Take your watercolor artistry to new heights with the Winsor & Newton Cotman Watercolor Paint Set, now available for only $61.82, a fantastic 46% off its original price! With over 7,971 ratings and a 4.7-star average, this set, which includes 45 vibrant half pans, is a must-have for both beginners and experienced artists.
Whether you’re working on landscapes, portraits, or abstract creations, the professional-grade pigments provide rich, lasting color that brings your work to life. Don’t miss out, order now for only $61.82 at Amazon!
Help Power Techcratic’s Future – Scan To Support
If Techcratic’s content and insights have helped you, consider giving back by supporting the platform with crypto. Every contribution makes a difference, whether it’s for high-quality content, server maintenance, or future updates. Techcratic is constantly evolving, and your support helps drive that progress.
As a solo operator who wears all the hats, creating content, managing the tech, and running the site, your support allows me to stay focused on delivering valuable resources. Your support keeps everything running smoothly and enables me to continue creating the content you love. I’m deeply grateful for your support, it truly means the world to me! Thank you!
|
BITCOIN
bc1qlszw7elx2qahjwvaryh0tkgg8y68enw30gpvge Scan the QR code with your crypto wallet app |
|
DOGECOIN
D64GwvvYQxFXYyan3oQCrmWfidf6T3JpBA Scan the QR code with your crypto wallet app |
|
ETHEREUM
0xe9BC980DF3d985730dA827996B43E4A62CCBAA7a Scan the QR code with your crypto wallet app |
Please read the Privacy and Security Disclaimer on how Techcratic handles your support.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate, Techcratic may earn from qualifying purchases.
Laws for how AI should and should NOT be used needed to be implemented not even the second the programs were made public but DURING their coding processes.
If they really thought it was ethnical they would have asked him if could use his work but they didn’t. Just like Adobe didn’t. Just like DA didn’t because they /know/ it’s not. They would rather just help themselves to what they want and offer some weak apology after the fact. Generative AI is highlighting the appalling attitudes these companies, and individuals, already had which might be its only real use.
Listen, AI art could be a really useful tool to find ideas for making your own artwork like different kinds of buildings or backgrounds or color schemes even but when you’re taking other peoples art and using it without their permission that’s crossing a line I could see using your own art or using already existing buildings to smash together And create a new build or anything like that, but when you’re stealing other peoples creations that they worked for maybe even years to make and then just passing it off as your art that you spent no time making is just wrong😡😤
They’ll never replace Sam. He’s one of the best online artist I know, and the only reason I started art in the first place.😤
I'm not with Ai but isn’t his Style Disney Inspired?
I will never understand why lazy ass MF uses AI. I can't imagine that there is any satisfaction to seeing a final piece being generated, compared to an artist who has spent years mastering their skills and craft, the satisfaction you get after each piece is finally finished is a wonderful feeling.
I know this is 1 year old, but it still makes me mad enough to rant.
"SamDoesArts doesn't own his art style" has got to be the stupidest argument I have ever heard. First of all, they themselves are saying "his artstyle" and probably naming their thing "SamDoesArts artstyle LoRa" or whatever, implying that it's HIS. If they named it "generic semi-realism artstyle" like some of them think of it as, nobody would find their little project because SamDoesArts' style is UNIQUE and that's why people would want to copy it. There's a reason you could look at a piece of his and think, "oh yeah Sam made that". Lastly, art styles take years to find and perfect, and dismissing all that time by saying the art style isn't yours has got to be the most non-artist thing I've ever heard. I am thoroughly disgusted.
ofc ai bros wouldnt understand why stealing someones artistic identity is bad and only think he's upset because of lost money or followers lol
I truly despise how they are trying to justify themselves for not respecting people's hardwork… it is not a matter of owning a style or not. It is the artworks, wich you spent hours on, trying to perfect yourself, that are your babies and your pride, being fed to an algorithm to be used by art scammers or companies…
Art is not like other jobs, which these people (the prompters) fail to realize. Art is a luxury, not a survival necessity. Yes, in other jobs, you will be replaced. But not with art, not until AI came along and ruined everything, destroyed people's aspirations and communities, etc. AI has done nothing but ruin people emotionally, spiritually, and financially. Actual art, as a collective industry, writing, music, illustration, etc. has never, EVER been about replacing those who are no longer in the community or no longer with us. You do not NEED replaced, in fact it has always been very, VERY disrespectful to consider an artist as needing to be "replaced", and it still is. It is inevitable in the same breath that people being murdered is inevitable. At the heart, it is inevitable technically, everyone will die, some people will kill, not everyone will be murdered, and we can collectively do a lot of things to prevent people from being murdered. Every artist will go away, some people will attempt to replace them (which is horribly disrespectful), but not all artists will be replaced. That does not mean doing this is not wrong, that does not mean we cannot prevent this from happening to artists, that does not mean we should ignore this when we see it happen. This only means we need to fight harder to rid society of this phenomena.
