FA+
Shop
AI is currently the biggest threat to art and creativity
3 years ago
Actually, I'm not someone who does journals or does activism. And I know that I might make myself unpopular with many by doing so. But lately I see more and more people using AI art "tools" and publishing their work online. Among them are also well-known artists of the fandom. Still other artists are critical of these developments. In this journal, I mainly want to educate why these AI tools are detrimental to creativity and the art scene in the longer term, and to educate about their risks and harms.
Everyone is affected by this issue: People who look at art, drawers, painters, 3D artists, animators, music artists and on. Everyone should at least think about it and reflect. If even one person at least thinks about it, I have already fulfilled my goal with my limited reach. And small forewarning: This is a very emotional topic for me and others, so I apologize in advance if I should have made someone sad with it.
If you prefer an opinion of an experienced artist, you can watch the following video about it: https://youtu.be/tjSxFAGP9Ss
I think the situation is very well described there and the arguments are solid.
What are art AIs and how do they work?
With art AIs, artwork can be created in seconds - if you have the computing power. Well, the artworks are not quite perfected yet and the works often look strange and "smeared". Nevertheless, they are impressive works and certainly impressive technology.
The technology is very interesting: For an AI to know what certain objects look like, it needs data, huge amounts of data. And these huge data sets consist of, you guessed it, artworks by other artists. This is where it starts to get problematic. Because this data consists mostly of artworks of other artists, which were fed into the machine without permission of the respective artists. Many images that were used there, you would not even be allowed to post on your site or something similar, but AI companies care very little.
Because no one who works for these companies is interested in art, nor has made art himself. Because the artists are indifferent to these people, otherwise they would not do that. These images are recognized and mixed/deformed/colored until a new different image is created. With some generators you can even see in small places how the picture was composed from other pictures (In this video among other things to see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRhzK1KNd6s ). However, brush strokes, shading and other minor things from the original image are preserved. While it will be impossible or difficult in quantity to attribute these details to an artist, it has happened that real artwork by artists has been falsely labeled as AI art. What might be the reason for that? Well known artists are known and their works are often fed into the datasets. Since I don't want to drag these artists into this, I'll keep them anonymous here.
Fact is, works of other artists are used without consent to train an AI.
Another question would be: Is this art at all?
Quote Wikipedia: "Art is a human cultural product, the result of a creative process.[5] The work of art usually stands at the end of this process, but can also be the process or the procedure itself. Like art as a whole, the work of art itself is characterized by the interaction of content and form.[6] Practitioners of art in the narrow sense are called artists.
The original meaning of the term art was applied to all products of human labor (cf. artistry) as a contrast to nature, which is evident, for example, in plastics, artificial nutrition, artificial flavor, artificial intelligence."
Quote from: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunst [Translated]
Whether AI art is actually art is debatable. But the fact is that AI art takes real existing works of art and reproduces them "simply" mixed 1:1. A real artist however creates from e.g. a reference new. And even if the artist doesn't try hard, he will never reproduce the image 1:1 as an AI does for example. Moreover, I doubt that persons can express or identify with an AI, because an AI acts randomly. Meaning: the user of the AI application enters terms and possibly gives information about the arrangement, characters and color. However, an AI will always create a random work from this, based on already existing artwork. The AI anticipates all of the user's imagination. The AI will not create personalized works of e.g. a fursona, like you would get from a commission. The AI will put more of a result in front of you. The art was not created by a soul who had something in mind. AI art is created from a data set that pretends to have soul or feelings, or copied from other works. That's why AI images often seem so cold and strange.
That's why I say: No, AI art is not art for me.
Why are AIs dangerous to artists?
As mentioned earlier, AI art consists of stitched-together images of real-world datasets. In the future, users can have an image created to their liking in seconds. Think about it, everyone can do whatever they want at once without having learned art or rules of art just once.
Better yet, someone could feed AI your data and make artwork in your style. So why would humans need commission artists at all? And why would companies hire designers and concept artists when they could create anything with enough computing power and in one click, in seconds?! Yes many artists, designers and photographers will be unemployed as a result. Meanwhile, the AI companies are rubbing their hands together as they are likely to make enough money from businesses with a subscription service.
But I don't earn my money through art, I make art because I enjoy it. And yet it puts me at risk. Because art sites and art portals can be flooded with mass-produced AI-generated art.
Are you a young artist, did you dream of one day doing something or keeping up with the big guys? Have you always wanted to create a comic and make other people happy?
Then your dream will never come true. You can be happy if in the future a person discovers your art in this mass. Why would even one person be interested in your art that might be at an advanced level? People can see better AI art all over the site and if not, they just create some in seconds. Why would anyone still be motivated to make art if they get no recognition, no one comments or like/upvote, and no one cares about the art?
It boils down to the fact that art will die out. Sooner or later, everyone will lose the fun of drawing something by hand and that would be a terrible pity.
As a Watcher, why should I care?
"I don't care about the artists, because I just want to see art, no matter who created it." Yes, people are so selfish. However, there are problems for art connoisseurs as well. If you take a look at AI art, you realize it's kind of always the same. Completely clean shading, always almost the same art style. Nothing really special. And on top of that, you'll probably see a phenomenon that you often notice with particularly rich people. People lose the desire. Because if you can buy everything, then you first have terrible fun. But at some point you lose the desire. There is nothing more to look forward to, because you can just buy everything yourself quickly. There's no more anticipation and no more surprises. And this effect will also happen with AI art.
Example: a real artist announces a painting. The user reading this, however, can't wait and creates a similar painting quickly with AI. The user might enjoy it for a few seconds and create different variations of it. And when the artist finally presents the image, one is either disappointed because the AI has created better images or disappointed because the AI has already created similar images and one has somehow already seen the image through that.
