The Case Against AI-Generated Images
First, How Does It Work?
“AI image generators use two neural networks. The first neural network creates an image while the second judges how close to the real thing the image is, based on real-life examples from the internet. Once scoring the image for accuracy is complete, the data is sent back to the original AI system. That system then learns from the feedback and sends back an altered image for further scoring until the AI-generated image matches the control/template image. ” — wearebrain
AI-generated image results are made from a collection of images (data pool) AI companies have no right to use. AI does not create as artists do. It does not interpret or express originality, as it is not sentient—it is a calculator. AI companies are sourcing from portfolio sites like Behance, Art Station, Deviantart, Dribbble, and Pinterest without the original author’s consent to be packaged as a product with intentions to replace the original author and for them to see no benefits from it. Artists did not agree for their work to be used this way. Copyright laws are intended to protect original authors from such theft. It is clear plagiarism and disgusting capitalist behavior.
The text below is taken from a now-suspended Kickstarter by Unstable Diffusion. The 2nd paragraph is especially telling.
“AI Generates Different Work, Not Copies”
AI-generated images are made “copypasta” from other images. A Frankenstein’d image is not something new, it is a collage of copies. AI cannot have output without a certain input. It cannot interpret, be inspired, nor personalize something the way humans do.
“It’s My Work, So I Own The Copyright”
It’s not original, it’s not your work, and you don’t have copyright. DALL-E and NightCafe have terms of service that address this to cover themselves legally—for now. Like any other artist or marketplace, they state that the work you make must be original and/or have the consent of the original party to use elements within. The reason these TOS are bullshit though is that these companies are not abiding by their own TOS—their generators are trained by existing work.
“It’s the AI model, not its user, that ‘predict[s] stylizations for paintings & textures never previously observed,’ & that predictive function is tied to ‘the proximity of the [style image] to styles trained on by the model.’” CopyrightOffice
“Artist Can Opt-Out Of It”
It should never be something to opt-out of. Artists need help from portfolio platforms to protect their work and uphold copyright law. Not every artist is going to be aware of what's happening with this tech, how their work is being used, how to protect their work, or even alive to do so.
Portfolio sites must not place the burden of protection solely upon their users while offering their work to AI generators. That is abhorrent policy.
That happened (above). Then this happened (below).
“What If AI Only Pulled From Stock Images?”
Its still a very similar problem. You have to buy stock images or go by whatever usage rules a particular artist or site makes. And stock contributors must benefit from their contributions. If you have that cleared, I’ll still make fun of you for using AI to make images, but at least you’re talking about operating inside legal and ethical guardrails.
“You Can Train It On Your Own Art”
Ignoring the entire catalog of scraped images a generator needs to work, I don't see how this approach is useful to anyone if it were only operating on one person’s body of work.
If you’re an established artist, you have a style and you have the ideas. You already know how to take an idea to execution. You’ve never needed AI before. If you’re an amateur, you don’t have the body of work or established style for AI to be useful.
If it is about “sketching” ideas more quickly, I guess that’s something. You can show a client a rough idea in a few minutes. Is that what this great art revolution is supposed to be?
“It's Just A Tool.”
It’s a tool as much as a robotic arm is on an assembly line. It's not meant for artists but as a replacement for artists. It is not a tool for them because it acts as the author. When you engage with AI generation, you are not the artist, you are the commissioner—the client.
AI companies want amateurs to produce artwork without the need for further editing. It opens up the market of digital-based art and design by giving “talent” to anyone and undercutting creatives in the process. All with (at the most optimistic level) an OK sense of craftsmanship.
AI image generators are marketed toward amateurs with the promise that they can create anything. Those with skills are not intended customers because they don’t need the help of AI generators. The only people who stand to benefit from these AI companies are the ones inside them.
“Learn AI Or Get Left Behind”.
Why? Where is the value in the competence of plagiarized images or text? In removing imagination, personal touch, craft, and thoughtfulness? It is the process that is enjoyable and leads to a finished work of quality. It is a major reason artists become artists.
But AI-bros think making art is about the destination, about the result and having a collection of results. Using AI to make art is the lamest way to make art you could possibly have dreamt of.
