Forums » Smalltalk » AI Art Generation: Beneficial or Problematic?

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?

I would like it since it is literally impossible for me to ever do manual art because of my disability which gives me poor fine motor skills. I just simply can't control my hands as well as even as the average person, hell I never even managed to get a passing grade for my handwriting and it still rivals a doctor's in legibility. So programs like this could give people like me a chance to make our own art when otherwise we would never be able to.

I've heard this perspective from others before where AI could be a tool for disabled users. Do you mind answering the other questions I proposed in the OP then as well? Specifically about your thoughts on ethical use and disclosure?

Well I would have to ask where these programs get the images they augment. If the programs/the creators of them uses images that are free use or images that they own the right to, then I wouldn't see any ethical issues on their use. As for collecting a profit off of what people generate, well if there is a market for it and these programs are super expensive, I could see see people selling their generated images to people who can't afford the program themselves since it would probably be a fairly cheap commission for those on a budget. Of course you also can't get the same level of customization you could get for commissioning a traditional human artist. I personally would probably still commission artists in the traditional way unless it was for something extremely simple.

However if these programs simply snatch images from any source regardless of legality, then that is a big problem that could result in getting the company sued...though I doubt they would actually get any compuedence for it.

I actually have a piece of AI generated art that a friend created for me that is very useful as a reference for one of my characters.

It could be useful if the datasets weren't unethically obtained from people without their consent.

We put our art online for others to view and know that we made it, not for the gratification of techbros who couldn't be bothered to ask permission or pay royalties.

Considering how AI is already replacing several jobs (The Escapist just emptied its writers and editors for the sake of AI in an effort to cost-cut) I don't think we live in a world that's ready for it either.

I completely agree.

• Dozens of art got stolen. There was an incident where an actual, human artist died, and 24 hours after their death, some AI bro began to post their "renderings" trying to copy the dead artist by feeding their art to some AI.
• Real life people's faces were used in scary NSFW renderings without their consent. Often purposefully to disturb them. Already happened to few streamers.
• AI is also used to fake information. My elderly aunt fell for one of these of a politician from our country, and she wasn't alone.
• It leaves actual, human artists with less job offers, making it even harder to profit off art. (Aardbei gave a good example)
• It completely erases the concept of art - years of practice, life events, decisions and emotions that affected the artist's artstyle and themes.

What I and Aardbei listed is way enough for me to decide that I will never support it, no matter how many other "benefits" AI art has.

I remember a friend asking me this question as he was supposed to have a seminar on AI. There are cons and pros to AI art. It's no doubt useful, but it cannot replace the true artistry of one's talent. It's basically a copy of a real artist's hard work, coded to generate more replicas or similar images of that certain recorded (stolen) art style.

This topic actually reminds me of when I made a commission for a co-worker. Of course, she loved it--or her daughter loved it, but then there was this one woman in the group who said, "OH! Looks like AI Art."

That honestly felt like--not a slap--but a punch in the face. Like literally, I made this piece for hours, maybe days, and you compare it to AI? Is that supposed to be a compliment? 🥹

It's really sad that the majority of people see AI Art as an art style now. The images are cute and awesome, but that art style(s) belonged to someone else! It was fun as a filter, but that's about it. It just really depends on how people use AI. Some people shouldn't go around claiming that it's their artwork when it's AI-generated.

Adding to this that someone's actual real-life medical records ended up in StableDiffusion's training set so a person got doxxed because the dataset indiscriminately grabbed images from EVERYWHERE on the internet, including private places it shouldn't be looking at all.

What concerns me is, how did the AI grab medical records? Medical systems are historically really vulnerable to cyber attacks but it shouldn't be that easy to gain access to their records...

Honestly though, creating a scraper that collects private data from all over the internet indiscriminately (including peoples' personal information) and has a virtual intelligence regurgitate it at random should count as developing malware and be subject to the same legal action that knowingly spreading a virus incurs.

I'm all for interesting new tech but these people need to find a way of going about it that isn't a massive public health and security risk.

I love AI.

I hate how irresponsibly it has been used and how real concerns are getting swept under the rug.

There is so much potential for it to do good, but if the people who work on it start it off being oblivious to the real-life consequences and disregard so many actual laws and ethical considerations, then it can never be able to do good. It will always be misused. That's not necessarily an issue with AI itself, but rather with the people who made it and people who use it.

I also struggle really badly with people who create AI images calling themselves artists, personally. Entering keywords/prompts and refining them is not the same as creating the art that the tool that trained on. It bothers me immensely when people call themselves artists as if they have the same skill set as people like myself who spent years of their lives learning the skills that generated the original data in the first place.

It's like someone calling themselves an architect after putting up a wall in their house during a DIY renovation project. They're two distinctly different skill sets and using someone else's work to build on doesn't make you an architect.

Not to mention that AI art will never develop without new input from actual human artists. AI image generators can only put out what already exists by rehashing what already exists. AI generators will never create new content, new art styles, new concepts etc. on their own. They're severely limited and anything they can generate independently isn't something humans can meaningfully interpret. So while it has great potential, it's also not the holy grail of the future that many people make it out to be.

Overall I just wish AI was more ethical and people saw it for what it really is, and don't use it in ways that negatively affects others.

Yeah, not to be robotphobic or anythin', but AI art will never be real art, no matter how much it tries to copy the aesthetic beauty of human art. I'm an artist myself and knowing about the 'ethics' of generative AI as described above, I agree that the negatives outweigh the 'benefits'. Data is stolen, art is stolen, and no matter how 'pretty' the generated picture might look, its built on the backs of people who didn't get to consent to have their art tossed in the digital soup that these 'art pieces' are born from.

