AI Art Generation: Beneficial or Problematic?

[Lyndis]

I went looking to see if a thread on this topic already existed. Please direct me appropriately if so.

AI Art Generation: Beneficial or Problematic?​

Everyone and their mama has heard about AI art generators and the various arguments and opinions folks have about them by now. Stable Diffusion, Dream, Craiyon, even applications like Lensa that use AI to augment existing images and countless others are arriving by the day. They've quickly become a mainstay in almost every artistic community I'm apart of or adjacent to. I've heard people argue both in favor and against their use, especially when it comes to collecting a profit off what people generate, and now I want to hear it from ya'll.


Which side of the spectrum do you fall? Is AI a legitimate tool for people to use in artistic "creation", or do you feel more strongly about how it borrows from the artists these various engines "sample"? Do you think it's ethical for people to make money using these programs? Do you feel similar about AI text generators? Would you play a game, read a book, or consume other media that was made entirely from AI? Do you feel that artists should disclose whether or not AI was used in their works?


Why or why not?

 

[D34N.U5R]

Honestly I don't mind if someone uses AI to make something, as long as it's not completely AI (in the case of a game, movie, etc.).

 

[~Rinko~]

Yeah, it's a tough thing.
Certainly it can be useful in say, making a completely random new character design or saving time on making backgrounds, but... mm... it's hard to say. People should definitely know if there was any sort of AI involvement in a work they're looking at/reading/etc. and profit probably shouldn't be made from anything that is 100% AI made...
I don't think I see much in the way of it genuinely resembling specific artstyles, so I don't quite understand the issues with the samples... unless, of course, if people try making models specifically based on one person's artstyle and made the model/things made from it public. Especially if the artist's taking commissions, personal use of an AI model based on their artstyle could be useful if they just can't afford a commission, but anything more could be a serious problem for the artist...

I honestly think art/writing are probably the parts about AI I have the least concrete opinions on, even though I'm an artist and writer myself... it was pretty hard to try and explain my thoughts here and I kinda feel like my phrasing's not the best...~

 

[GLITCHSKULL]

It's really good for character creation

 

[Lyndis]

Honestly I don't mind if someone uses AI to make something, as long as it's not completely AI (in the case of a game, movie, etc.).

It's really good for character creation

Can you guys explain why you feel this way? Specifically answering the questions in the OP about ethical use and disclosure?

 

[D34N.U5R]

If I'm being honest, using AI to make something isn't unethical in any way, but making something 100% out of AI is a bit of a problem. Plus, copyright law exists, so... yeah.

 

[Lyndis]

If I'm being honest, using AI to make something isn't unethical in any way, but making something 100% out of AI is a bit of a problem. Plus, copyright law exists, so... yeah.

You kind of just repeated your initial answer without explaining why you felt that way. Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my request.

Why do you feel AI trained the way it is at present is ethical? What made you come to that conclusion?

That said, why do you feel it suddenly becomes unethical if something is made out of 100% AI? What's the difference between something partially and completely made that way? Why do you feel that way?

 

[Ridge]

I find "text" AI Generators that are capable of writing a small story even when prompted by someone that's not a writer to be a bigger concern, since almost anyone can use them and still make a decent work with it. Art Generators, from what I've seen so far, aren't nearly as reliable. You need to have some good concepts about art already in order to get some decent results out of those. Someone who doesn't and tries to generate something from scratch with just basic prompts will probably be disappointed, especially if they're looking for something very specific.

For that reason, I consider AI Art generators more like assisting tools for artists rather than true art "generators" for people who don't know art. So long as they're meant for personal use and/or recreational purposes only and not intended for profit, I'm fine with them as a tool to improve your own work, fix bad photos, or for small edits that could already be done with other editing tools anyways. AI Art also has the inconvenience that it can't be copyrighted, so anyone can steal your work and you can't do anything about it.

 

[kyuukestu]

I have no strong opinions on the use of AI Generative tools. I understand that not everyone has the time to dedicate themselves to the pursuit of mastery in whatever AI-generated field. They may also not have the money to pay a professional to accomplish said task at their behest (More pointedly, wanting a 'polished' product but being unwilling to pay for it is...eh. So if anyone found that aspect AI on a whole as immoral then I would not contradict them). In this regard, I do think technology is advancing rapidly and this is just a result of that advancement. It is amoral.