What I'm saying is that AI art is causing stagnation in the creative world because now everything can be created instantly. Why have quality when you can have quantity?
Quote: "AI art is only a tool and will not replace the artist".
I love this argument, used especially on Reddit by the SD community, because it's bullshit. A hammer is a tool, A screwdriver is a tool, and so on. Imagine you work on an assembly line screwing Teslas together. You get pliers to remove batteries from e-cigarettes and install them into the battery of the Tesla. You get a rubber mallet because the body is dented in one spot, you get a net to remove all the steel balls from the shop, etc. In short, you get the tasks and the tools make it easier. Now a Teslabot comes and does your work now and can even do fun Fortnite dances while doing it. Elon gives you a kitchen sink and sends you home for good. Is this robot, a tool? No, because he now does your work and has made you useless. So he is a replacement. Do you understand the difference?
Quote: "But I can use AI for backgrounds, for example, then that's a tool!"
Yes, you can do that. But keep in mind: every time you use the AI or feed it with your data, it "learns". It gets better and better and becomes a greater threat to your existence and that of others. Every image you read in is used to make the AI even better. And to promote self-made images that contain AI art is not that clever, but to improve the AI yourself is stupid.
Quote, "Aren't you exaggerating a bit?"
I know that AI is still underestimated by many. The scary thing, however, is that creative content was actually considered non-automatable. Until now, people were sure that technology could only automate strongly logical processes. This means that there is now one less "hurdle" and art, music and speech are only perhaps the beginning. Perhaps many more jobs will be at risk in the future. As I said, big companies don't care about their workers, so why should they care? I also honestly don't know why people are hyping this so much, considering all the work AIs do is built on the involuntary work of real artists. Imagine a future where you always have to research whether the artist even did the work themselves or just had it generated via an AI.
Speaking of jobs in jeopardy, parts of the design industry are already in turmoil, at least judging by designers' reactions to these issues. When AI design came out, people talked about how incredibly new and fresh it was. Cosmopolitan even had an AI image on the cover of one of their magazines. One person entered a precise description into the AI generator and out came the cover image. But couldn't he have given that description to a designer? I think that AI design and art looks so "fresh" and different because it breaks certain rules. AI product design looks interesting, but doesn't seem very practical. AI art also looks interesting, but many rules, especially in composition, were not followed. I think this actually affects the art negatively. In addition, many of the AI-"art"-works always look the same, which certainly also has to do with the lack of creativity of the users.
The future of art
For artists to have any chance at all on the job market, they will have to work cheaper than their AI competitors, which will be difficult.
Nevertheless, it is possible. The textile industry, for example, was the first to be infiltrated by machines. At that time, cheap clothing could be produced quickly in England. But there was a change. Nowadays, clothes are mostly still sewn by hand...
...in Indian or Chinese sweat stores for a pittance under disastrous working conditions. Because such workers are simply cheaper than machines and their maintenance costs. Maybe our art and concept art will soon be produced in such sweat stores, I mean, the working conditions of some concept artists are already really bad, especially when I look in the direction of Blizzard. Is this really the future?
But what actually happens to the laid-off workers? SD says: "They have to reorient themselves and look for other jobs!"
Now, however, relatively many become unemployed. Some of them can't afford to be unemployed even for a short time. On Twitter, for example, are among others artists who need donations to pay their rent in these hard times. Maybe more jobs will be automated away, maybe there will not be enough jobs and if there are, then some in the low-wage sector.
Quote: "That's just progress!"
It sounds like progress, but is it?
Definition: "positively valued advancement; attainment of a higher stage of development.
"rapid, astonishing, tangible progress"
" [Source: Oxford Languages, Translated.]
But is this development positive or advancing?
Let's assume that AI replaces the art scene as of today.
Millions of people become unemployed, but there is cheap art in abundance. Millions of users use these AI applications to create art. There will be an unprecedented amount of data and already today humanity is producing too much data. This is an amount of data that is looked at once and then rots on some PC. People shy away from making art because too much work, it's easier and faster with AI. Art becomes a stagnant homogeneous mass because there are no new ideas and considerations. Where is the progress there. We have mass unemployment in the creative scene, "gray" art and huge amounts of data garbage.
Another example: Amazon wanted cages to confine their workers during work. Thus, they should work more effectively and take fewer breaks. Amazon also wanted to monitor and minimize breaks. (Source: https://www.seattletimes.com/busine.....op-of-a-robot/)
Now that's progress! Everyone likes packages from Amazon, so now everyone gets packages from Amazon even faster (especially when it's on fire). So that's not ok, but replacing people and using their own works for that among others is ok?
Moreover, one should not compare this with an assembly line job. Because the artists have fun with their projects, they like to do it, they have made their hobby into a profession, there are celebrities in this field. Assembly line jobs, on the other hand, are monotonous and often boring.
Quote: "You just don't like AIs!"
AIs are a good development. If they are used correctly, they can become important tools. For example, DeepL or automatic spell checkers in text programs or messengers. These are actually tools because if I didn't have a translator program with AI, for example, then I wouldn't have gotten an English teacher and looked up the words in a dictionary instead. So this AI technology doesn't replace jobs because it's actually a tool as opposed to AI art.
Generally automating jobs is actually dumb in concept. Because people have to work somewhere and if there are not enough jobs, or not enough jobs in the respective salary and education class, there will be unemployment. One should ask oneself, does it make sense to let a production run faster? Is the demand really that great? Are there really so many people who need a car now, for example, and would buy it at full price? Production by automation only makes sense if the demand is strongly steady and the current production cannot cover this demand. And besides, the good should also be important for the general public. In the case of art, there is great demand, but great demand for a variety of art. The need we need to look at here is the need for personalized art and this is actually well met by commission artists. Moreover, personalized art is not an essential commodity, that is, it is not a commodity that clients need to live better or survive. Personalized art is a luxury good, but artists need this work to survive and exist. So logically it makes little sense to automate this work.
