AI Art Generation: Beneficial or Problematic?

[Voz]

I went looking to see if a thread on this topic already existed. Please direct me appropriately if so.

AI Art Generation: Beneficial or Problematic?​

Everyone and their mama has heard about AI art generators and the various arguments and opinions folks have about them by now. Stable Diffusion, Dream, Craiyon, even applications like Lensa that use AI to augment existing images and countless others are arriving by the day. They've quickly become a mainstay in almost every artistic community I'm apart of or adjacent to. I've heard people argue both in favor and against their use, especially when it comes to collecting a profit off what people generate, and now I want to hear it from ya'll.

Which side of the spectrum do you fall? Is AI a legitimate tool for people to use in artistic "creation", or do you feel more strongly about how it borrows from the artists these various engines "sample"? Do you think it's ethical for people to make money using these programs? Do you feel similar about AI text generators? Would you play a game, read a book, or consume other media that was made entirely from AI? Do you feel that artists should disclose whether or not AI was used in their works?

Why or why not?

[Fuseblower]

TL;DR : I don't think there is such a thing as an AI artist, only an AI user. Though I don't mind people making money with AI nor people paying for it. Having a label noting something was made with AI would be nice in order to save the endangered species of real artists

And here is the long version :

Yeah, when does the tool the artist uses become the artist itself? How about an analogy?

1. I could take my car and drive to some destination. I can rightfully claim to be the driver of my car even though I didn't make my car nor did I provide the power for my journey. It's the car that enables me to travel so far and so quickly. I could even take people along and charge them a fare because it's my car and I invest time and skill in driving it.
2. What if I take a taxi instead? I can no longer claim to be the driver even though I selected the destination. My journey doesn't require my skill. It might not even require my time (could be reading the newspaper in the back seat). I'm a passenger now. Of course, I could still charge people who I take along for the ride but I have to pay the taxi driver also.
3. What if this taxi driver is an AI? That wouldn't really matter to me as a passenger (is probably cheaper too). But it would matter to the taxi driver who is now out of a job (and "learning to code" might not be such a safe option for the taxi driver either since AI is encroaching on that field of work as well).
4. Of course, there's another possibility : I might really like to drive. Actually, forget the car! Riding a bike is much more fun. But... could I make money by just riding a bike? Yes, people might pay me to see me ride my bike. But only if they think I deserve to. I might not care at all whether or not I make (or lose) money riding my bike. I might ride my bike regardless of any financial ramifications just because I like to ride my bike.

If we take these analogs back to art then I say point 1 and point 4 is where the artists are. They can claim to be the authors of their work. Point 2 is someone who hired an artist. They can make money of the artist's work but they cannot rightfully claim to be the artist. I think most people will agree on that.

Point 3 is where the confusion is.

To me : there is no confusion. If you use AI then you're not the artist IMO. People using AI might say that they only used it as a tool and that there was still a lot of creative work on their side. I don't buy that. All I got is their word that they're the artist and that's not good enough for me. Even the work of real digital artists becomes suspicious because it hides (or mimicks) the hand and the materials. I work, as it is called nowadays, "traditionally". I might even be called an "artist" (using the term loosely). I might also be called stupid for pouring so much time and money into my mediocre work. Still, it irks me when AI hacks call themselves "creative" or even "artists" when it's really just a program that makes their work (a program that relies on the theft of genuine art).

To me these AI users who call themselves artists are like people who want a medal for a race they didn't even ran.

But all of the above is about authorship.

This might not be of any concern to the people buying or selling the work. Is it wrong that people make money using AI in a time of OnlyFans, cat videos and reaction videos? Who cares about whether one gets called a genuine artist or just a hack when one makes a ton of money with it?

People can make money anyway they'd like (within the bounds of the law, ofc). I myself won't buy AI products but I don't judge people who do buy them. It's up to every individual to decide what to spend their money on.

But I do believe that there are a lot of people who appreciate the effort of real humans to make a work of real art. Since these people care to support real artists I think it's desireable to label the works that are made by AI. Just like products are labeled as "Fair Trade", "FSC", etc. For the quality of the product itself it might not matter but it will matter to the makers of the product.

I don't think it's practically possible to implement such a label though. It's far too easy to cheat with AI.

[Fuseblower]

Just thought of another funny analogy :

I wouldn't call myself a musician even though I make the music for my VNs. I play most of the instruments on my synthesizers (and some heavy usage of effect pedals).

Except for the drum section. I use a sequencer for that.

Of course, a drummer would call me a hack because I rely on a machine to keep the rhythm.

But the real musician would call the drummer a hack because a drummer uses drums to produce the sound.

