Impact
The field of art itself is very broad, much like the A.I programs in the world. There’s A.I involved in creating music, aiding VFX, making hyper-realistic landscapes, writing essays and even generating people who don’t exist! But how is this impacting the people who already do similar jobs for a living? The answer isn’t so simple. On one hand, A.I can be (and has been) used to cut down the human labour needed for the tiring, repetitive, time-intensive and even dangerous tasks such as VFX editing mentioned previously, detecting human trafficking and even collecting radioactive waste (Gibbons 2020, Owen-Hill 2021).
On the other hand, this has caused massive losses for artists (especially small artists) who are losing out since the viral trend of A.I generated art. Some programs search through the internet and rip off any artwork they can to use for their dataset. Without asking for permission from the artists or crediting their influence, the A.I can mass-produce artwork that is almost exactly like an artist’s style. We know that while A.I can be a powerful tool of assistance, it’s also not infallible. But as A.I art involves the efforts of many types of people with multiple backgrounds, it’s important we understand their perspectives.
Luke Plunkett, a writer for Kotaku made a feature about the issues of A.I art, including interviews with prominent professional artists with specialties ranging in video games, films, and television. A core theme that comes from some of these artists is fear, which is no surprise considering the black-boxed nature of A.I (for more on the black-boxed nature of A.I check out What is A.I?). Fears range from the increasing undervalue of artists in favour of speedy generated art, replacing their roles in favour of commanding the algorithms and “artists being able to find consistent entry level work” (Plunkett, 2022).
Perhaps the most widely-felt fear is the ability of A.I to replicate an artist’s unique style. Its constant improvements mean that people who are looking to use A.I instead of hiring/paying artists for enjoyment or business, decrease the opportunities for artists to grow and survive (Plunkett). This helps frame one of the biggest issues of A.I generated art - they are “washing machines of intellectual property” - they recycle pre-existing art styles, subjects and forms and don't create anything "original" (Plunkett qtd. Juárez, 2022). With the growth and expansion of A.I Art platforms, the legal concerns surrounding copyright haven’t been caught up or universalized, leaving many artists potentially vulnerable to exploitation (Plunkett).
There are also artists from Plunkett’s feature that have taken neutral stances to A.I art. Karla Ortiz, a part-time artist who has worked for Ubisoft, Marvel and HBO said the unclear legality of using A.I art has also prevented many major companies from using generated images themselves. She also points out that the A.I isn’t fully ready yet to produce finalized works that don’t require professionals to touch up and fix up many mistakes (Plunkett). Examples of this can include A.I’s inability to make realistic human hands or artwork that show signs of mimicking or erasing an artist’s signature.
​
The exception to this though, are companies who will settle for the artwork that’s “good enough”. She warns that this affects the often unseen entry-level jobs in visual media (Plunkett). On the other hand, some artists in this feature feel quite the opposite of fear:
“I do question the ethics of it for sure, but currently it does a piss-poor job of actually pulling off what I do, and shit, if it does figure it out that’s going to save me so much time [laughs]. Go ahead AI, learn how to paint like me really well so I can just adjust it a bit and turn that in and then go take a nap because the world stinks and every day is hell.” - Frank (A pseudonym for an artist who has worked on several blockbuster AAA console titles)
Floris Didden, art director at Karakter of an Emmy-award-winning studio shares a similar stance, pointing out that many artists, look to one another for inspiration in styles (Plunkett). Remixing of art is not something new to the field of art, he argues “To my mind the programmer is doing the same thing through the use of the AI they created. I’m not saying there’s no originality but let’s not pretend we don’t massively feed off each other” (Plunkett qtd. Didden, 2022). A few other artists in the article have also voiced responses pointing to the potential benefits of using A.I generators for inspiration, visual references and problem-solving.
The debate over the ethicality of A.I art is complex and currently never-ending. Even the debates on whether A.I art is considered Art, something that’s been discussed by artists, developers, lawyers and the internet. These discussions are not necessarily new, and draw many influences from the historic questioning of mankind’s relationship to art or machines.
Regardless, the impacts felt by A.I technology is real and will continue to affect human artists in both a positive and negative way. The consequences and benefits discussed in this section are all valid and should be taken into consideration when thinking about A.I art.
A takeaway that everyone can benefit to remember (regardless of stance) is that whatever happens on the internet or in A.I art websites do not exist in a vacuum - all actions will have reactions.
