Acceptable uses for AI in art

[Melooon]

I was wondering if people would interpret my message as negative; I have a tendency to say negative-sounding things while meaning them in a far more profound way So I agree! When I say mirror, I also mean gateway; looking into yourself is as much about seeing new things as it is about seeing what you already know; and when I say "yourself" I don't just mean, you the individual, I also mean, you the human, and you the representative of all life 

But with that in mind; I'd hold my ground and say; aesthetics don't exist without introspection, a beautiful or terrifying landscape is not about the land, its about the human dream of what that land represents. That's why van Gough is so famous because he paints a vase of flowers, but that vase contains all the light and darkness and weirdness of human experience. There is a very new movement called post-representational art which attempts to get beyond that limit; but at this time, no one has figured out how to actually do that    (Im not sure they ever will)

[NacreousDreams]

Nah, I wouldn't say it's negative, I just feel it's a bit insufficient since the way it's phrased focuses on the viewer without much concern for the message behind the work. You can't reflect on something you don't know, and that's where the mirror analogy falls short. Eh, potato potahto, I suppose.

I do agree, though, that art is largely based on an intuitive sense of meaning. On a base level, we understand that "flower = pretty", but we can also learn to see beauty in things that don't fit our instincts- without even really thinking about it. Like, I never specifically reflected on why I like Invader Zim's art style so much, I just do. But I would say there's a reason for it, and that implies a meaning.

[Melooon]

Zim's art style so much, I just do. But I would say there's a reason for it, and that implies a meaning

Zim is an alien! The thing about that show that stood out to me is that it's really unsettling, it's extremely alien; the whole art style is about making things appear as weird as zim is and as weirdly as he sees the world, it's a great example to bring up! Im sure there are other ways to read into it too!

An interesting question would be; could an AI make a show like Zim? Would it be able to invent a visual style that reflected the mood and subject of the story? I honestly don't know... I think it would be able to do simple moods, like making it rain and be blue tones if it's sad; but I don't think Iv seen any evidence AIs could actually create a unique style that provides complex meaning like that, and Iv seen no evidence to suggest that its in development.

So perhaps in the future, an artist might design a visual style, train their own AI on that style, and then use the AI to generate a show like Zim using their style?? Have we finally found an Acceptable use for AI?

[appleAlc]

I don't have much to say other than something that has probably been said before:
these are not ai, they are image creating algorithms. this is not just being nitpicky about the naming conventions, this is a sizable distinction. even ignoring the oft...dubious nature of the training sets these algorithms are built upon, they simply aren't like. an artificial intelligence, by definition. It's like ChatGPT, people often oversell it.

[Necrosia]

I don't have much to say other than something that has probably been said before:
these are not ai, they are image creating algorithms. this is not just being nitpicky about the naming conventions, this is a sizable distinction. even ignoring the oft...dubious nature of the training sets these algorithms are built upon, they simply aren't like. an artificial intelligence, by definition. It's like ChatGPT, people often oversell it.

Machine learning is a part of artificial intelligence, the naming is not wrong. Of course an algorithm is not as fancy as a full robot with emulated personality but its the same field.

From wikipedia:

AI applications include advanced web search engines (e.g., Google Search), recommendation systems (used by YouTube, Amazon, and Netflix), understanding human speech (such as Siri and Alexa), self-driving cars (e.g., Waymo), generative or creative tools (ChatGPT and AI art), automated decision-making, and competing at the highest level in strategic game systems (such as chess and Go).

[Memory]

Machine learning is a part of artificial intelligence, the naming is not wrong. Of course an algorithm is not as fancy as a full robot with emulated personality but its the same field.

From wikipedia:

Wikipedia is taking sides here, plenty of researchers in the field are very passionately fighting against this nomenclature, most prominently Emily M. Bender, head of the linguistics faculty of the Uni Washington:

https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/look-behind-the-curtain-dont-be-dazzled-by-claims-of-artificial-intelligence/

https://medium.com/@emilymenonbender/on-nyt-magazine-on-ai-resist-the-urge-to-be-impressed-3d92fd9a0edd

Intelligence is definitely a controversial word and as a linguist I definitely agree with Prof. Bender and @appleAlc here.