As you said, He doesn't own his artstyle but he does own his art. Ai doesn't learn, it copies. Parrots can speak english, but they don't understand it.
did you steal this script? cause i saw a website post on this that is saying exactly what you are saying. So are you giving a voice to artsts against AI but at the same time stealing the text from someone else for your video? dont you think thats as immoral?
AI art comes from the mentality that art is a product to consume, not a means of self-expression.
5:29 ALL AI "enthusiasts". No exceptions.
this is the reason i dont do art anymore. it's too late to stop these bots, people are making more. i hope i'll die before they take on more jobs and work. there are reasons for people doing these things. it has come to the point where now where we depend on technology, like a vacuum bot. imagine your kids in the future not knowing how to clean the house when their technology stops working or how to get help because they don't have a phone. this is just ridiculous.
this so funny to recognize all the actress model from Daenerys in GOT to Rihanna used to copy is style.. this show how low in drawing skill some prompters can be at the end of this artist who really know how to draw will have value
eugh? after watching the whole thing this video sounds more ignorant rather than informative.
I know this is old but I think it's weird and confusing to have the message argue "You can't use someone's art style." as it isn't really a good one because it is true that an art style can't be owned, and the culture we live in already has adapted many art styles without permission. So I don't really see an ethical message in trying to suddenly now own it when it can't be owned. It's like trying to tell people that they can't use certain PUBLIC DOMAIN pictures just because it's used with new lawful invention. I feel like the message should more focused on the fact that AI uses a lot of copyrighted pictures without consent where AI usage of it creates similar problems involving certain cases of Copyright infringement.
I feel like the only true ethical approach when it comes to law is to prevent AI from going 'around' Copyright protections where going around it would have the same issue as regular copyright infringement. Using AI to make a picture being very similar to a copyrighted picture to some degree would probably be an issue. Sadly some anti-AI artists are acting like other rights protections shouldn't exist and that they want to create mutant copyright laws to cover things never originally covered because they don't agree with it, which doesn't sound ethical. So basically: Ethics should be to protect all rights that actually exist. Copyrights, but also fair use rights and public domain rights over lawful works and lawful making.
Though there is certain arguments to be made involving copyright itself such as downloading a 30-year old good Nintendo game for preservation too but if moral had to be made then we should look at the purpose of Copyright and other rights involving it to see if that example is morally justified. It's certainly not justified to monopolize the public domain by copyrighting art style so that argument is easier already.
Not an experienced artist by any means, but I do appreciate it very much. I wonder if this will follow a similar course to what happened with the music industry. Ultimately, this was bound to happen given such A.I. tools and the relative anonymity provided by the Internet. I put the blame more so on the developers of these A.I. tools. I am sure they were well aware of the implications, but that didn't seem to detract them from feeding data into their machines – namely without consent. That's the main issue I perceive. It would have been more sensible for these developers to approach artists and ask them if they'd be interested in opting in, or if they'd rather to opt out. Obviously now Pandora's Box has been opened and we'll have to wait and see. That's another issue with technology since governments and upcoming regulations are slow and technology far outpaces them. That said, even with regulations in the future, I don't imagine that was has been done will be easily outdone. More so it will simply progress for better and for worse.
I don't understand how stupid are people ..artist should stop sharing there work through online without water Mark's.. i don't understand like its important to share every day art what's wrong with you artist are you stupid that much ADD A GOD DAMN WATER MARKS TO YOUR GOD DAMN ART SO YOU CAN PROTECT YOUR GOD DAMN ART FROM AI because the more you share the more ai becomes stronger
How is illustrated artwork styles different from music genres and styles? Its okay if "you" the content creator "copies" the style free-hand, but not okay if a machine does it!? You do not own the rights to a style or genre, that's insanity!! A short list of people would monopolize entire industries if this were to become a law. If I copy "Sam's" style, does it actually take away from Sam's ability to continue creating his own pieces? Absolutely not! Sam will continue to create awesome artwork. I would argue that the dividing line is "handcrafted" vs "AI" generated. At this point, its up to consumers and fans to decide; do I support human originality and creativity OR do I support AI generated content?