The real musician would bang his head against the wall to produce the sound instead of cheating by relying on an instrument

The thing is that there is a gliding scale. But this doesn't take away from the fact that every scale has two extremities. Disagreement exists where the mid point of the scale is. Unless, of course, one is like that guy who said that (Disney) Star Wars is great because there's no good or evil in it. It's all shades of grey. When I heard that I was like WTF!!!?!!? The Empire blows up entire planets and kills billions. Of course they're evil!

[ISAWHIM]

To me : there is no confusion. If you use AI then you're not the artist IMO.

Is your thoughts about a person holding a camera and taking a photograph the same? One click and the digital camera does the "art" creating, or the "art" is the thing being photographed... (No artistic ability is "needed", to take a picture. But, yes, artistic ability can help.)

AI is the same way... You can strike gold with one click, but an actual "artist", who may be extended to a literary artist, who knows the better wording required and "artists" and "styles" and "camera settings"... To create great AI art. You have to expend effort and use knowledge and have an "eye for art", to really "produce" good results.

Almost every "story" written, is nothing more than "learned data from other stories", which someone has simply "generated" into a new story. With a few rare exclusions for uniqueness and "changing names to protect the innocent"...

Many artists painting, are painting "things that exist", to a point, in one way or another. (Thoughts are "built-up" from the same processes that AI uses to create "unique art".) But AI really isn't creating by itself, it needs the artist to tell it what to create. (Or a programmer to tell it what to create.)

I agree, to a point... "If you use AI, then YOU are not the creator"... But, YOU are USING that TOOL to create. Just as a photographer USES a digital camera, or photo-shop, or actual paint, or wood, pencils, pens, type-writers, computers, game-engines, cloth, metal, hammer, nails, thread... to create something...

I would say that someone using RenPy is a "game programmer", while other game-programmers who don't use game-engines as a "tool", would totally disagree.

I would say that someone who makes an e-book, is as much of a "published author" as the person who actually "published" a physical book.

I would say that the person holding the camera is as much of an artist as the person who manually painted the same realistic image with paint.

I would say that the person who used the "well used phrases and words of the past", in a "new context", was as much of an artist who created "unique phrases, never used in the past".

(Guy murders someone. People have no clue who did it. Detective figures out who did it. It was not the person you were led to believe.)

Insert unique, or any old names... Insert some location... Insert some time... Insert MANY useless details... Insert some confusing info to lead readers astray... Insert your name as "the creator" of "generated, recycled, content, which has some unique changes to give the illusion of being, technically, unique, as a whole".

P.S. For the record, I paint digital art and with actual paints. I draw with pen, pencil, inks, crayons and digitally. I am a classic film-photographer and digital photographer. I design on paper and in 3D on computers, before I physically build things. I also write and program in various programming languages and using various "game-engines".

I can see the artist using AI, as an artist. I can also see the non-artist as the "creator" of that AI-assisted creation, as it would not exist without THEM telling the AI what to create. Yes, it was a joint effort and the AI did the greater majority of the work, but it didn't do it alone!

I would NOT say that YOU are the artist, if YOU asked someone to create art for YOU. So, I guess that is kind-of where you stand, as if AI is "someone", "doing it for you". (Which it is, to a point. But that is, to me, the same as a photographer clicking a button on a digital camera, asking the camera to "paint a picture, digitally", of what the camera-holder "artist", is seeing.)

[Fuseblower]

I agree that the one making a game with Renpy is a programmer (even though I'm of the opinion that Python is a blasphemy ) Using a framework, an operating system, or even a programming language (as opposed to writing the machine code directly) doesn't change that because the skill set is the same

But what about someone who uses WordPress to make a website? JavaScript is generated without the need for writing a single line of code. Still, that JavaScript is generated as a direct result of the actions of the web designer. But I wouldn't call that person a programmer. That person might not even know that a program is generated.

Surely, the AI still needs some human input but at what point do we stop calling that human the creator of the AI generated product?

Suppose, somewhere in the not too distant future, I want to see a horror movie and I order one from Amazon. Using many years of my browsing and ordering data and any other data my existence left behind, Amazon generates one in mere seconds.

Naturally, me being of impeccable taste and sophistication, "Cheerleader Carnage" is a slasher movie taken from the top shelf of high brow art.

And everyone thinks so because it becomes a blockbuster movie generating an entire industry of merchandise, video game, fanfic, etc.

So, who is the artist of this pivotal work of art? Who has the copyrights?

It is Amazon who created it with its powerful AI. But it couldn't exist without the digital footprints I've left behind (let's call it "The Fuseblower Creation Matrix"). Still, I didn't set out to create a movie. I just wanted to see one tailor-made to my taste. So, even the mere intent to create art was absent and all of the grunt work was left to a machine operating on a statistical data set populated by my browsing history reflecting my taste.