Using the automation argument, I cannot in good conscience say that technology automating certain jobs is a bad thing. What I will say, however, is that I wish institutions such as the government were more savvy in the regulation of these products so as to ease the transition and minimize whatever destructive consequences may arise.

Now, when it comes to using AI to make money, I believe that is entirely unethical. Once you're using other people's work to make money without any credit/revenue making its way back to them, you are directly hurting someone else's livelihood. Ultimately, I think it should go the way of copyright/royalties where original artists make some percentage of profit from the products their work was used to create.

The deeper logistics of all that are another question onto themselves and I'd like to see more discussion on that. Regardless, I imagine it will be a difficult process for the world as a whole as AI advances and how things are traditionally done is changed.

TL;DR

I don't think AI itself is bad, it's entirely amoral, but the way it's being handled/implemented leaves much to be desired.

 

[Lyndis]

I have no strong opinions on the use of AI Generative tools. I understand that not everyone has the time to dedicate themselves to the pursuit of mastery in whatever AI-generated field. They may also not have the money to pay a professional to accomplish said task at their behest (More pointedly, wanting a 'polished' product but being unwilling to pay for it is...eh. So if anyone found that aspect AI on a whole as immoral then I would not contradict them).

This bit in particular struck me because of a story my friend told me just before I saw this.

She was talking about AI art to a co-worker who expressed his opinion that AI art "democratizes" art, whereas it wasn't as available to the common folk before. His stated argument being: "Say I want to have art of my DnD character, but I don't have the time or skill to learn how to draw, and I also don't have the money to pay an artist to make it for me."

What this person said, and the point you made that I bolded, speaks to what I think is the biggest issue behind this debate: Entitlement.

If this person desires character art, but cannot afford an artist, AND cannot afford to learn to draw.... why isn't the logical conclusion that you just won't get DnD art.

Instead it's moralized as an ethical issue, as something being gatekept from them. When in reality they just wouldn't be happy with it because you're not getting exactly what you want, when you want it, how you want it. It reeks of spoiled child mentality.

 

[D34N.U5R]

You kind of just repeated your initial answer without explaining why you felt that way. Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my request.

Why do you feel AI trained the way it is at present is ethical? What made you come to that conclusion?

That said, why do you feel it suddenly becomes unethical if something is made out of 100% AI? What's the difference between something partially and completely made that way? Why do you feel that way?

Honestly, I have a completely neutral opinion on stuff made by AI. Unless it's completely AI, then it starts shifting towards unethical. Stuff made 100% by AI just feels... wrong.

 

[Lyndis]

Honestly, I have a completely neutral opinion on stuff made by AI. Unless it's completely AI, then it starts shifting towards unethical. Stuff made 100% by AI just feels... wrong.

Then I think your answer in this instance should have been, "I don't know enough about this particular topic to have an informed opinion."

 

[MegaAbsol]

In this regard, to Dean's statements, I think something called 100% AI content straight up doesn't exist. AI is trained on content scraped from the internet that was already created by human users. It is specifically trained to cut, copy and paste from content generated by real people, I do not believe it has any creation abilities of its own.

I'm generally supportive of technological advancements, but I'm against AI art and AI "creative" generations as a whole. I do believe there is a niche that AI can easily fit, taking over tasks similar to what ChatGPT does, with sorting through data, automating certain procedural tasks or converting it to an industry that may eventually take over jobs that may be deemed unfit/unfavourable for humans (i.e., biohazards, precision oriented tasks, repetitive tasks, etc). But trying to occupy the art industry and moreso trying to monetize and profit from it is just straight up wrong. It's been a while since AI art has surfaced and the overarcing issue of crediting and fairly compensating the artists whose works were scrubbed has still barely been spoken about. On a slightly funnier note, I'm seeing a trend of artists taking designs back from AI where they take an AI generated design and draw it or alter it as they please, which is a hilarious clapback to people who complain that that is now stealing from the AI.