Don't get me wrong, it can be funny as hell as experiment with it. That Opium Bird trend was interesting, and back in the day before I knew how all of it worked, I of course could laugh my ass off too at 'Shrek chasing Obama on wildcam'. It's all very fun & postmodern, but people get in it over their heads and seem to forget where all of that shit came from. Even if it seems that way, AI doesn't have a real imagination like humans do.

Humans wanna see humanity in everything, just think of all the examples of humans anthropomorphizing their pet's behavior, or seeing faces in every damn thing, and so it doesn't come as a surprise that some humans are starting to view AI as a mental equal, but it's not. They slurp up data like a Caprisun and are then programmed to handle it like a human would. That's not the same as a human pouring their talent and imagination into an art piece. If anything, AI 'art' comes closer to a collage of the stolen attributes from the art it has been fed. Collage is an art form too, of course, but only really because of its ties to modernism, and the human creativity that goes into it, the thought and consideration for which images to add, and where, and how, etc.

Maybe I went off on a bit of a tangent, but I really want people to understand what they're dealing with. I can imagine that it's liberating and appealing to have a machine spit out an image if you struggle making art yourself, but the easy way ain't always the right way. Art is all about expression, emotion, imagination, and those are things that machines don't possess (yet). Similarly as with the people who steal images off of Tumblr or smth like that and claim someone's OC drawing as their own, it won't ever compare to having creative, authentic art of your OC.

Oh god, THIS! So many real, human artists already got accused of using AI as an insult and an invalidation of their work! I saw a post on tumblr where people laughed at a drawing of a sapphic rendition of a photo, saying it's "AI" and refusing to acknowledge the artist's work.

It's honestly disgusting. AI is trained on the work of REAL artists. It's not an "AI artstyle", AI is replicating artstyles, and it never generates anything on it's own.

To be frank there is no stopping or containing it. Artists will just have to adapt to the environment, like every other profession out there that is under threat by all forms of AI.

Personally I don't consider AI art to be real art because art will always require human imagination and skill. However AI like chatgpt is extremely useful for programmers, but you don't hear anyone saying their code is not real code.

Sadly AI will be abused, AI art is only the tip of iceberg.

It will be interesting to see how advanced AI becomes in the next 10-20 yrs.

Actually, I've heard a number of complaints from programmers having their work stolen by chatgpt because even if they aren't calling it "not real code," they still take issue with someone else prompting a glorified search query to go scrape their labor off the internet and hand it to someone else.

The IT industry is built off the backs of the people who came before it so programmers do swap code pretty often but the difference there is consent.

Man, I really wanted to like this since it could mean that someone like me could actually make art, but it's sounds too problematic to be worth it sadly after reading these responses. T.T

There's no problem with using it. I use it all the time for my characters. Just remember to mention that you used AI

That's true. I may not be a huge fan of AI and how some others use it, but you can still use AI if you want to. Despite how much I dislike it, I honestly still utilize AI images at times whether it's for reference or for fun. Not gonna lie. It is, again, undoubtedly useful after all, so just go ahead.

We all have opinions about certain things, but the choice of what you wanna do will always be yours. No one else's. Like what Lord @Feline said, just add a disclaimer or note and you'll be fine. 😊💕

AI Art Generation is problematic for all forms of art in general and should be banned.

Disabled people have always found ways to make art even before AI and will continue to do so. I understand your feelings, but also understand that if it's something you really want to do, you can most definitely still do it.

Mariusz Kedzierski was born without arms but still creates beautiful, realistic black and white portraits that rivals any of the classical masters.

Paul Smith has Cerebral Palsy and creates amazing artwork with only one finger and a typewriter.

JC Sheitan Tenet is a tattoo artist who had a prothetic arm created that he could continue to tattoo with.

Huang Guofu lost both of his arms in a terrible traumatic accident and now paints the most amazing landscapes using his mouth and feet to hold the brush.

Disability only stops you from creating art if you allow it, friend. To say otherwise is kind of an insult to the amazing folks already out here doing it (and are having their art stolen for use in these AI engines).

I have extremely poor eyesight and I create art.

And by "poor eyesight" I mean I have jam jars for glasses that don't afford me much peripheral vision and my browser's text size is set to 125% with the zoom at 110%. (It would be higher, but any higher than this tends to break web pages beyond use. The internet really struggles with accessibility, and even people who try their best can't easily accommodate everyone.) I just read web pages on my nose, with the computer screen pulled closer to me than normal.

You don't need AI. AI is a shortcut, and if you want to take it, nobody can stop you. But if you actually want to learn to make art, you are more than capable.

My problem isn't my eyes, but my hands. I have never managed to master anything with them from handwriting to typing to kitchen knife work. My handwriting failed in every grade until it stopped being graded. Even now people often struggle to read it. I tried typing classes and even typing software and still couldn't graduate beyond hunting and pecking because it was just so very uncomfortable, slow and accident prone for me. Nor can I even make a nice clean, straight cut through bread, cheese or anything with a knife.

I just have poor fine motor skills and there isn't a way for me to compensate for that. I'm very very glad that you found a way to compensate for your eyes and I have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for your art. But...I've accepted that the same is out of my reach, if I can't master those simpler skills, then how the heck can I ever expect to create even half decent art instead of crap that looks like a toddler with a fistful of crayons made it.

If my only choice is to make art with stolen work, or not make art because I can't, then I will accept not making art and just keep trying to find ways to get people to make art for me via paying for it with virtual currency like I have been doing.