Okay, I’m gonna prelude this by saying I’m sorry. I was just doing some fact checking and what was meant to be a small comment on plagiarism ended up being a huge critic of your comment. I don’t actually disagree with you. I actually think you make some good arguments and if I were arguing your point, I would probably make similar arguments. Anyways, I probably have brain worms because I spent Way too long on this. At least I had fun researching this topic.
This is such a complicated topic, and I feel like you oversimplified the problem that is at hand, which trivialised the plight of artists. I believe your post doesn’t include many of the issues which artists have with generative tools.
I believe you missed out on is the discussion about plagiarism. Likewise, I believe that generative AI (like DALLE) cannot be compared to previous tools due to the issue of plagiarism. While there isn’t conclusive evidence on whether AI art is plagiarising artists, there is a pretty good argument for.
Rutkowski is a Polish digital artist who uses classical painting styles to create dreamy fantasy landscapes. … His distinctive style is now one of the most commonly used prompts in the new open-source AI art generator Stable Diffusion [1]
Rutkowski was initially surprised but thought it might be a good way to reach new audiences. Then he tried searching for his name to see if a piece he had worked on had been published. The online search brought back work that had his name attached to it but wasn’t his. [1]
Stålenhag is known for haunting paintings that blend natural landscapes with the eerie futurism of giant robots, mysterious industrial machines, and alien creatures. Earlier this week, Stålenhag appeared to experience some dystopian dread of his own when he found that artificial intelligence had been used to mimic his style [2].
A big issue I have with your comment is the statement “We laugh at obvious shop jobs in the news, and even our out of touch representatives know when am image is fake.”. There is a huge amount of evidence and studies online talking about exactly how bad people are at this. Furthermore, there is evidence of scammers using generative AI tools to trick people, which is only possible if these tools are easily accessible and hard to tell apart.
In a study published last month in the journal Scientific Reports, scientists showed 201 participants a mix of AI- and human-generated images and gauged their responses based on factors like age, gender, and attitudes toward technology. The team found that the older participants were more likely to believe that AI-generated images were made by humans. [3]
scammers have wielded increasingly sophisticated generative AI tools to go after older adults. They can use deepfake audio and images sourced from social media to pretend to be a grandchild calling from jail for bail money, or even falsify a relative’s appearance on a video call. [3]
Studies have also found that people can tell the difference between AI generated images and real images only 61% of the time [4].
Another issue with your comment is the statement “The masters of their craft are still masters, the need for a painted canvas never went away.”. You point to serval new technologies as evidence, suggesting that if these new technologies didn’t stop the need for artists, then nothing will. Unlike these previous tools, generative tools are in direct competition with artists[5]. With generative art is in direct competition with artists and is far easier to master, generative AI art trivialises the work of artists which devalues the work of masters.
Finally! On artists incorporating AI tools into their workflows. This is just speculation, and you cannot state this with any finality. There is evidence in either direction. For example, interpolation in animation[6][7] or this paper/survey I found.
TTIG systems at present limit artists in that (1) they can only generate predictable images; (2) do not support personalisation; (3) restrain creativity through the prompting mechanism; and (4) are inefficient and become a burden. They conclude that visual artists found it hard to actually incorporate TTIG into their creative works in its current form [8]
Don’t apologize, this level of discussion is exactly what I came to the table hoping for.
I will say, my stance is less about the now and more about the here to come. I agree wholly with the issues of plagiarism, especially when he comes to personal styles. I also recognize the vivid swath of other crimes that this tech can be used for. Moreover, corporations are pushing it far too fast and hard and the end result of that can only by bad.
However, I hold a small hope that these are just the growing pains, the bruised thumbs enviable when learning to swing a hammer. We forget that photoshop was used to cyber bully teens with fake nudes. We look past the fields of logos made by uncles that didn’t want to pay for a graphic designer, the company websites made by the same mindless managers that now use AI to solve all their problems. Eventually, the next product will come and only those who found genuine use will remain.
AI is different in so many ways, but it’s also the same. Instead of fighting for it’s regulation, we need to regulate ourselves and our uses of it. We can’t expect anyone with the power to do something to have our best interest at heart.
Okay, I’m gonna prelude this by saying I’m sorry. I was just doing some fact checking and what was meant to be a small comment on plagiarism ended up being a huge critic of your comment. I don’t actually disagree with you. I actually think you make some good arguments and if I were arguing your point, I would probably make similar arguments. Anyways, I probably have brain worms because I spent Way too long on this. At least I had fun researching this topic.
This is such a complicated topic, and I feel like you oversimplified the problem that is at hand, which trivialised the plight of artists. I believe your post doesn’t include many of the issues which artists have with generative tools.
I believe you missed out on is the discussion about plagiarism. Likewise, I believe that generative AI (like DALLE) cannot be compared to previous tools due to the issue of plagiarism. While there isn’t conclusive evidence on whether AI art is plagiarising artists, there is a pretty good argument for.
A big issue I have with your comment is the statement “We laugh at obvious shop jobs in the news, and even our out of touch representatives know when am image is fake.”. There is a huge amount of evidence and studies online talking about exactly how bad people are at this. Furthermore, there is evidence of scammers using generative AI tools to trick people, which is only possible if these tools are easily accessible and hard to tell apart.
Studies have also found that people can tell the difference between AI generated images and real images only 61% of the time [4].
Another issue with your comment is the statement “The masters of their craft are still masters, the need for a painted canvas never went away.”. You point to serval new technologies as evidence, suggesting that if these new technologies didn’t stop the need for artists, then nothing will. Unlike these previous tools, generative tools are in direct competition with artists[5]. With generative art is in direct competition with artists and is far easier to master, generative AI art trivialises the work of artists which devalues the work of masters.
Finally! On artists incorporating AI tools into their workflows. This is just speculation, and you cannot state this with any finality. There is evidence in either direction. For example, interpolation in animation[6] [7] or this paper/survey I found.
Don’t apologize, this level of discussion is exactly what I came to the table hoping for.
I will say, my stance is less about the now and more about the here to come. I agree wholly with the issues of plagiarism, especially when he comes to personal styles. I also recognize the vivid swath of other crimes that this tech can be used for. Moreover, corporations are pushing it far too fast and hard and the end result of that can only by bad.
However, I hold a small hope that these are just the growing pains, the bruised thumbs enviable when learning to swing a hammer. We forget that photoshop was used to cyber bully teens with fake nudes. We look past the fields of logos made by uncles that didn’t want to pay for a graphic designer, the company websites made by the same mindless managers that now use AI to solve all their problems. Eventually, the next product will come and only those who found genuine use will remain.
AI is different in so many ways, but it’s also the same. Instead of fighting for it’s regulation, we need to regulate ourselves and our uses of it. We can’t expect anyone with the power to do something to have our best interest at heart.