Boy, there has been a lot of controversy regarding Artificial Intelligence “Art”, or how I like to call it AI generated imagery, AI Gim for short. Don’t worry, for simplicity sake I won’t be using my own acronym.
Grievances and Concerns
Most of the concerns I have come across on Twitter has been that AI is using other artists art without their consent, hence stealing from them. Which in my opinion it's a valid point. (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
If it’s actually stealing or not, I’m not sure, seems like it. Still, I'm gonna leave the following questions for your consideration.
Can you draw a face without ever seen one in your life? What about a bird? Or a Dragon? Orcs? Could you draw any of those without ever seen one before or not copy traits from them? Have you ever heard of the "Birthday Paradox”?
The other grievance expressed is about loosing their ability to work, but this might or might not happen. Honestly, it requires some discussion.
If I have access to a system that will generate an image I desire why would I hire an artist to create such image? This would mean I don’t have to pay an actual artist to do the art for me, the AI system will (and probably for free or cheap). Right?
Spoilers: NO, you will still hire an artist. More on this on Part 2: AI Art - Return of the Artist.
I will say the following, though. As any new technology enters any industry, yes, some people loose work (or workload), some gain work, some adapt, others improve, competition might increase or decrease, but something is always true: prices and costs are reduced. I will leave this segment from the book Economics in One Lesson for, once again, your consideration:
I will recommend, if it interest you to learn more, that you read the whole Chapter 7 of the book. https://fee.org/resources/economics-in-one-lesson/#link-16
Still, we are talking about art not how many stockings per hour one can produce. This is right, that doesn’t mean these AI systems can’t help in a similar way. Below is a post from an artist who used an AI system to help him save time on his process.
Clearly there is a positive side of this AI systems.
Regardless, more discussion is needed among the art community on the use of AI. Also it is, imo, imperative that those programing these AI systems to listen to the grievances from the art community and address them as sensible as possible.
Now It's Personal
Time for my two cents.
I personally do not call these generated images art. I don't see them different as opening Photoshop and start cutting and pasting around. Which I don't consider art either. If an artist make improvements upon them, then I do consider them art (just like the dragon art from above). Maybe I’m wrong, but someone will have to convince me otherwise.
The artist is capable of creating from zero, they are humans blessed by God with creation, whom from the emptiness of a blank page are capable of creating greatness. They pour their heart and soul in what they are doing. They do it with love. That's why art inspires. The artist talks to us through it. AI can't do any of this things. AI it’s just a tool. Or it should only be a tool.
Finally (I promise), I want to make a case of concern on why it should not be called Art. If what the AI is generating is “art”, who then is the artist? The AI would be the artist, not the person doing the inputs. The person doing the inputs is no different from a commissioner telling an artist what he/she wants and the artists is trying to convey those words into an actual image. What happens now is that the AI is not a tool anymore, it’s competition. It’s an “artist” that produces material in a few minutes, rather than a week or two, or months.
But don’t fret, there’s still hope, in part 2: AI Art - Return of the Artist