It is no doubt that there is a massive debate over whether or not the use of AI art generation software is unethical.
To understand why people find displaying or claiming these works as your own to be an unethical practice, you must understand how this software works.
Unfortunately, the process by which an "artificial intelligence" generates an image based on a prompt and series of values is a bit confusing for some. I've seen many people confidently but incorrectly describing how this software functions to justify malicious attacks on the people displaying them.
I get it.
You're defending the countless hours of work that talented, creative people have spent creating their stunning artwork. The idea of that work being "stolen" to create similar looking pieces, on the surface, can seem unethical. But again, this is undeniably based on a serious misunderstanding of the software.
How does AI generate art?
The way it is often described is that many dozens, hundreds, or thousands of images and pieces of an artists work are fed into this "AI" so that It may use those pieces in the construction of it's own imagery. The misunderstanding lies in how the actual pieces of this artists work are being used. The software does not store pieces of imagery of any subject by any artist. No tangible, recognizable work by any actual artist is directly used in the creation of these generated works. It also pays to mention that no piece created by AI solely uses data achieved through training on a single specific artist. Every prompt uses an entire model of information collected through a training process that includes the work of artists as well as various collections of photography so that it may learn how certain objects and shapes are expected to look and how to adapt those to a particular visual style. So where does the imagery come from?
Well, the AI is fed works from existing artists, but only to train the AI on what viewers likely do or do not want to see in the results that it generates. The software can eventually identify a particular artists style, and when asked for that style by way of text prompt, can attempt to reproduce that style based on what it has been trained to do when that type of imagery is requested. It understands what a brush stroke by a particular artist looks like by observing the properties of those brush strokes over many images, and it can then generate brush strokes based on those properties. However, each brush stroke the AI creates is it's own, not directly stolen. Paraphrasing is NOT PLAGIARISM.
How do Humans create art?
Here is where the argument that AI art is unethical falls apart.
How did you learn to make art?
Ultimately, the way a human or AI software learn to create artwork is EXACTLY THE SAME. Artists are trained by observing works and techniques from various different artworks and imagery. Through practice, with validation from themselves and others, they learn what types of techniques and imagery looks good or is not well received.
Sorry to break it to you, but your art did not originate entirely in you. Your techniques, methods, and even the imagery you base your shapes and characters off of have come from some outside influence. That influence has been processed by your brain the same way AI art software processes data it is fed. The only things you've added are creativity and labor.
But they're not the same! How dare you compare what a machine makes to the creativity of a person!
Of course they're not the same.
Frankly, I don't really like use of the term AI for this type of software. It's misleading to people who don't fully understand the term, as Hollywood has forced implications of consciousness and actual intelligence or thought on the term. It's not alive, it doesn't think.
But what people have achieved with this software is truly great. They have successfully created a program complex enough to learn actual artistic technique and apply it when asked.
So how do we define art?
Art (n): The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
Alright, so what does that mean?
It means that alone, the AI does not produce art. Therefore it is not an artist. It is not creative. The software requires creativity from an outside source. The user (myself) must feed a request, properties, desired attributes, and instruction for the software to use.
We can easily compare this partnership between User and Software to the relationship between Director and Cinematographers creating films. The Director creates a prompt and gives the camera man a handful of values or instructions to base their work off of. The cameraman is not being creative, and the director is not directly creating art. However, together, the results contain that element of human creativity and skill that defines it as ART.
In conclusion, my role is that of a director. I use my vision, tastes, and understanding of the software to make the software supply the technique it has learned, and the labor to produce the work.
Chill, I do not compare what I do with the technical skill that artists have.
In no way do I find it appropriate for "AI artists" (for lack of a better term) to compare themselves with artists that provide both the creative and technical skill to create art.
That's the distinction. Non-AI generated art is UNDENIABLY more impressive. It takes greater skill than anyone like me can put forth to create similar results. Nothing can take that from you as an artist. Creating art is something sacred and should be deeply respected above any mechanically produced work.
The problem is that REAL artists are being put out of work.
I empathize with you. I really do. But thinking that being put of out of work by a machine is something unique to artistry is just plain ignorant. Many professions that take learned skills and techniques are being replaced by machines, software or otherwise, to reduce costs for the companies who need that work done for them.
But the enemy is not the AI artist. The enemy is capitalism.
There would be no competitive environment to lose your job to if there was no way that some corporate entity could profit off of your creativity and labor.
Think about it. Without the element of capital, AI art poses NO THREAT, as your art would then simply exist as an avenue to express yourself, and nothing more.
So please, properly direct your discontent towards the people who reduce your creative efforts to a number. THAT is what's unethical. Capitalism is unethical.
I'm just having fun with some software.
(pardon typos and grammatical errors. I'm just a dumb fake artist after all.)
turnnoffyourmind
prguitarman
theartofmadeline
izzy806
gummygunk
baratheonpilled