Quote, "There will always be people who buy commissions."
This is an assumption I have also heard many times. This assumption is that people with the money will always buy commissions and only those who cannot afford commissions will switch to AI. However, should one rely on this? Let's assume that is the case. But then this would be the last straw, the last method of financing for artists. But if you're wrong, and there won't be these people, then artists won't be able to finance themselves through this. Of course, there would still be Patreon, but if you get everything for free through an AI anyway, why should you still become Patreon. Sure, there are people who want to support artists, but most Patreon users are there for the benefits. Also, the pandemic and inflation have made people have less money to spend on commissions, for example. Many will therefore have a taste for free AIs.
In addition, one should also think of artists in the industry. Take concept artists, for example. Blizzard, for example, has massively fired employees despite a good year in order to maximize profits. (Source: https://www.engadget.com/2019-02-12.....9-d3gi0jrX_w6T )
Why would they hire artists at all if a computer could do everything for them?
It will simply be difficult for artists to finance themselves in the future. And especially in those times, it's better not to rely on an assumption.
Quote: "AI remains free!"
The majority of AIs are created by companies. Some of them are non-profit. However, behind many of the companies there are profit-oriented companies, which is somehow suspicious. My guess, and it's just a guess, is that non-profit companies are setting up additional companies to avoid getting in trouble for copyright infringement.
One boss of an AI company was even a former hedge fund manager. I think that says a lot about these companies.
However, the companies naturally want to make a profit at some point. Because without would be pointless. I suspect that expensive subscription models will appear later. And anyone who thinks AIs will remain free has probably not understood capitalism.
Personal words: "Are the artists really worth so little to you?"
I love the fandom. I looked up to my great idols back then and wanted/want to be just as good and it's a real shame that future generations might not be interested in this craft anymore. The developers of these algorithms don't give a shit about the artists, you won't find anything about artists on any of their advertising pages. People who use and spread such algorithms and develop them further with their use are stabbing a knife in the back of the artists who built this fandom. It's a pity that even some of my idols are positively interested in these algorithms and don't even think about it critically at least once. Maybe they will notice something if someone uses their artworks as a data base for AI and claims the results. Because some AI creations today already look very suspiciously like art styles of other artists. Artists should be rightly angry at these programs! I find it sad that so many have forgotten how to think critically.
I mean, there are people who post something like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/furry_irl/.....yu/update_irl/.
(And something like this gets 2.5k upvotes...)
And really, can't you even make a little effort? Anyone can learn to draw and if you're already too lazy for that, you'll be even lazier with the AI generation of images! I honestly find this development really sad.
Further developments
Other AIs are already being worked on. Dance Diffusion, for example, is supposed to do something similar with music. Amazon is working on an AI that remembers your voice and can talk like you or your friends/family. I mean, after all, who doesn't want to have commercials read to them by their dead grandma? (Source: https://www.zdnet.com/article/amazo.....eased-grandma/ ) AI is already being used to fake people on social networks. Maybe someone knows about the Twitter spam bots.
AI is a development that absolutely must be regulated. For the good of workers, data protection and copyright.
What can I do?
Don't use these programs, don't spread them by paying attention to them, and don't treat them like real art. As harsh as it may sound. But this is the only way to prevent a dystopia in the art world. Think of the people who made the art world great. Think of all the animators and game developers. With every training of the AI by using it, the art world goes one step further towards the abyss...
What can I do as an artist?
Get mad at these algorithms and show that you are better than an AI. Don't use them as a "tool", you are better than that. Show users that they are not better than people who can operate Google. (So by doing and not verbally).
If any people claim that an AI would be better than an artist in any way, don't ignore them, respond and argue. Convince them, show that they are wrong and fight for your existence. And if people don't change their minds, at least you have publicly shown that they are wrong. Every time you ignore it, the problem gets bigger. Do not avoid conflicts, but convince with arguments.
And learn to argue.
Stay strong, get closer together and don't let this development get you down. You will face perhaps the greatest challenge in the history of art. I love every artist who still does his work himself and puts effort into his works.
Conclusion
AIs are an exciting development, but you should be careful what you use them for. AIs can help humanity, develop it and make things much easier and faster. However, one should be careful what one uses them for. If used in a wrong or greedy way, it can change existences, our society or essential things in a very negative way or even destroy them. Regulations are needed, but we cannot rely on them. People whom it affects or could affect should act. In general, we should be more critical of new technology instead of simply embracing it.
We will see how this develops in the future and I will then come back to this letter. I also do not want to impose responsibility or action on you. After all, it is always allowed to contribute other opinions on the subject, or experiences, after all, there is freedom of speech. But please do not argue with arguments that have already been sufficiently refuted in the text.
If you want to see a very good video on the subject from an experienced artist, I can recommend this one: https://youtu.be/tjSxFAGP9Ss
PS: Remember: Genesys is Skynet.
And Happy Halloween.
Everyone is affected by this issue: People who look at art, drawers, painters, 3D artists, animators, music artists and on. Everyone should at least think about it and reflect. If even one person at least thinks about it, I have already fulfilled my goal with my limited reach. And small forewarning: This is a very emotional topic for me and others, so I apologize in advance if I should have made someone sad with it.
If you prefer an opinion of an experienced artist, you can watch the following video about it: https://youtu.be/tjSxFAGP9Ss
I think the situation is very well described there and the arguments are solid.
What are art AIs and how do they work?