“There’s a lot of technology in search of a customer. You know, in other words, a lot of companies do things because it’s technically possible, but in the end, nobody cares; nobody wants to buy them. And so we see a lot of that technology in search of a customer, and I think the hard thing is to figure out what can be, done but also what people really want to do.” — Steve Jobs
There is also a notion that AI will make your workflow faster and therefore, you more valuable. Increasing production speed is good as long as you don’t lose quality. If you change something from a creative expression to an automated task, it is to your detriment. You cannot remove the creative processes of your work— the core element that separates humans from robotic automation or one artist from another. If you do, you’ll be hired for speed, not creativity, and that is a race to the bottom. Because AI users cannot compete with digital artists on skill, they can only compete on speed and price. This is a detriment to clients as well. Again, The only people who stand to benefit from these AI companies are the ones inside them.
I’ve also seen people claim that automating tasks, even email, will allow them to “leave the competition behind”. Nonsense. Firstly, the time they’re shaving in total is counted in minutes—it’s not impressive. Secondly, if they think they’re going to understand client needs and build relationships to grow their business through automation of communication, they’re delusional. Do not buy into it.
“Why Would I Pay An Artist? ”
So you’re going to pay an amateur with no artistic skill to create art that is made from plagiarized images? This is your plan?
What type of person thinks like this? What society turns the power to create from imagination and skill over to amateurs with neither?
This is what happened to sign painters, though. People who were highly skilled in their craft were replaced by vinyl printers who produced shit banners with shit type and color. Our Main Streets are now littered with them. We’ve chosen that over the beauty of wood, paint, metal, and neon. Why pay an artist? Because you’re a business of some sort that wants to compete in your marketplace. Why would you want poor-quality, plagiarised art attached to your business?
By and large, artistic fields are filled with talented people who create beautiful things and are paid for that labor. We have a society where those people’s work is desired and valued by most. It allows great work to be done and everyone gets to experience that in their TV, movies, games, clothing, museums, murals, or whatever other media. This is a virtue, and I highly prefer it to a buffet of corporate, bottom-line-driven garbage.
“AI Will Just Make Our Jobs Easier”
Oh yea? So we’ll work 3 days a week? Or 4-hour days? Get paid more? No. Any place that values AI will require you to work as much as possible for as little as possible. You’ll have an 8-to-12-hour day of writing prompts. These places will not allow you to produce at the same rate and then give you the rest of the day off, or pay you more, just because you’re using AI. Whatever skill you had to protect your job, whatever enjoyment you had because it was creative, will be lost.
And how has tech made our jobs easier over the last 20 years? Are we working less? Are we making more money? No to both and the wealth gap in the US has grown to laughable levels as the middle class has been decimated, largely in part, due to automation. Tech has benefited corporations and wealthy people the most. There is zero reason to believe AI will turn that around in the US economy.
“AI Will Replace People And It Will Be Good”
For these companies and any employer who embraces AI, it’s a means of monetary gains. They want to pay people less and produce more, growing the outrageous wealth gap even more. They only see art as content for mass production.
This idea where AI replaces all labor as we sit back and chill is for morons. When AI operators do all the creative work, people will be punching in information to feed it at a cubicle for minimum wage. Because anyone can do it, and this is a global economy where capitalists seek out the lowest price from anywhere in the world.
Some argue that a universal basic income will be implemented because of AI. I am a supporter of UBI, but UBI as a result of AI is a fantasy. Especially in a country where feeding kids lunch at public school is taboo.
Another threat from gAI, if the tech companies have their way, is the erasure of vocation. This would result in a homogenous soup of mediocrity for things that once were created with craft and individual touch. It would have negative emotional impacts for creative professionals not able to make a living with their work and for workers whose jobs become more demanding due to production expectations. It would make the entire world more depressed. You don’t have to be religous to understand the joy of making a living by doing something you are good at, but those who see vocation as a religious aspect would greatly be negatively affected if they were not able to use their “gifts from God”.
“People Are Just Cogs. Eliminating Them As Much As Possible Is Good For Efficiency”
Right, we wouldn’t want a silly thing like people getting in the way of corporate efficiency. But perhaps it is a thought I can get behind. Keep the people with skill who do the work and are paid the least in a company, and automate the wealthy C-suite people’s jobs whose only value is in making decisions. AI is a calculator—it might be good for that.
