The AI Red Scare is only harming artists and needs to stop.

[Shardstone]

Ok, then I expect you to lobby to have high resolution camera's removed from cell phones. Because such contributed to my artist sister's loss of a career as a photographer.
And for printers and typsetters to be banned because of all the scribes and calligraphers they have put out of work for generations. And we could go on and on about all the technologies you use today that have put artists out of work for millennia.

Or, we can accept that art, artists and the tools they use to inspire us change. And must adapt. Art is important, expressionism is important, but the tools change. At one time only a few people could create color images, or expressive music or other types of art. But things change and now more people than ever can find a way to express themselves. Perhaps someday every person will be able to have the tools to fully express themselves and inspire others. Perhaps generative AI will be part of that.


You don't feed your paint brush, you feed your mind. You are still using other people's work as a resource. While for others they feed the generative AI engine.
It seems to me by your logic that every artist should continually pay for their sources of inspiration. Not just the one time they paid to visit a museum or art gallery.
Perhaps the key difference in your view is if the activity is done by a human or a machine. Because that's the only difference I see from a system level view of the two approaches.


So humans are inferior and therefore should be protected? I won't discount that as not being valid.

It depends upon at which level you compare. At a high level:
Input: "I want a fantasy art book cover that shows a big red dragon fighting a party of heroic adventurers that include characters X, Y, Z."
Output: the 2024 PHB cover.

Was it created by a human or a machine? As a viewer I may not know. In fact I probably don't know unless one of the characters literally has two left feet. Sure, the publisher tells me a human made it, but really, do I know? No. Do I care? Why? (There are reason I personally care, but irrelevant to this point.)


Yep. So? Why does it matter? If it gives me the same results as a commissioned work from an artists.

Absolutely.

So why don't we make artists pay for the data they don't own and use as inspiration or education?
Why protect artists? Why don't we protect teachers? Or fast food workers? Or delivery drivers? Or doctors? Or engineers? Why don't we protect every person and every job?

This sounds a lot like the argue that human have souls and nothing else does or can. What truly is "original"? Isn't it strongly argued that there are only 7 stories and everything else is just derivative?

Thanks for this great perspective. i.e. your whole post here is very interesting. But I am just going to follow up on two parts of it.

Do you think most people think all these thoughts? As an artist, you see more than I do in art. All of these things go through your mind. But none of them go through my mind, at least no where near the level they do yours. And I'm fine with that. I have no interest in impressionism. I don't get it or care to. So why would I care if my fantasy art scene evokes that depth of thought?

(Note, there are other things in this world that I as an engineer see in depths that you and others probably don't. Like that little weird vent on your car. Or the flap on the airplane wing. Or the screwed down panel on the side of the building. Do you care if it was designed by a human or a machine if the car does what it supposed to do? If the plane gets you safely to where you want?)

See, this just argues that the problem with generative AI is the people looking at and evaluating it, not the image itself. Perhaps the sub-text of rampant capitalism juxtaposed by the environmental crisis is just made up. Just part of a 'language' that artists have built to communicate in secret code to each other. Perhaps the ignorance and failure to speak in such secret code by AI is just fine for those of us who do not speak that language.

I don't think you get what my comment is saying, because your response to me literally makes no sense.

 

[CleverNickName]

Do you think most people think all these thoughts? As an artist, you see more than I do in art. All of these things go through your mind. But none of them go through my mind, at least no where near the level they do yours. And I'm fine with that. I have no interest in impressionism. I don't get it or care to. So why would I care if my fantasy art scene evokes that depth of thought?

This is just one layer of a complicated problem. You are absolutely right: many people are only interested in the image itself, not any meaning or intent behind it. And that, in itself, can also be a type of expression. Art is subjective, and interpretations and appreciations vary across the medium....but can a computer also be subjective and meaningful? or is it always going to be just an image? and does/will/should the consumer even care one way or the other?

"Mmm, yes, bold application over non-traditional media.
Very assertive, forceful yet passive. What is this piece called?"

I chose abstract expressionism to make my point because it's so divisive, even in the art community. But my point stands across all types of visual art, from avant garde photography to, I dunno, watercolor cubism or what have you.

(Note, there are other things in this world that I as an engineer see in depths that you and others probably don't. Like that little weird vent on your car. Or the flap on the airplane wing. Or the screwed down panel on the side of the building. Do you care if it was designed by a human or a machine if the car does what it supposed to do? If the plane gets you safely to where you want?)

It's true that we engineers see the world differently. What my nephew calls "a weird candy-cane pipe" is actually the vent for a vacuum break on a large water pipeline, and he has no idea the amount of pain and frustration I had to go through to make sure it was properly sized and placed. The people who use that water line probably have no idea what it's for, either...they probably only see an eyesore that they have to mow around. But I didn't place it there because I was making a statement or decorating the side of the road...I put it there to keep the pipe from collapsing. It's shaped that way to keep rainwater from falling in, and to keep debris from getting sucked upward when it activates. It might be interesting to look at and talk about, but it's not "art."

I call this piece, "Iron Candy Cane," a study in shapes and textures that
truly defines the struggle of industry against lawnmowers and... um,
bicycle traffic...also something about contrast?

See, this just argues that the problem with generative AI is the people looking at and evaluating it, not the image itself. Perhaps the sub-text of rampant capitalism juxtaposed by the environmental crisis is just made up. Just part of a 'language' that artists have built to communicate in secret code to each other. Perhaps the ignorance and failure to speak in such secret code by AI is just fine for those of us who do not speak that language.

