Not every piece of art you don't like was made by AI

[MNblockhead]

This is not an insurmountable problem. You already have stock image platforms where artists have some options to set the terms and prices of their art. Add an option to allow that art to be used by AI and they get a small payment every time an AI-generated image was created based on training on their art. The payment would have to be tiny, and the artist would be betting on volume. This would also require people using the AI to generate art is paying for that service. Photocopiers didn't kill the book market. Cassette records, music sharing, and streaming didn't kill the music industry. These industries were challenged and changed, and there was a chaotic period of litigation, legislation, and innovation, but those with financial interests in these industries found ways to work with and make money from the technological innovations they were first threatened by.

My main concern is that when it comes to art and photography, I don't think of there being massive industries with the financial clout that the music, movie, TV, and even publishing industries have. But news media, publishing houses, TV and movies studios are also going to be affected by AI. Hopefully artists creating digital images and photographs will benefit from the inevitable legal challenges and legislation.

I also think that artists can legitimately use GAI in their work ethically. For example, if an artist or artist collab uses Retrieval Augmented Generation, where they train an AI on only art they created, what is the ethical issue with them using the results of GAI art trained on their own art?

 

[Umbran]

Yes but then I don't get a free to use tool that puts many artists to shame... /s

I am not a fan of using "shame" as an indicator of quality. Like, armchair art critics saying artists should be ashamed for not being good? That's pretty low.

I am not concerned with armchair critics not getting free tools, either.

 

[ART!]

People with eyes+brain that have been trained to scrutinize and analyze art (and imagery in general) will be better at spotting these things than those whose eyes+brain are not trained that way.

I mean, there are people who can't tell the difference between a tv with the motion-smoothing turned on and the same tv with it turned off, and then there are people who can't not see the difference. There are people who can have a conversation about how this frame brings out the warmer tones in this piece of art, and others who can't see that at all and have no idea what they're talking about.

 

[Rabulias]

You know, it's funny. Of the three full-page illustrations in or on that book, the front cover is endlessly parodied and iconic in an age when that word is vastly overused, the paladin in hell was famous enough to make its own module, and that one...well, you never heard about it.

There was an homage to it in the remastered AD&D 2nd edition PHB:

 

[Reynard]

There was an homage to it in the remastered AD&D 2nd edition PHB:

View attachment 350308

Man, the art in those books was bad.

 

[Rabulias]

Man, the art in those books was bad.

I make no assertion about the quality, just that the reference exists.

 

[ART!]

Won't be long before we accuse every piece of art that's too good of being made by AI.

There was a Kickstarter project recently that piqued my interest, in part because the art looked amazing. And then I looked at the art a little closer and it seemed almost too good. Everything looked right, technically, but having looked at a lot of art that I know was AI generated I think my brain was noticing something I couldn't articulate. Something seemed odd about it. Then I checked the project's AI statement, and sure enough the art was AI-generated and AI-enhanced.

(Because of that, I didn't back the project)

So, sometimes art that does look "too good" is made by AI.

AI is becoming so integrated into technology that if you take an all-or-nothing stance, at some point it seems all digital art itself has to be called into question. Is there not legitimate use of AI tools by artists that is acceptable?

I would argue "no".

The history of art is full of artists who were good at some aspects of their craft but not good at others, and many of them leaned into what they were good at and made their weaknesses into strengths.

Using AI to improve or enhance one's art just feels lame to me. Instead, put the work in to figure out your style.

Now, having said that, an English teacher friend of mine pointed out that some of his students use things like ChatGPT to write their papers, and he can always tell when they have. But some of his students use it to learn how to write better: they see the things ChatGPT has changed or otherwise pointed out, then they go through and re-write, and maybe do that a couple times. Those students get better at writing.

Is there a use of AI that would be like this for visual artists? Maybe - I honestly don't know.

Maybe you could run your original art through an AI and see what it changes, and then go back to your work and retool it yourself.

But in these examples, you're not having AI do the work, you're using it as a learning tool. That seems fine to me...?

 

[Reynard]

I would argue "no".

The history of art is full of artists who were good at some aspects of their craft but not good at others, and many of them leaned into what they were good at and made their weaknesses into strengths.

How do you feel about people using programs to dilter their photography, or even creating digital art at all? After all, why doesn't the photographer just get better at lighting? Why doesn't the artist learn to pain better?

 

[ART!]

How do you feel about people using programs to dilter their photography, or even creating digital art at all? After all, why doesn't the photographer just get better at lighting? Why doesn't the artist learn to pain better?

A photographer should definitely get better at lighting. A painter should definitely get better at painting. Unless they...don't want to get better?

"Creating" is the key, I think. Is the artist doing the creative work? An artists working with an Apple Pen in Photoshop on an iPad is doing the creating, although there are now tools in Photoshop that cross the line into the "is the artist doing the creating here?" territory.

 

[Reynard]

A photographer should definitely get better at lighting. A painter should definitely get better at painting. Unless they...don't want to get better?

"Creating" is the key, I think. Is the artist doing the creative work? An artists working with an Apple Pen in Photoshop on an iPad is doing the creating, although there are now tools in Photoshop that cross the line into the "is the artist doing the creating here?" territory.

I think the ultimate result of the generative AI is going to be more that kind of tool use. The more input a user has and the more they can tell the model to make specific changes, the more the user becomes the artist.