[Necrosia]

I took some time to collect my thoughts about this entire ordeal and why AI art bothers me so much aside from the fact that its a lazy excuse for people who can't bother to study and that the only ethically art-generating AI to day belongs to adobe.

It's capitalism.

Yeah, go on laugh all you want but I will not stand for technology changes that serve only to devalue humans and offer no benefit, artists are already severely underpaid and now companies are given the option to not use artists at all and the worst thing is that they used said artists' work to create the technology.

I find the argument "but AI will be a tool to help artists, not replace them!" very naive and most of the time it comes from people with a lack of experience on art as a trade, I already pasted several links showcasing industry workers pissed with the current developments, we are talking people who illustrate MTG cards, make concept art for disney, the sort of art-job most of us DREAM of.

Is it futile to resist technology changes? Maybe. I dislike Amazon therefore I don't buy from it, maybe it won't make a difference on Jeff Bezos wallet but I stand for my beliefs regardless if people are doing the same or not, if it has a an impact or not. It makes no sense to me to cry that corporations made the internet ugly and sterile and then on the first opportunity we kick out the artists helping keep it unique  and disregard their requests entirely.

This is my conclusion, it's political and if you think this entire discussion is not political in any way you are very disconnected with reality.

Further reading:
Marx on The Reserve Army of Labor / Unemployed

[Melooon]

@Necrosia I know this topic tends to derail every 5 minutes  but getting back to the original question of "What are the acceptable uses for AI in art" - is your conclusion that there are no acceptable uses for it because it can be used to displace existing artists?

I don't like absolutism because it's a very limiting position and tends to shut down conversations instead of opening them up; so aside from your distaste for corporate use cases, what would be an acceptable use for you (if any)?

[Necrosia]

@Melooon

There won't always be a happy easy answer, not every time it will be possible to encounter a common middle ground, but answering the main question the only acceptable use for AI art is an artist training it with their own art and then using it as a complimentary tool. Peter Mohrbacher comes to mind, he patterned with Midjourney some time ago and have been using it on some of his works.

If you check his art station you will see his paintings from 8 years ago, before this AI ordeal, which proves he is very capable to paint awesomely by himself so on his case the AI is really a complimentary tool to save time rather than a lazy excuse.

If one really has to use AI due to some appeal to emotion falacies I have seen out there then the one from Adobe is currently the only ethical option, alas if you do this you are once again giving money to huge companies that are akin to to microsoft, google, facebook, the whole 'I dont use big corporations because they are evil' goes down the drain.

[shevek]

Super interesting thread and I devoured every response. I especially agree with /home/user.

The discussion around AI art and what stems from the artist vs. the machine, what is original work of someone else in the AI generated art and what isn't is an emotional deep dive for me at times and I can offer a niche perspective to the discussion.

I like to create a variety of art (digital, paper, embroidery, ..), but I also struggle with aphantasia. I don't see images in my head, and I need a lot of references, or just lots of trial and error and editing to create anything because I need to create it to see it. I only see that something doesn't work out or isn't how I wanted it when it is already created (makes sewing clothes a wild ride..). I have the feelings or the facts in my head, but I cannot see any of my projects in my head and then go on to put that on paper or the tablet.

I usually have to at least google an image as a loose reference (even if it's just an image of a sunset cloud), but for more complex preplanned stuff, I have to slap something together in Photoshop with several reference images and some skew/perspective stuff and other editing to even see the thing I want to create before I can start. A lot of my art is based at least loosely on some Frankenstein reference file I made. For a big project of mine lately, I had to take several reference pics of my own sewing machine from different angles but most are not self shot, not all are simple product images of a generic item like a table. Some are also artpieces.