With art AIs, artwork can be created in seconds - if you have the computing power. Well, the artworks are not quite perfected yet and the works often look strange and "smeared". Nevertheless, they are impressive works and certainly impressive technology.
The technology is very interesting: For an AI to know what certain objects look like, it needs data, huge amounts of data. And these huge data sets consist of, you guessed it, artworks by other artists. This is where it starts to get problematic. Because this data consists mostly of artworks of other artists, which were fed into the machine without permission of the respective artists. Many images that were used there, you would not even be allowed to post on your site or something similar, but AI companies care very little.
Because no one who works for these companies is interested in art, nor has made art himself. Because the artists are indifferent to these people, otherwise they would not do that. These images are recognized and mixed/deformed/colored until a new different image is created. With some generators you can even see in small places how the picture was composed from other pictures (In this video among other things to see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRhzK1KNd6s ). However, brush strokes, shading and other minor things from the original image are preserved. While it will be impossible or difficult in quantity to attribute these details to an artist, it has happened that real artwork by artists has been falsely labeled as AI art. What might be the reason for that? Well known artists are known and their works are often fed into the datasets. Since I don't want to drag these artists into this, I'll keep them anonymous here.
Fact is, works of other artists are used without consent to train an AI.
Another question would be: Is this art at all?
Quote Wikipedia: "Art is a human cultural product, the result of a creative process.[5] The work of art usually stands at the end of this process, but can also be the process or the procedure itself. Like art as a whole, the work of art itself is characterized by the interaction of content and form.[6] Practitioners of art in the narrow sense are called artists.
The original meaning of the term art was applied to all products of human labor (cf. artistry) as a contrast to nature, which is evident, for example, in plastics, artificial nutrition, artificial flavor, artificial intelligence."
Quote from: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunst [Translated]
Whether AI art is actually art is debatable. But the fact is that AI art takes real existing works of art and reproduces them "simply" mixed 1:1. A real artist however creates from e.g. a reference new. And even if the artist doesn't try hard, he will never reproduce the image 1:1 as an AI does for example. Moreover, I doubt that persons can express or identify with an AI, because an AI acts randomly. Meaning: the user of the AI application enters terms and possibly gives information about the arrangement, characters and color. However, an AI will always create a random work from this, based on already existing artwork. The AI anticipates all of the user's imagination. The AI will not create personalized works of e.g. a fursona, like you would get from a commission. The AI will put more of a result in front of you. The art was not created by a soul who had something in mind. AI art is created from a data set that pretends to have soul or feelings, or copied from other works. That's why AI images often seem so cold and strange.
That's why I say: No, AI art is not art for me.
Why are AIs dangerous to artists?
As mentioned earlier, AI art consists of stitched-together images of real-world datasets. In the future, users can have an image created to their liking in seconds. Think about it, everyone can do whatever they want at once without having learned art or rules of art just once.
Better yet, someone could feed AI your data and make artwork in your style. So why would humans need commission artists at all? And why would companies hire designers and concept artists when they could create anything with enough computing power and in one click, in seconds?! Yes many artists, designers and photographers will be unemployed as a result. Meanwhile, the AI companies are rubbing their hands together as they are likely to make enough money from businesses with a subscription service.
But I don't earn my money through art, I make art because I enjoy it. And yet it puts me at risk. Because art sites and art portals can be flooded with mass-produced AI-generated art.
Are you a young artist, did you dream of one day doing something or keeping up with the big guys? Have you always wanted to create a comic and make other people happy?
Then your dream will never come true. You can be happy if in the future a person discovers your art in this mass. Why would even one person be interested in your art that might be at an advanced level? People can see better AI art all over the site and if not, they just create some in seconds. Why would anyone still be motivated to make art if they get no recognition, no one comments or like/upvote, and no one cares about the art?
It boils down to the fact that art will die out. Sooner or later, everyone will lose the fun of drawing something by hand and that would be a terrible pity.
As a Watcher, why should I care?
"I don't care about the artists, because I just want to see art, no matter who created it." Yes, people are so selfish. However, there are problems for art connoisseurs as well. If you take a look at AI art, you realize it's kind of always the same. Completely clean shading, always almost the same art style. Nothing really special. And on top of that, you'll probably see a phenomenon that you often notice with particularly rich people. People lose the desire. Because if you can buy everything, then you first have terrible fun. But at some point you lose the desire. There is nothing more to look forward to, because you can just buy everything yourself quickly. There's no more anticipation and no more surprises. And this effect will also happen with AI art.
Example: a real artist announces a painting. The user reading this, however, can't wait and creates a similar painting quickly with AI. The user might enjoy it for a few seconds and create different variations of it. And when the artist finally presents the image, one is either disappointed because the AI has created better images or disappointed because the AI has already created similar images and one has somehow already seen the image through that.
What I'm saying is that AI art is causing stagnation in the creative world because now everything can be created instantly. Why have quality when you can have quantity?
Quote: "AI art is only a tool and will not replace the artist".
I love this argument, used especially on Reddit by the SD community, because it's bullshit. A hammer is a tool, A screwdriver is a tool, and so on. Imagine you work on an assembly line screwing Teslas together. You get pliers to remove batteries from e-cigarettes and install them into the battery of the Tesla. You get a rubber mallet because the body is dented in one spot, you get a net to remove all the steel balls from the shop, etc. In short, you get the tasks and the tools make it easier. Now a Teslabot comes and does your work now and can even do fun Fortnite dances while doing it. Elon gives you a kitchen sink and sends you home for good. Is this robot, a tool? No, because he now does your work and has made you useless. So he is a replacement. Do you understand the difference?
Quote: "But I can use AI for backgrounds, for example, then that's a tool!"
