Review from a professional illustrator

[ad_1]

You can’t replace my hand with a prompt

Illustration by you Douglas-Fish.

After the recent devaluation of NFTs (non-fungible tokens), the majority of the arts community rejoiced in relief and satisfaction that their suspicions of this unethical technology had been confirmed.

Unfortunately, this relief will be short-lived and replaced by a new fear: AI-generated art.

On December 14, popular art network and portfolio website ArtStation enraged its community by issuing a statement claiming that AI-generated art was not a violation of its terms of service: it is allowed as an inclusion in your creative portfolio. The statement was met with irony and disdain, given that its creation is handled by an AI, not a human.

Unless you assume the creators are those of the thousands of stolen artworks used as material by the AI.

The images don’t come from just anywhere: the source of the results also has stylistic elements thanks to an endless bank of documents on the Internet, almost all of which are obtained non-consensually.

Still, ArtStation explains that they take copyright infringement very seriously. The whole statement is dripping with hypocrisy and clear uncertainty about the consequences. Artists protested by uploading the same image, designed by illustrator Alexander Nanitchkov, reading SAY NO TO AI-GENERATED ART. Some have drawn the image in their own style, flooding the ArtStationsalgorithm with the images and making finding AI art extremely difficult. The community hopes the act will catch the attention of ArtStations to re-evaluate their stance. Other protests on other websites have also started, with hashtags like #NoAi.

The innocent suggestion of the use of AI art as a tool obscures the true grotesque, capitalist initiative of the theft, disrespect, and commodity it brings.

These images are extremely far from replacing the human hand. AI co-created books lack crucial details and flawed features that show the work is obviously generated: extra fingers, mismatched eyes, buildings that suddenly end, landscapes that seem to crumble like a video game, among many other problems. .

Not only that, but the argument that it makes art more accessible is completely ridiculous. Art has been and always will be accessible: anything can be art if you believe it. You can spend thousands of dollars on your crafts or create lumps of mud or by carving objects; the only limit is you. The truth is not that AI is making art more accessible, but rather that finished products can now be spat out without an ounce of effort.

A popular art sharing website, DeviantART, which has been in the game since 2000, implemented a system to allay creator fears by including an option to opt out of AI-generated source material after much backlash. of artists condemning the brand for allowing AI. – generated art at all; however, it is only available on the website, not the app, and extremely hard to find. Many creators have criticized this implementation, considering it to be less than the bare minimum to protect its users. The system wasn’t automatic either, requiring creators to apply a setting to each post, which for some was in the 10,000s.

A shocking but not at all surprising trend that the community has noticed is that the behemoths of the virtual art world, such as Adobe and DeviantART, are the ones promoting AI-generated art: companies and programs known for their artistic exploitation in favor of generating the most revenue is pro AI, while smaller companies like the arts program Krita have followed the protest in a vow to protect human artists.

Another chilling example is the appalling appearance of AI-generated art in the aisles of artists at conventions like Anime Expo last November. In response, thankfully, two of America’s biggest conventions (Anime NYC and Anime Los Angeles) have banned the sale of AI-generated art in artist aisles, with Anime Los Angeles stating that, if at the In the future, such a program is created that only procures specific images belonging to the artist, it will be the responsibility of the artist to provide proof that the pieces were not created from stolen images.

Places like this, especially in my own experience, are extremely vital for selling local artwork, as well as humans connecting with artists and other art lovers and sharing their wonderful arsenal of ideas and their specialized individuality. This is no place for AI.

As a dedicated illustrator and promoter of the arts, AI art is scary, it’s a threat. The idea that someone can walk into a prompt and within seconds, stealing the hard work of others, create an image that, to the average viewer, meets and excels the artistic ability that I’ve spent my whole life creating. refine, is terrifying.

Some artists think that AI-art is inevitable, but the result is not the problem: the methods are. Some artists suggest solutions such as purchasing the source material from the artists, paying a portion of the revenue to the source artists, or setting up clear separate categories on websites to differentiate the material and help control it. , but in reality, the potential income from these suggestions makes them a pretty pipe dream. AI generators are fun and interesting to play, but replacing its use for gambling with its use for monetary and aesthetic gain based on theft is where the line needs to be drawn.

You are not revolutionizing the game of art: you are disrespecting the effort, the passion, the livelihood and the love of creation. Not to mention the finances artists need to survive.

AI degrades art into a commodity: a fear that grew with NFTs, and even early forms of printing. Despite everything, the art always remained.

We will always stay.

[ad_2]