This is an argument as old as photography. Is art the image? or is art the person looking at it? I doubt this will be resolved anytime soon, and AI isn't going to help. But speaking only for myself: I think it's an overstatement to say that the general public doesn't care about artistic expression, and I think it's lazy to assume that artists are all pretentious elitists who can't/won't communicate with non-artists.

Also, and still just speaking for myself here: I think AI is being promoted by large corporations because it lends itself so well to the generation of corporate logos, product ads, and ad copy. If corporations are people, as I've heard them described, then I think they are the sort of "people" who would most appreciate AI-generated materials.

One monkey, three minutes: free company logo for a pencil sharpening app that I just made up.

 

[Lanefan]

The fact is there is no evidence that AI art creation is anything like human art creation.

AI doesn't think, it doesn't understand, it simply blindly regurgitates whatever is prompted.

Other than the costs and time involved, what is the difference between me asking an artist to produce a picture containing X-Y-Z elements and me asking a computer to do the same?

In either case, the producer of the art is merely (I hope!) putting out roughly what I asked for.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, it is. The connectivity and action in an AI "neural network" is only inspired by that in the human brain - in actual implementation, the machine and the human are very different in their architecture, activity, and function.

The AI "neurons" are not, and are not intended to be, exact models for human neurons. The AI neurons are much simpler in design, function, and overall flexibility. They are not assembled in anything like the overall formation of the human brain.

The key unwritten word in there being "yet".

This tech is still in its infancy. Give it 20 years of both hardware and software advances and it may well be much closer to brain-function modelling.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is just one layer of a complicated problem. You are absolutely right: many people are only interested in the image itself, not any meaning or intent behind it. And that, in itself, can also be a type of expression. Art is subjective, and interpretations and appreciations vary across the medium....but can a computer also be subjective and meaningful? or is it always going to be just an image? and does/will/should the consumer even care one way or the other?

View attachment 367308
"Mmm, yes, bold application over non-traditional media.
Very assertive, forceful yet passive. What is this piece called?"

I chose abstract expressionism to make my point because it's so divisive, even in the art community. But my point stands across all types of visual art, from avant garde photography to, I dunno, watercolor cubism or what have you.


It's true that we engineers see the world differently. What my nephew calls "a weird candy-cane pipe" is actually the vent for a vacuum break on a large water pipeline, and he has no idea the amount of pain and frustration I had to go through to make sure it was properly sized and placed. The people who use that water line probably have no idea what it's for, either...they probably only see an eyesore that they have to mow around. But I didn't place it there because I was making a statement or decorating the side of the road...I put it there to keep the pipe from collapsing. It might be interesting to look at and talk about, but it's not "art."

View attachment 367302
I call this piece, "Iron Candy Cane," a study in shapes and textures that
truly defines the struggle of industry against lawnmowers and
bicycle traffic....


This is an argument as old as photography. Is art the image? or is art the person looking at it? I doubt this will be resolved anytime soon, and AI isn't going to help. But speaking only for myself: I think it's an overstatement to say that the general public doesn't care about artistic expression, and I think it's lazy to assume that artists are all pretentious elitists who can't/won't communicate with non-artists.

Also, and still just speaking for myself here: I think AI is being promoted by large corporations because it lends itself so well to the generation of corporate logos, product ads, and ad copy. If corporations are people, as I've heard them described, then I think they are the sort of "people" who would most appreciate AI-generated materials.
View attachment 367305
One monkey, three minutes: free company logo for a pencil sharpening app.

I believe a lot of people, maybe most of them, care more about getting what they want with as little outlay as possible than about where it comes from or whether or not it was made by a human.

 

[CleverNickName]

I believe a lot of people, maybe most of them, care more about getting what they want with as little outlay as possible than about where it comes from or whether or not it was made by a human.

I agree. The larger (or smaller? more interesting?) question is, will that be the difference between an image and a piece of art?

 

[Swanosaurus]

Other than the costs and time involved, what is the difference between me asking an artist to produce a picture containing X-Y-Z elements and me asking a computer to do the same?

In either case, the producer of the art is merely (I hope!) putting out roughly what I asked for.

The difference is that the artist is a human being - they can choose to refuse your request or fulfill it, they can and have to take responsibility for their actions and, as human beings, have moral and legal rights applicable to their work.

 

[Lanefan]

If you show me two similar images side-by-side, both painted by the same human in the same style, and then tell me "the one on the left was created by AI," my appreciation will be greatly diminished for the one on the left. (I don't know what this says about me or my training, but I doubt I'm the only one who feels this way.) Sure, I can still appreciate it for what it is, and say "yes, that's a picture of a bird sitting on an apple" but as soon as I suspect it was created by AI, I will no longer be able to think "hmm, that was a really creative decision to use an endangered lark perched on an apple with the supermarket price tag still attached, what a great juxtaposition of rampant consumerism with the current environmental crisis." The AI-generated image will never be more than just an image. A good image, sure, maybe even a realistic one--but only just an image.

I don't think most people (including me) put nearly that amount of extra thought into it when looking at a piece of image art. Most of the time, all that matters is the image itself - it's a bird on an apple, that's cool, what's the next image? - and whether it was made by a world-famous artist or by some random hobbyist or by a computer matters not.

 

[Von Corellon]

I call this piece, "Iron Candy Cane,"

Pretty sure I opened for Iron Candy Cane back in the ‘90s

 

[CleverNickName]

Pretty sure I opened for Iron Candy Cane back in the ‘90s

I bet that with just one intern and thirty minutes, you could crank out a fake band called "Iron Candy Cane," complete with ten heavy-metal Christmas songs, lyrics, and an album cover.

Hm. The scary thing is, that's not even an exaggeration.

If you do, let me know...I'll sign it to my brand-new record label, CleverRecords.