Yes, you can do that. But keep in mind: every time you use the AI or feed it with your data, it "learns". It gets better and better and becomes a greater threat to your existence and that of others. Every image you read in is used to make the AI even better. And to promote self-made images that contain AI art is not that clever, but to improve the AI yourself is stupid.
Quote, "Aren't you exaggerating a bit?"
I know that AI is still underestimated by many. The scary thing, however, is that creative content was actually considered non-automatable. Until now, people were sure that technology could only automate strongly logical processes. This means that there is now one less "hurdle" and art, music and speech are only perhaps the beginning. Perhaps many more jobs will be at risk in the future. As I said, big companies don't care about their workers, so why should they care? I also honestly don't know why people are hyping this so much, considering all the work AIs do is built on the involuntary work of real artists. Imagine a future where you always have to research whether the artist even did the work themselves or just had it generated via an AI.
Speaking of jobs in jeopardy, parts of the design industry are already in turmoil, at least judging by designers' reactions to these issues. When AI design came out, people talked about how incredibly new and fresh it was. Cosmopolitan even had an AI image on the cover of one of their magazines. One person entered a precise description into the AI generator and out came the cover image. But couldn't he have given that description to a designer? I think that AI design and art looks so "fresh" and different because it breaks certain rules. AI product design looks interesting, but doesn't seem very practical. AI art also looks interesting, but many rules, especially in composition, were not followed. I think this actually affects the art negatively. In addition, many of the AI-"art"-works always look the same, which certainly also has to do with the lack of creativity of the users.
The future of art
For artists to have any chance at all on the job market, they will have to work cheaper than their AI competitors, which will be difficult.
Nevertheless, it is possible. The textile industry, for example, was the first to be infiltrated by machines. At that time, cheap clothing could be produced quickly in England. But there was a change. Nowadays, clothes are mostly still sewn by hand...
...in Indian or Chinese sweat stores for a pittance under disastrous working conditions. Because such workers are simply cheaper than machines and their maintenance costs. Maybe our art and concept art will soon be produced in such sweat stores, I mean, the working conditions of some concept artists are already really bad, especially when I look in the direction of Blizzard. Is this really the future?
But what actually happens to the laid-off workers? SD says: "They have to reorient themselves and look for other jobs!"
Now, however, relatively many become unemployed. Some of them can't afford to be unemployed even for a short time. On Twitter, for example, are among others artists who need donations to pay their rent in these hard times. Maybe more jobs will be automated away, maybe there will not be enough jobs and if there are, then some in the low-wage sector.
Quote: "That's just progress!"
It sounds like progress, but is it?
Definition: "positively valued advancement; attainment of a higher stage of development.
"rapid, astonishing, tangible progress"
" [Source: Oxford Languages, Translated.]
But is this development positive or advancing?
Let's assume that AI replaces the art scene as of today.
Millions of people become unemployed, but there is cheap art in abundance. Millions of users use these AI applications to create art. There will be an unprecedented amount of data and already today humanity is producing too much data. This is an amount of data that is looked at once and then rots on some PC. People shy away from making art because too much work, it's easier and faster with AI. Art becomes a stagnant homogeneous mass because there are no new ideas and considerations. Where is the progress there. We have mass unemployment in the creative scene, "gray" art and huge amounts of data garbage.
Another example: Amazon wanted cages to confine their workers during work. Thus, they should work more effectively and take fewer breaks. Amazon also wanted to monitor and minimize breaks. (Source: https://www.seattletimes.com/busine.....op-of-a-robot/)
Now that's progress! Everyone likes packages from Amazon, so now everyone gets packages from Amazon even faster (especially when it's on fire). So that's not ok, but replacing people and using their own works for that among others is ok?
Moreover, one should not compare this with an assembly line job. Because the artists have fun with their projects, they like to do it, they have made their hobby into a profession, there are celebrities in this field. Assembly line jobs, on the other hand, are monotonous and often boring.
Quote: "You just don't like AIs!"
AIs are a good development. If they are used correctly, they can become important tools. For example, DeepL or automatic spell checkers in text programs or messengers. These are actually tools because if I didn't have a translator program with AI, for example, then I wouldn't have gotten an English teacher and looked up the words in a dictionary instead. So this AI technology doesn't replace jobs because it's actually a tool as opposed to AI art.
Generally automating jobs is actually dumb in concept. Because people have to work somewhere and if there are not enough jobs, or not enough jobs in the respective salary and education class, there will be unemployment. One should ask oneself, does it make sense to let a production run faster? Is the demand really that great? Are there really so many people who need a car now, for example, and would buy it at full price? Production by automation only makes sense if the demand is strongly steady and the current production cannot cover this demand. And besides, the good should also be important for the general public. In the case of art, there is great demand, but great demand for a variety of art. The need we need to look at here is the need for personalized art and this is actually well met by commission artists. Moreover, personalized art is not an essential commodity, that is, it is not a commodity that clients need to live better or survive. Personalized art is a luxury good, but artists need this work to survive and exist. So logically it makes little sense to automate this work.
Quote, "There will always be people who buy commissions."
This is an assumption I have also heard many times. This assumption is that people with the money will always buy commissions and only those who cannot afford commissions will switch to AI. However, should one rely on this? Let's assume that is the case. But then this would be the last straw, the last method of financing for artists. But if you're wrong, and there won't be these people, then artists won't be able to finance themselves through this. Of course, there would still be Patreon, but if you get everything for free through an AI anyway, why should you still become Patreon. Sure, there are people who want to support artists, but most Patreon users are there for the benefits. Also, the pandemic and inflation have made people have less money to spend on commissions, for example. Many will therefore have a taste for free AIs.
