kevin2kelly @glichfield and 4 others

1/ Mr. Kelly you are operating on assumptions. You claim that "AI has not harmed actual people", which is entirely speculation and not facts. So let's talk facts, and with the evidence you ask for. Let's begin, and please be patient, it's going to be a bit long

:

1

57

682

8/ Let's talk further about group A. How do artist use inspiration to create artwork? Looking at imagery of others is a part of learning how to draw/paint, but unlike AL/ML models, looking at images of others isn't THE singular way we artists learn or create. (cont.)

1

23

471

9/ This is a stark difference to AI/ML models as they are completely dependent on the imagery of others to generate work. Artists look at other artists to learn how to solve some visual problems and be inspired, but that's as far as looking at other artists will get you. (cont.)

1

23

489

10/ Artists bring their own technical knowledge, problem solving, experience, thoughts and lives into each artwork. It's one of the reasons why you may be inspired by the works of another but it's VERY difficult to create works that looks exactly like your inspirations (cont.)

1

54

645

11/ Because as a human you are unique, and no matter how many images of others you see, it all goes through your own "filter" of knowledge, technique and life experiences. Each artistic decision, will be different from the artistic decisions of others. A machine cannot do this.

1

53

579

12/ AI/ML models can ONLY generate what it's been told to generate and can only use the data given, and in this case, the data given is the works, IP data and private data of artists and the public. It's messy, legally and ethically. Made far worse (cont.)

1

19

456

13/ As many users direct the machine to have their work LOOK like artists (by utilizing our full names as prompts) because our work TRULY makes all the difference. I mean look at how meh the generated results are without us (sample from: github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/)

1

81

629

14/ One could argue "but there are people who intentionally paint like other artists" which to that I say: Yes, but there is a fine line between inspiration and plagiarism/forgery. We already have legal frameworks that ensure creators aren't harmed by plagiarists/forgers (cont.)

1

24

548

15/ Furthermore, even in our own artistic industries people are shunned when plagiarizing the work of others. Plagiarism/forgery is not a practice to celebrate or excuse, regardless of who or what, commits said acts. (cont.)

1

26

527

16/ To add another layer to this, faithfully plagiarizing another artist by hand, is VERY difficult and very few ppl can do it, much less thrive doing so. This difficulty is not the case with machines who can plagiarize artists work in seconds. (cont.)

Quote Tweet

The images below aren’t @McCurryStudios “Afghan Girl”. They are AI generated images via Midjourney’s latest V4 release. Yet another example that AI models can *heavily* plagiarize.

Show this thread

1

31

459

17/ In a "would be funny if it weren't so sad" AI companies claimed to bring art to the masses, but the way I see it and as things currently are, they just gave potential art theft/plagiarism to the masses. (cont.)

Quote Tweet

Thursday thoughts: The TRUE democratization of art was the internet, as it allowed millions to educate themselves in the arts. It isn't some bs VC marketing term intent on making folks feel ok using people's data without their knowledge, consent or software ability to forget.

Show this thread

1

49

542

18/ So no, AI is not inspired like human artists are. In the words of a friend, "humans interpret subjectively, AI computes objectively". Comparing the two, IMO is incorrect. At best, it comes from an uninformed place, at worst to mislead or excuse from potential harm. (cont.)

1

51

574

19/ Anyway for any more information on this subject once again, check out this very lengthy thread. twitter.com/kortizart/stat With all that said hope you've all had a wonderful holiday, and welp, back to making the work I love! <3

Quote Tweet

Founding executive director of @WIRED @kevin2kelly wrote an article on AI media that discussed, amongst other things, how AI would not harm artists. I found that disagreeable. Mr. Kelly asked for evidence, so I thought to share my long 28 tweet response to him with all of you

twitter.com/kortizart/stat…

Show this thread

2

19

413