To complicate matters even more, here's a real example : people thought one of my oil paintings was really beautiful. But here's the thing : it wasn't an oil painting in my mind. I had just received a whole bunch of Michael Harding oil paints (a new brand at the time). I just tried them out on a panel. Smearing them all over the place, making all kinds of mixtures, textural effects, putting layers over one another and scratching the top layer. All that kind of stuff. It wasn't some non-representational piece of art, it was just messing around with these new paints.

So, here I was the "creator" and it was even in a traditional medium but I couldn't call myself the artist because the intent was missing. Perhaps I'm not savvy enough. I might have become rich smearing paints with little more thought than "oh, this is a nice color"

One of the problems with "art" (and by extension the attribution of the moniker "artist") is that it means a bunch of different things at the same time. It's something that's created (what about "found art"?), possesses an esthetical value (that's really in the eye of the beholder), is a sign of quality (what about Paul Klee? a child could make that!), is novel (Carvaggio likes to have a word with Rembrandt), is something that is paid for (van Gogh was starving!) etc.

But at some point a line has to be drawn else "art" and "artist" encompasses everything and therefor means nothing anymore.

I draw that line at the use of AI. I see the involvement of a human actor in the process as a moot point.

[RizVN]

AI Art Generation: Beneficial or Problematic?​

Both. It's a very polarizing topic, similar to politics. Some people and marketplaces stay away from AI because of potential problems. Some others like it, which in turn creates new markets for AI. Sure, people can get riled up like when they're talking about politics. But for the overwhelming majority, I don't think people care that much. If they think something is a good product, then whether it was made by an AI or not, they will still think it's a good product.
Of course, if you are targeting AI products for those who are averse to AI, then you have a problem. Otherwise, AI art is generally beneficial. You can even create 2 products simply by replacing AI assets used in one product with non-AI assets. Targeting both demographics if you want. You can even build 2 different companies/brands with 2 different names, standing on both sides if you want.
You are free to see all situations in life as an opportunity or a threat. To respond with optimism or fear. Your choice.

Which side of the spectrum do you fall?

I think I'm part of the people who don't really care either way. I don't pride myself on my writing, drawing, or whatever skills people tend to identify themselves with. Whether people want to call me an artist/not an artist, programmer/not programmer, what of it? They are free to do what they want. And I'm free to do what I want. We will each reap what we sow. There's no need for everyone to believe in the same thing.
If AI is banned? We can adapt.
If something better appears? We can adapt.
If a certain job goes extinct? What of it? We are human. We can adapt and move on.

Is AI a legitimate tool for people to use in artistic "creation",

Yes.

or do you feel more strongly about how it borrows from the artists these various engines "sample"?

No. If artists also stop borrowing from references or "sample" from various sources, then I might change my stance. I don't see how that would benefit you though, but you are free to try. Nothing a human creates is ever original. And apparently, AI happens to be better at learning from samples. So I'd say put the right person for the right job. Let human do human work, and AI does AI works.

Do you think it's ethical for people to make money using these programs? Do you feel similar about AI text generators?

Yes.

Would you play a game, read a book, or consume other media that was made entirely from AI?

If I think it's a good product, even if an alien made it, sure.

Do you feel that artists should disclose whether or not AI was used in their works?
Why or why not?

Depends. If you knew the people consuming it would care, I would advise you to disclose it.
Because, as you know, it's a very polarizing topic. If someone who hates AI happens to play your game and finds out it was made by AI, later on, they might turn that hatred to you. They're clearly not your customer, I don't think it's worth spending your time serving them to appease their hatred either. So it's way better for both parties to walk away, and for you to serve your target customer who actually likes your product instead.

[Wiktor Borsuk]

Personally, I view AI art generation as a tool in hands of capable people.
Much like any other tool, it will let people with talent and training (aka 'artists') excel, while other random people who happen to use it will get some results, but never quite as great as what pros can achieve.

I have a personal experience-based opinion, too, as without AI art generation, I would never be able to bring my hobby VN art to any acceptable (by me) level. And I was not willing to invest large sums of money (of which I - regrettably - have a very limited supply) into a project that expects 0 monetary return on investment. Midjourney (and Niji in particular) were like holy grail to me. I can use them to create the base, and then edit parts I don't like.

As far as job security goes - yeah, probably many artists will have to adjust their profile to remain competitive in the job market, or they will lose their positions. However, I'd like to point out that this has been the case with many tools that have been introduced since the very beginning of what we generally call the market economy. Weavers protested when sewing factories began to introduce power looms. Lamp lighters got fired when cities introduced electricity-based street lamps. Human computers (I recommend 'Hidden Figures' - great movie) got replaced by mechanical, and then digital ones. And so on.
In any case, we still need people to operate those 'newer generation' solutions.
This is just another story like that, i feel.