In addition, one should also think of artists in the industry. Take concept artists, for example. Blizzard, for example, has massively fired employees despite a good year in order to maximize profits. (Source: https://www.engadget.com/2019-02-12.....9-d3gi0jrX_w6T )
Why would they hire artists at all if a computer could do everything for them?
It will simply be difficult for artists to finance themselves in the future. And especially in those times, it's better not to rely on an assumption.
Quote: "AI remains free!"
The majority of AIs are created by companies. Some of them are non-profit. However, behind many of the companies there are profit-oriented companies, which is somehow suspicious. My guess, and it's just a guess, is that non-profit companies are setting up additional companies to avoid getting in trouble for copyright infringement.
One boss of an AI company was even a former hedge fund manager. I think that says a lot about these companies.
However, the companies naturally want to make a profit at some point. Because without would be pointless. I suspect that expensive subscription models will appear later. And anyone who thinks AIs will remain free has probably not understood capitalism.
Personal words: "Are the artists really worth so little to you?"
I love the fandom. I looked up to my great idols back then and wanted/want to be just as good and it's a real shame that future generations might not be interested in this craft anymore. The developers of these algorithms don't give a shit about the artists, you won't find anything about artists on any of their advertising pages. People who use and spread such algorithms and develop them further with their use are stabbing a knife in the back of the artists who built this fandom. It's a pity that even some of my idols are positively interested in these algorithms and don't even think about it critically at least once. Maybe they will notice something if someone uses their artworks as a data base for AI and claims the results. Because some AI creations today already look very suspiciously like art styles of other artists. Artists should be rightly angry at these programs! I find it sad that so many have forgotten how to think critically.
I mean, there are people who post something like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/furry_irl/.....yu/update_irl/.
(And something like this gets 2.5k upvotes...)
And really, can't you even make a little effort? Anyone can learn to draw and if you're already too lazy for that, you'll be even lazier with the AI generation of images! I honestly find this development really sad.
Further developments
Other AIs are already being worked on. Dance Diffusion, for example, is supposed to do something similar with music. Amazon is working on an AI that remembers your voice and can talk like you or your friends/family. I mean, after all, who doesn't want to have commercials read to them by their dead grandma? (Source: https://www.zdnet.com/article/amazo.....eased-grandma/ ) AI is already being used to fake people on social networks. Maybe someone knows about the Twitter spam bots.
AI is a development that absolutely must be regulated. For the good of workers, data protection and copyright.
What can I do?
Don't use these programs, don't spread them by paying attention to them, and don't treat them like real art. As harsh as it may sound. But this is the only way to prevent a dystopia in the art world. Think of the people who made the art world great. Think of all the animators and game developers. With every training of the AI by using it, the art world goes one step further towards the abyss...
What can I do as an artist?
Get mad at these algorithms and show that you are better than an AI. Don't use them as a "tool", you are better than that. Show users that they are not better than people who can operate Google. (So by doing and not verbally).
If any people claim that an AI would be better than an artist in any way, don't ignore them, respond and argue. Convince them, show that they are wrong and fight for your existence. And if people don't change their minds, at least you have publicly shown that they are wrong. Every time you ignore it, the problem gets bigger. Do not avoid conflicts, but convince with arguments.
And learn to argue.
Stay strong, get closer together and don't let this development get you down. You will face perhaps the greatest challenge in the history of art. I love every artist who still does his work himself and puts effort into his works.
Conclusion
AIs are an exciting development, but you should be careful what you use them for. AIs can help humanity, develop it and make things much easier and faster. However, one should be careful what one uses them for. If used in a wrong or greedy way, it can change existences, our society or essential things in a very negative way or even destroy them. Regulations are needed, but we cannot rely on them. People whom it affects or could affect should act. In general, we should be more critical of new technology instead of simply embracing it.
We will see how this develops in the future and I will then come back to this letter. I also do not want to impose responsibility or action on you. After all, it is always allowed to contribute other opinions on the subject, or experiences, after all, there is freedom of speech. But please do not argue with arguments that have already been sufficiently refuted in the text.
If you want to see a very good video on the subject from an experienced artist, I can recommend this one: https://youtu.be/tjSxFAGP9Ss
PS: Remember: Genesys is Skynet.
And Happy Halloween.
also this kind of topic, reminds me a lot other cases of "replacement" in history, that kinda did, but not at is fullest
For example, that AIs are faster and less expensive overall. However, this harms the workers, as now a machine could very much replace them. Which as noted above is a questionable development.
You're right about the substitution in History.
However, there are other factors. As mentioned, art is a profession and a fun activity that people do because it is or was their hobby and is now their profession. I don't think anyone dreams of being an assembly line worker.
Moreover, art is not a classic assembly line commodity. You don't need three pieces of art a day to survive.
The automotive industry, for example, increased production with automation because there was a huge demand. It's the same with clothing. However, the demand for art is constant, and overall it has even decreased over the centuries.
In my country, for example, studying art is of no use at all, because there are no or relatively few professions in these areas.
Also art does not have to be made by a human with soul/intent, there are world famous art pieces out there that were painted by animals, and they almost all done completely randomly without intent from the animals.
And also the AI art taking our jobs as artists is completely unsubstantiated. We have had automation in all sorts of industries for more then a hundred years and dispite that there is still a demand and thiving industry for hand crafted goods, dispite being technically worse then automation. There will always be a higher value on human made art then AI art.
Alot of these arguements are directly reflecting the same arguments I have seen like 15 years ago about photoshop. Photoshop dispite the people who railed against it didn't kill art, and neither will AI.