On Lyndis' point, I do agree wholeheartedly on the entitlement point. I have not engaged much in these discussions but I've been generally surrounded by them as a student in the creative industry. I've seen an argument calling AI users 'lazy', which while a very crude response, does quite encapsulate the distribution of sectors that were previously considered highly skilled. Which is wild that only the art community has been so impacted by this (even though I've seen instances of people creating childrens' books entirely out of AI (ChatGPT + Midjourney) and selling them on Amazon and documenting the whole process to market it as a "side hustle"; very clever, and very unethical) I do also support the belief that while AI art is recognizable now, even to the untrained eye, this stage of AI is the worst that it will ever be. It will only continue to improve from here, and already there are alarm bells everywhere of AI being used for deepfakes, to falsify videos and voice notes (some lady got a call from her daughter saying she was kidnapped, and the deepfake was so well crafted she would have believed it too if the kid wasn't sitting across the room)

 

[GLITCHSKULL]

Honestly, if I need to create Character Pictures in a pinch (which I don't use here), I'll often use AI. That's what I mean

 

[Lyndis]

Honestly, if I need to create Character Pictures in a pinch (which I don't use here), I'll often use AI. That's what I mean

Yes, but that did not answer the question I asked you about it. Which was:

Can you guys explain why you feel this way? Specifically answering the questions in the OP about ethical use and disclosure?

 

[Hecotoro]

I love using AI to be honest, I'm one of those that's constantly making OCs and being able to give them a face and get art for them in a quick manner is a dream come true. I wish I had the skills to draw them myself, since some details are not captured how I want them and at the moment AI is not the easiest tool to use, but it's still way better than what I'm capable of drawing xD

Now, using AI to make profit? Nope. I think people should be rewarded for their effort and let's be honest, besides the prompts, using AI art doesn't real involve any. I do at least 20 AI creations daily, most of it is for fun and others out of curiosity to see how X oc would look with a certain outfit or something. But if I started selling these creations or starting charging people to use my ai credits for them, would be a kick in the gut to those who truly took years of mastering their art skills.

I think ai art should be kept as something casual, for fun and not taken to a point where it threatens an artists job. In a way, if you're like me and depend on ai art for your ocs instead of paying your artist friends, I doubt the existence of this tool has caused much change. I rarely bought art for my ocs, I have too many and rather spend my money on games and bars xD Do I still want to pay for art of my ocs? Absolutely, besides the fact that I suck at managing my money, if I have a few bucks leftover you can bet I'm paying an artist for art. But, it's not always the case, so meanwhile I settle for ai.

 

[Lyndis]

On Lyndis' point, I do agree wholeheartedly on the entitlement point. I have not engaged much in these discussions but I've been generally surrounded by them as a student in the creative industry. I've seen an argument calling AI users 'lazy', which while a very crude response, does quite encapsulate the distribution of sectors that were previously considered highly skilled. Which is wild that only the art community has been so impacted by this (even though I've seen instances of people creating childrens' books entirely out of AI (ChatGPT + Midjourney) and selling them on Amazon and documenting the whole process to market it as a "side hustle"; very clever, and very unethical) I do also support the belief that while AI art is recognizable now, even to the untrained eye, this stage of AI is the worst that it will ever be. It will only continue to improve from here, and already there are alarm bells everywhere of AI being used for deepfakes, to falsify videos and voice notes (some lady got a call from her daughter saying she was kidnapped, and the deepfake was so well crafted she would have believed it too if the kid wasn't sitting across the room)

This is what honestly concerns me more than the profiteering or entitlement issues I've mentioned previously.

Perhaps it's obvious to you and I, people who engage with art on a regular basis, but it's become horrifying to realize how bad the average person actually is at recognizing AI generated images. My friend's auntie posted a series of pictures on her Facebook of a bunch of Black children who had super light blue or green eyes and wanted to share with everyone how beautiful these children were and the variety our people come in. While that last point isn't wrong (speaking as a Black-mixed individual with green eyes) the images were very, very obviously fake. Only not so obvious to her boomer aunt, so my friend had to break it to her and ruin the fun lol

I suspect this is part of the reason why AI generated art is also accepted by so many. People who don't regularly engage with art tend to have a very low bar of what's considered "good art".

The horrifying aspect really comes in when faced with the threat of misinformation and propaganda. We're already seeing it happen with the war in Ukraine and the Israel/Palestine conflict. We already live in a time of piss poor media literacy and reading comprehension. AI generated images stand as a real threat in that regard.

 

[Siorc]

Problematic. It's stealing from artists who did hard work to make the piece. I am disgusted by ai """art""".