“Artists Are Overpaid”
Pro-AI employers don’t care if creative craftspeople are replaced by amateurs because they see their work as frivolous. Pro-AI users with no experience and no skill think they’re going to make a lot of money by displacing creatives who are “currently overpaid”.
On the front end, you should see how many zeros are in the salaries of AI-based companies today.
“AI-Generated Images Are A Benefit To Humanity”
It’s a product. A capitalistic venture that AI companies will benefit from at the cost of digital-based creative careers if they deem it necessary.
They could target any industry or task. Make doing taxes easier, applying for a job, or countering disinformation on social media. Instead, they’ve chosen to replace artists, painters, writers, musicians, and voice-over actors. This is as dumb as it is dystopian.
“You’ll Be Out Of A Job”
I believe many will be, like portrait painters and sign painters that came before. Many creative people will be replaced by software operators who plagiarise their own original work. What a fantastic advocation for AI.
“AI Will Create More Jobs”
The jobs it creates will be in a global economy competing on speed and price.
The purpose of AI is to eliminate jobs. These companies want to devalue art and take what little profit there is from skilled people for themselves while charging a monthly subscription on top of it. A large part of AI marketing is devaluation. They want you to believe everyone’s data is there for the taking. They want to make you believe copyright is an obstacle or not needed. They want you to believe artists are elitists. They want a future where the only ones making a living from art are their CEOs and shareholders.
“The Camera Didn't Replace Painting”
The impact of the camera ultimately meant artist was no longer a profession. They became lone societal rebels of personal expression. Cameras forced 20th-century artists into new creative styles, which is good, but this argument used to insinuate photography had no impact on painting is not true.
Fortunately for art, there was a renaissance of originality after the camera. But AI doesn’t support originality. It plagiarizes it.
Cameras are a tool that opened up a new category of art without plagiarising existing art. It is also responsible for some regulations on copyright and image usage today. There are guardrails set to protect creators of original work which the AI wild west doesn’t believe in.
“You’re Afraid Of New Tech”
The “artists are Luddites” argument. It’s important to know where that term comes from and how it fits in with AI today, but I’ll address this insult as intended: someone afraid of technological advancement.
Speaking for myself (though I’m sure I can vouch for many), I’ve tried about every medium of art there is. I’ve changed software and hardware over the years as a professional Designer. I’ve dabbled in nearly everything to come over the last 15 years to see if it helps me do the work I need to do as a Designer and Illustrator. Suggesting artists (most especially DIGITAL ARTISTS) are against AI because they’re afraid of technological advancement is smooth-brained.
I’m not anti-technology nor afraid of innovation. I’m just not naive enough to be impressed by every new thing. A lot of people see tech (and companies) as harbingers of a Star Trek-like society. In reality, our tech is more like Star Wars. It barely functions and constantly lets people down.
Moreover, digital art is not that valuable compared to traditional mediums. Tech does not make an artist. Traditional artists being “left behind” by AI is a fallacy pushed by people who haven't a clue about how working artists make their work and their careers. AI needs artists; artists do not need AI.
“AI Is Like The Car. A Hundred Years Ago You’d Be Advocating For Saving Horse-Drawn Carriages.”
A perfect analogy. We in America are a car-dependent nation. We have destroyed our cities and towns to build infrastructure for cars. We have torn out public transportation and rail for highways and roads. Auto and oil companies have cornered people into the need for an expensive luxury item that is also a top contributor to global warming, health issues, and deaths.
Advancement of technology does not automatically lead to good.
“AI Lets Anyone Express Themselves Creatively”
I wouldn’t call typing keywords into a system to bash pixels together “creative expression” and I don’t believe anyone is getting into AI for that reason.
AI supporters are not in it for creative, expressive, or artistic purposes. They don’t see this as an opportunity to be an artist or they would already have been on that path. They’re getting into it because they think they can make a lot of money.