Randomness is also not equal to coincidence. Randomness is essential in programs. Without random algorithms, many things would not work. For example, the mersenne twister is important for encryption and browser applications. In many games, the world is randomly generated and AI algorithms also use random algorithms. However, the images are not purely random. In applications like SD one can determine arrangements, color etc.. The more detailed the description, the more accurate the result.
And yes, there will be people who buy real art. But still, many artists will lose most of their income, especially in the digital field. If people can save money, they will.
And I know these are social problems. But aren't all problems social problems?
While I certainly would (and have) rather pay an artist however much for a commission for an (in my case) album cover, it simply wouldn't be a wise way for me to spend my money especially compared to other things I could get from the very same artist. Like when I commissioned a good friend of mine for a piece of album art work, I felt a lot less joy than I did commissioning my sticker pack or gifts for my friends. Because to me it was just a business expense, something I'd rather not spend the money on because I'm only doing it so the check boxes. Infant that was so much the case that I started making my own awful album art because I simply wanted to spend that money on something that'll actually make me happy.
I understand the fear, but not everyone can spend the money to commission artists. Does that mean I think AI art on its own should be allowed on art sharing platforms like here and DA? absolutely not! But I do believe there are a lot of impoverished writers and musician's that would find AI art to be incredibly useful, I know first hand how not being able to find good enough cover art can delay the release of albums.
I would not be disrespecting artists, I'd be doing what I can to express my own art. I can't do much about that, I'm not gonna beg artists to lower prices because that's just plain messed up. And if I'm gonna pay for art, I'm not doing it to fill in a check mark because art is more than that. I've genuinely paused a commission for album artwork (before the artist started work on it of course) and instead used that commission as a gift for two of my friends.
Art should be accessible to all, and if AI art makes it more accessible to become an artist then it deserveres some sort of place in society. Should there be limits? Yes. Should it be encouraged to commission artists when it comes to cover art? Yes. Should it be acceptable for musicians and authors to use AI generated cover art? Yes.
The AI does not lower entry barriers, it will make the artist completely obsolete sooner or later. Please give me an example of where it lowers the barriers to entry.
So, if I understand correctly, you don't want to make album covers or commission them. Because you don't want to spend money on it? ...
You'd rather spend your money on bonus activities and free time.
So you don't want to pay for the work of others that you need for your work?
Isn't that exactly the egosimus I condemn in my letter?
Instead of giving a commission to an artist, you want to use an AI.
Let me explain it to you differently: You make music. Now Diffusion Dance is coming soon, a music AI. Now I say, "I need music!" Instead of going to you and picking something, I'd rather use an AI. That way you go empty, you get less attention because you didn't get the order.
Now you say, "I have a unique style, someone has to want to use it!" Then Diffusion Dance comes along and says, "Look, he has a unique style, let's feed his content into our AI!" And the AI can recreate the style.
That's what's going to happen.
Art is a luxury good. If you need art for your album, then you have to calculate it so that you recoup the cost with the album. And if you offer your albums for free, you have to find another way.
But you're disrespecting artists by using an AI. That is, an AI that takes their work without being asked and creates new ones from it, and artists don't see a single cent from this process.
And if you can't afford art, you can't afford art. If I only have money for a bicycle, I can't afford a Porsche.
ART IS ACCESSIBLE TO ALL, ANYONE CAN LEARN IT!!!!
People are just too lazy to learn it, want to save money and use such a dirty tool, which massively harms the scene because they are stingy assholes who don't want to lift a finger. How little value must one's own works be, to leave its cover to a soulless AI.
Especially you say that smaller creators should use that. But what exactly happens m'then with small artists? They won't get any more orders?
Digital artists are already at a disadvantage because, unlike traditional artists, they can't just sell their work.
They are dependent on commissions.
In the past, people were happy when someone really made an effort, but that joy will probably be a thing of the past.
I also have to choose (because I'm not made of money) between buying cover art (something thay is only there to check a box) and buying gift art (something that makes both me and my friends incredibly happy) I will always choose the latter. It isn't "pay the artist or don't pay the artist" it's "buy something that is there to check a box vs buying something I genuinely think is a better use of my money because it makes my small social circle a better place."
Just because I'm an artist, that doesn't mean I have to spend all of my money on art. Believe it or not I have other interests. I like simracing so I have a gaming PC that I got from a friend for a really good deal and the bare minimum when it comes to decent steering wheel and pedal setups. Yes, I like having fun, yes I like playing games, just because I'm not spending all of my money on you and other artists doesn't mean anything. It just means I'm a person who likes spending their money on things that make me happy which in turn makes my art better. It's okay to buy nice things, I may think buying kink art is a massive waste of money but I'm not gonna push that onto other people.
Art doesn't need passion or soulfulness to be useful. Philosophy of the World by the Shaggs was made because an abusive dad had a fortune teller tell him his daughters would be in a famous rock band. There is zero passion and zero effort shown on that album, yet many great artists (like Frank Zappa) site it as a massive inspiration. It is free from the human need to make something that is well liked because of its lack of effort and care, and because of that it introduced people to new ideas which they can implement into their own art. That's how art works. And even if I agreed with you 100% it still isn't a good argument.
In the end, there are real concerns that need to be talked about. Artists should be able to choose whether or not their art is used for neural networks. I don't think you're intrsted in having a discussion about this, and judging by the way you use reactionary arguments to handwave away many artists struggles I have very little reason to believe otherwise. All you're doing is adding noise, you're not helping artists get the fairest and best deal for them. You and other digital artists are not the only ones struggling, there are other people out there struggling and money more often than not is the biggest reason why. And in the end if you can't acknowledge that, then you are simply blinded by fear which while understable that doesn't mean you are correct or that you are thinking of everyone involved here.
I never said that you have to learn art. You can pick art when you need it.