MamboGator wrote "No matter how carefully you craft the prompt to get exactly the result you want, it's always going to generate something possessed of other people." and it made me think: that is already the reality for people who don't have a mental eye.
When I wanna paint something that already exists (think, not just a fantasy image with made-up shapes that I create on the spot for fun, but a still image with a kitchen counter and a mug that should look realistic) I always have to rely on things that have been created, captured, painted so I can even have an idea what something looks like, even basic things.

I think I may just be super aware of this because I have to "manually" go out there and get the material and create a reference file, meanwhile others go through the world looking at all the things and freely combine it to an image in their head that they came up with, maybe even unsure where the inspiration comes from or without awareness that this looks like x thing they saw earlier that week. But I don't have this feature, this capability. So I either go on and google reference images and put together a file in Photoshop consisting of product images and others' art that represents a reference of what I wanna do before I start drawing, or... I can give the AI a prompt.

In this use case, AI is my mental eye. I am offloading the burden of visualization onto it because I can't do it. It listens to the thought and idea I have in my head and gives me the mental vision most other people have. It shows me what I thought of - if I want, in a variety of ways by re-generating over and over - and gives me a chance to view it before I commit to the project; it helps me realize before I start that that composition is actually bad, or I should not use this color, or I should actually include x and y because without it, the image it shows me looks bad. Most people I talk to can just trial this stuff out in their head and see what their project would look like with different composition and colors, but not me. AI does what I do in Photoshop much quicker with swift iterations.
I still opt to use Photoshop usually (creature of habit and more control via edits, positioning, scaling, opacity etc. even if it takes longer) but in my case, that is my acceptable use for AI in art.

I think my lack of mental image definitely forms the way I think about AI and art. When I see arguments that are against use of AI in art/"AI art" there seems to be a lot of (well deserved!!) pride about your own mental process and I guess mental image in coming up with an art piece, that is supposedly different than the process the AI goes through, and that there is something original about it that AI can't replicate; but it always has me wondering about where that leaves the art creation process of people like me. Sometimes it seems to me as if I am at least aware of what my exact sources are (and can even credit them), meanwhile AI won't/can't tell me where it got it from, and others' brains might not either.

Edit: I wanna make clear I don't copy or trace the files I make, they are just the second screen reference I look at on the side :>

[Corrupted Unicorn]

Lately been conflicted about the use of A.I. voices - my boyfriend raises a pretty good point on how the use of these might take work away from voice actors, especially those who get paid to voice memes and stuff; but I also must admit it's a pretty nifty tool for an audiovisual artist with 0 money  On one hand, it's very nice to get this much quality for free or cheap (I mean, compared to previous text-to-speech voices?); but on the other, I understand there is a certain craft to voice acting that must be respected as well. I feel justified on using A.I. as a hobby artist, but I can't help but feel wrong about it.

[Memory]

I think I found a way to put my opinion into two succinct statements:

Using machine learning algorithms as a replacement for an artist is a cheap imitation, mainly as it disregards the finer nuances that a human touch can introduce to an art piece, such as message, timeliness, innovation, ability to make fine adjustments and introduce a thematic focus. Replacing human artists with this kind of algorithm work for a profit margin is a short-lived capitalist fad that will over time fade as people realize that it cannot be a substitute for true art.

Machine learning algorithms can and should however be used as a tool to assist an artist; for example, a visual artist may collage several "AI" generated art pieces together to make something new. Something like an "algorithm poet" might be a future art niche, where people introduce an artful or meaningful text prompt to such an algorithm, where the result and the prompt make a whole. Furthermore, machine learning algorithms may evolve to a point of complexity where priming, tuning, steering and using one might be artistic work in and of itself that not "anyone can do".

[CytricAcid]

I consider myself pretty pro-AI art, but in ethical ways. What exactly makes AI ethical, to me?