“The emotion that a human can channel into artwork, right; cause you look at a lot of the AI art and you can tell its AI art. Its very soulless, like stock images.” — Tim Henson
“I Don’t Have To Learn Artistic Skills.”
LOL, right. This comes from people who never had any intention of making art. Plus, it just results in low-quality images.
The progression of tech in relation to art has mostly been about new ideas and new frontiers of creativity. Modern tech is mostly about increasing the speed of production. Which comes at a loss of thoughtfulness, skill, and understanding. Whatever is not needed to produce, gets lost. Like the directional senses when relying too much on GPS or forgetting phone numbers because its no longer necessary. AI isn’t about increasing creativity it’s about removing it.
Artists have an understanding of what it takes to create good art and as such appreciate it when they see it from others. AI advocates want to shortcut the hard work it takes because they see a monetary opportunity.
Making good art is hard. That’s part of the reason people are drawn to it. Because not anyone can do it. Because there’s something unique in it that connects with another person. Shortcutting the process isn’t advancement, it’s lazy and uncreative. It is the very opposite of what AI companies are claiming to stand for. As it stands today, illegal and unethical.
Plus, there’s something to be said for expertise as a barrier to entry for photo manipulation. Adobe Photoshop’s AI-based tools make it easier to manipulate images believably, which has the consequence of making it easier for people to use it in nefarious ways. It is akin to deep fake videos and AI is putting that power in the hands of more people. “More accurate results with less skill” is not the kind of technology that is for the greater good.
“Real Art Is Frustrating”
Correct.
“Its The Democratization Of Art”
You’d have to be making art for this to hold any water. When using generative AI tools, you are not the creator, you are the client. The generator is your digital contractor. At best, you act as an art director.
There are amazing artists making sculptures from trash. The barriers to entry for creating art are virtually nonexistent. Certainly less than what it requires to produce digital images from a monthly subscription and a computer. What AI companies are democratizing are powerful editing and manipulation capabilities. They’re democratizing misinformation.
“People With Disabilities Can Use It”
That’s not who this is for and they still can’t create plagiarized work. There are plenty of examples of disabled people making original art. It just requires actual creativity.
“Artists Are Better At Making Art Than AI Is”
Yes, but it doesn't matter. Some digital artists will be displaced by AI even if the generated results are legal (stock images) because the process will be faster and cheaper.
Saying “AI can’t draw hands so I’m not worried” is missing the point and requires optimism about people and capitalism I do not have. I worry that people will be satisfied with a “good enough” version if it means they can get it instantly for a fraction of the price.
“AI Is Better At Making Art”
No, it’s not. Anyone who says this doesn't have the ability to distinguish good images from bad.
“AI Will Make Art Better”
How? I haven’t seen anyone explain how this will happen. It's as though people are unaware of any art not in digital form. I think what they probably imagine is that it will make art faster and therefore better. But then, better for who?
For the audience, art is not about the process or the tools. Art that is an expression of a medium’s possibility (what AI is capable of) is not interesting. The ideas, connections, stories, messages, the entire point of a work being created is the essence of all art that endures. AI art for the sake of it could not be less interesting. No one cares that someone can make an image with AI. There has to be a point to it.
Even with Streamline and Futurism movements, that art was inspired by technology and an optimism about the future with it. It was about communicating speed, energy, and the possibility of new frontiers in visual forms. It did not say “technology is good because technology”.
“I Crafted My Prompt ”
lol.
If I google search for something, are the image results my images? Am I an artist?
“No One Has A Right To A Certain Style”
AI is not creating something new within a certain style. It creates by copypasta. And why would you even want to copy someone else's style so closely? Surely it doesn't satisfy you, doesn’t excite you to be a copy of someone else.
There is a great deal of good art that comes from people being comfortable with their own authenticity.
“Good Artist Copy Great Artist Steal.”
No one is sure what Picasso meant by this. The consensus understanding is that you take something and interpret it as your own, which AI can not do. You make something your own thing as it is filtered through you and your own problem-solving. And he was likely speaking on a micro level. You see how someone else rendered a tree and use that to inform your next tree, never intended as an antidote for an entire piece of work. To suggest that Picasso, one of the most original forward-thinking artists ever, was advocating for plagiarism is beyond stupid.