I don't feel like explaining to you for the nth time why it's bad that you use AI. You're scything everyone, including yourself soon with Diffusion Dance, into the abyss. Because you don't even think minimally about the consequences, but instead behave like an egoist. 200 monetary units is unrealistic, or you've only gone after great artists. You can get smaller commissions for as little as 15-50 monetary units.
No one is forcing you to make a cover. If you don't have money, then just leave the cover off.
Dude, you have just 3 pieces of music on your site.
You want to make people happy with it and not build a business! At least I think so, according to your reasoning.
Why do you need a cover art then?
You can also just make one yourself with an image editor and some no copyright images from the internet.
If you can't afford cover art, then you don't have any. I don't rob stores because I can't afford an item.
You poor, can only afford a cheap steering wheel and pedals :(
Now do not pretend that you are Kenny from South Park!
You are an arrogant child, what screams because he does not get everything for free. You do not care about other people, except your friends.
You bring the same argument over and over again, one could think you are a Fifa developer. Your argument, which is not even an argument for AIs but only an argument for yourself.
Look, I have a program that will replace you:
#include <stdio.h>
int main() {
while(1) {
printf("I have no money, why does no one think of me, the real poor of society. 😢\n");
}
return 0;
}
"It's okay to buy nice things, I may think buying kink art is a massive waste of money but I'm not gonna push that onto other people."
This is really the height!
These evil people complaining (yes, it's not just me) that others steal their art and offer it for free in the form of an AI. How can they complain about it. Just because their future is at stake?!
"It’s an album born of sadness, expressing the feelings of being taken from a normal life to be forced into something you’ve no passion for. Expressing a variety of ideas such as the human condition and the endless dissatisfaction of all our lives, the fear and pain of loosing a pet, and the conflict that can arise from a parent who thinks they know what’s best, which is particular to this band."
(Quote: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCo.....kxP0sTehkU4zxg)
I doubt that you understand neither art nor music properly.
I also think that is the reason why you do not understand the arguments.
Have you ever seen any resistance in your life? Sure you have to make noise, but I haven't even really done that! I posted this letter on my site, not spread it anywhere else. I did not use populist arguments or massively exaggerate anywhere. In the personal part I became briefly personal, that's all!
"But others also have it hard, they have no money".
Stop being such a bitch! Money is not everything, or do you think that all artists on this platform are swimming in money.
As someone who has little money you should know how that feels. And imagine, you are dependent on orders every day, because otherwise you can't pay your rent. Then there is inflation and price increases.
Just because you are too lazy and too uncreative, you don't have to endanger other people's livelihoods.
Maybe you are in the wrong place in the art scene and should rather look for other, more economically oriented interests.
Also I will make sure to put large spacing so you know of my actual opinion here, so you can't possibly glance over it
Corporations should be legally required to ask permission to use art
Art sharing sites such as furaffinity and deviant art should not allow posts that are exclusively AI artwork
It should be heavily encouraged to buy art off of artist, and any sizeable band should be ridiculed for using AI art work instead of buying a commission
Claiming that you made a work created by AI is wrong and a permaban worthy offense
Now either try can atleast pretend to acknowledge what I'm actually saying or keep making yourself look like a fool. I've been very careful to not throw mud, because it accomplises nothing. All you are doing is hurting your own credibility here. I've called your concerns valid, I've never mentioned the future. You are not arguing against me, you're arguing against a straw man. Ironically enough this conversation has helped me come up with more nuanced and thought out opinions about AI art. Not from you convincing me, but from me thinking through my opinions when responding to you. While yes this has been incredibly pointless for you, I'm glad I got something useful out of it. I know, thinking through my opinions when dealing with criticism and other views is very Childish of me. And the name calling and assumptions on my life and art based off of one internet conversation is very grown up of you!
Using an AI is the laziest thing ever. It takes copyrighted works and reproduces them differently but conceptually 1:1. What the user of the AI does is stealing.
"Corporations should be legally required to ask permission to use art".
But that's exactly what they get around with an AI!
I'm afraid I still don't know what you're trying to tell me.
The encapsulated points are against AI and whereas the head and tail points are for AI. You may have slightly supported my concerns, but immediately afterwards you started to put forward crude theories. According to the motto: "Yes, AI is questionable, but I'm allowed to use it because I'm a small artist and therefore don't have any money."
But you never addressed the point that you are harming other artists just by training Ai. It was all about you, you and you.
You can also express creative ideas with other ideas than drawing.
What I want to say is: If you can't cook, you can't prepare a 3-star menu.
But if you want to eat a 3-star menu, you either have to learn how to cook or order one in a restaurant for money.
You don't get what you want just because you want it. There should be no detours, especially not when I am harming others.
But you know what a strawman is?
You repeated a point over and over again.
Of course I was ridiculing your points because they were just ridiculous.
You didn't even understand the meaning of a song you gave me as an example for your argument.
You argued that you don't have any money, but you really want something.
And then you came up with this steering wheel story, I thought you were trolling.
And then you change your opinion and use that as an argument.
And of course I also get a little angry when someone constantly writes me the same thing, which I have actually already explained in my long text.
Sometimes you just have to talk with pressure and that you have changed your opinion, shows that it has made a difference.
Forget everything I said about not being able to trace AI "art" back to the original image.
AI users have started stealing artwork 1:1 and claiming credit for it. It's really a new low on the issue and I think it only goes lower from here.
If anyone is stealing your art or you suspect your art is being used to feed AI, speak up. Use Twitter or other media to spread the word. "Cancel" such people.
This far and no further!
For more info you can watch this video from an artist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6HAsaDwzrI
If art really means something to them, they should learn to draw themselves.
That way it remains more personal, no artists are endangered and their works remain protected.