In essence... I can't imagine training as something as something unethical, permissions or not. The amount of data stored for any one image in a large model like Stable Diffusion is less than the data needed to store a single pixel. I've offered a thought experiment before, to put it into perspective: If I took a single picture from random pictures on the internet and composed a cohesive image from it, is it sufficiently derivative to be seen as it's own work? Or is the "messy" source of its pixels, completely untraceable to it's original context, enough to mark it as irrequivably morally poisoned?

So much of what is considered ethical by AI I think stems from how we feel about copyright and intellectual property. I'm of a person that, in a perfect world, IP and copyright should not exist, and we should all be free to derive our own works from others. However, in the world we live in, doing such things can disenfranchise workers and artists and is very much being used as such. However, I do not think there is anything morally wrong with derivative art and I consider it part of a greater conversation that Art itself is. Making derivative art should not bring harm to the person being derived from, but the world as it works currently means it can. I'd rather address the issues that allow this harm to happen due to derivative art, rather than decide derivative art is the source of harm.

But that's just in my perfect little world. We're not in my perfect world and I need to talk about it as it exists. Forgive me for getting a bit political here.

I'm a working artist, and in many ways, my career is "threatened" by AI as much as I see it as a useful tool in my repertoire. As a tool, it can be used for good and bad, and it's ability to do bad is something that cannot be denied. It can push me out of a job and "replace" me as a creator. (Though, any AI result is only as good at the people who use it. AI can reliably make a "good" image, but making a GREAT image still requires an artists touch and polish that cannot be replicated.) It can force corporations to underpay workers even more as they push automation on it's workers. These threats are real, and should not be denied. I've just been frustrated by high profile industry artists chasing copyright and Disney/Adobe's good graces by siding with Corporations on strengthening copyright to prevent this instead of unionizing and pushing for better contracts, residuals, and negotiations on how their work can be used in an AI workflow, if at all.

Right now, Adobe is interested in pushing the senate to outlaw "style theft" under the funding of popular industry artists who fear AI. This is a far bigger threat to all our rights as artists to exist if in our scrambling to secure our jobs, we instead shoot ourselves in the foot by giving these companies even more fuel to shoot our works down as copyright infringement. I'd much rather have AI than stricter copyright (that would also stop the exact method many of these industry artists got into the industry; through style emulation and fanart.) and giving more leeway to these companies. The only other option is strengthening artist and worker rights in all creative industries and with all the ongoing strikes, I can very much see it working. It just saddens me that so many people would rather go the legal route and try to get on Disney's good graces.

How does this apply to me, a singular artist, then? I consider myself a member/supporter of AWAY Art Collective, a group of AI artists who seek to prove how AI can be used ethically. While some details I disagree with, for the most part, this is where I see the future of ethical AI usage in Art. You can read their Code of Ethics here.

Art is art. It should not be restricted by ideas of effort or mental worth or originality. To deny the fact these creations are art, is antithetical to what Art is. It is only because Art has become a source of income that it has become something to protect and gatekeep its defition. But I don't believe art should only be evaluated in its ability to make an income, and it's a naive folly especially in spaces like web revival where we are trying to move away from profit-driven mentalities.

[Grimlock]

i do honestly think its a shame that a very good potential tool for artists comes with all this baggage of the data set being collected without anyone's consent, people cutting costs by just having ai art for them for book covers, etc, the writer's union asking companies to not use ai text as "source material" to pay writers less and going on strike because of that and other things. ip and copyright laws are comically evil and i cannot believe that people were wanting copyright law to get strengthened because of ai when they basically only protect companies and barely protects artists, adobe coming out with "hi, we want to make it illegal to 'copy' an artstyle" was basically inevitable because if it wasn't adobe it'd be disney or something.
i do agree that artists should maybe relax a bit when it comes down to people seemingly getting "overly inspired" by their work and the such (have you seen closed species drama, that stuff is wild). but its kind of difficult when they can't even meaningfully consent to their works being used in training and even if they do take measures to prevent their work from ending up there people will do things like use ai to remove their signature and put it in anyway.
youtuber Patricia Taxxon has two very nice (but pretty old) videos regarding copyright law that i found really interesting. Here and here