“AI Works The Same Way Humans Do On A Larger Scale.”
If you’ve ever made anything on your own you can tell this argument comes from someone who never has. It suggests everything is a direct copy of something else. That people piece different bits of information together as AI does; that artists rip off other artists directly, X for X. It’s already been addressed above, but this is not how artists produce their own work.
They think making art is a straight line from A to B. It’s a zig-zagging, flipping, twirling roller coaster from A to Z. It is a process that begins with thoughts, opinions, and imagination. Visualizing a structure in your mind and building an idea for a composition in your head. It involves self expression, planning, intent, randomness, experimentation, problem solving, repair, and iteration.
AI generation is an algorithm. Its output is based on the training data it is built on. It works within those boundaries and averages. An artist can consider the average, then break free from it.
“I know how it works, so there’s nothing there. It’s no different than how a microwave works. All it’s doing is processing data. There are so many other things to worry about.” — Jensen Huang, Nvidia CEO. New Yorker, December 2023.
Note: The above quote from Huang was followed by an acknowledgment that AI “will come for the fiction writers first” before the possibility of a journalist feeding notes to a generator to write an article.
“Artists Are Gatekeeping Art”
Artists are fighting to protect their work and for AI companies to follow copyright law.
Is There Hope For Artists?
Kickstarter suspended the Unstable Diffusion project. Deviantart changed their terms so artists have to opt-in to AI pools. The Writer’s Guild won some protections against AI after their recent strike, and the biggest source of hope is the soon-to-be-released Nightshade which poisons AI data should an image be scraped from the internet. But, I don’t know— AI technology has been unleashed.
Now is the time to fight if there’s any chance at all. Refuse inevitability. Nothing is inevitable. Know that AI is in the wrong legally and maybe have faith in humanity. The music industry went through a similar battle years ago. There was a moment when musicians had to protect their work; you just couldn’t download stuff for free. In the Metallica vs Napster fight, Metallica was right.
I mentioned in this article there’s a level of optimism you have to have about people and capitalism that I just don’t. At least not entirely. I know Art Directors who will not hire AI operators because of legality issues and because AI-generated art is just corny as hell. Like, who really wants it?
These ADs and people within hiring positions I know (and others I’ve seen on twitter as well) have an appreciation and understanding of what makes art good and valuable, and understands its impact on a business or product. Certainly, they understand its impact on people. That’s worth something and if there's anything in this world to believe in it's that people making original art represent so much of what makes our lives worth living that AI and its promoters will never understand and never replace.
Final Thoughts
My defiant stance is against AI generation built on the stolen work of creative people. It is not against all variations of AI tech or machine learning.
So as a professional creative person, I will not be using AI image generation in my process. I like to think of myself as a proponent of art and especially of people in any creative discipline trying to make a living from their hard work and talent. The thought of using AI generators to further advance my own career is a shame I could not bare. In no way could I call myself an advocate for artists while doing that. Anyone who portrays themselves as such, while understanding how AI works so as not to claim ignorance, is not a creative ally. They do not have our backs. They have no issue with lifting themselves up by crushing their peers.
I also have no interest in automating personal connections with business partners. I don’t believe they want that either. Imagine having a lot of money to spend on a project. You reach out to someone via email to inquire about the project and you get an obviously automated response. Are you going to trust that person with your project?
In the short term, it sucks because artists are suffering right now. They’re giving up because they see a bleak future. They’re getting other jobs because their clients have dried up. They’re depressed because their work has been stolen and used to replace them as others profit from it. But in my most optimistic outlook, this won’t maintain.
The better news is, AI image generators don’t seem to be that magical or valuable anyway, so it’s hard to see long-term commercial success or artistic threat. Cognitive dissonance is creeping through in pro-AI arguments as well. “Nothing will replace creativity and ideas” followed by “People using AI will replace those who don’t”. When the early advocates aren't even sure what to believe, it’s hard for me to jump on the hype train.
I believe clients will find that normal people are not into this shit. It’s weird and unethical and at some point, like most things in tech, the shiny newness wears off and people turn away. The long view is this can only open a new door to the bottom of commercial art where clients are happy with shitty work made by the least skilled people.
