IS AI GENERATED ART ETHICAL?

It's as unethical as tracing

I'd compare it to having everyones art jpegs being thrown into a blender. You can't point to which art contributed to whatever result, but you can certainly point to what was put into the blender in the first place.

I mean, people with talent aren't out of a job yet. It's like people using Hero Forge to create images of their characters. A tool for people who aren't artistically inclined, but nothing special and which pales compared to actual talent. Heck, I can't even draw that well myself, much as I have fun with it. Mostly.

Do I think the easy-peasy generated stuff belongs on art sites? No, not necessarily, especially not on places for professional like ArtStation. I keep telling DeviantArt to "see less like this" when I've witnessed the umpteenth Hero Forge screenshot. It starts to feel like no-effort spam by then. I'd rather take foot fetish crap that looks like a horny ten-year-old drew it on MS Paint.

Do I think that someone could get good at AI generated art, and have been impressed by some of those images? Yes. Of course, there's examples that look like the American box art of the original Mega Man. I view AI art generators like a tool, a medium like any other.

Do I think "stealing" art is always unethical (read: pure evil and if you're remotely related to anyone who does, you get the bullet too, so say armchair activists)? Uh... no. Tell that to everyone who'd used a reference, or who's used someone else's art for a private D&D character image. Art is made to be witnessed and enjoyed, or made to be created for fun and leisure. The only hard pass I have is for stealing art for NFTs that were never intended to be an NFT. Or using one's OC for cybersex RP.

If you wanna throw a price tag on it, I get that and support it. I'm a furry. Why wouldn't I respect artists who offer their art for a price? It's kinda awesome how people can do art professionally as a side hustle, and it amazes me how people who practically draw for a living don't seem to get sick of it. I pay and even overpay artists for their commissioned work.

If there are artists who specifically wouldn't want their art used for AI stuff? I understand it, and they should be able to act upon a cease-and-desist, even if I disagree that art should be protected so closely. Public and open domain exist for a reason, and when you struggle too hard to protect your precious creations? Well, you get the kind of crap Nintendo and Disney do with their IPs. Or you act like the obsessed auteur who's more focused on copyrighting their works than creating or refining them.

tl;dr Context matters, but I don't think artists are out of a job yet. I could see AI being a medium of its own, but I also get people not wanting to be a part of it. For now, AI art is a tool, especially for people who lack professional-level art skills themselves.

author=kentona

author=Shinan
It's as unethical as tracing

well, as unethical as tracing 100,000 images as a composite at the exact same time.

So I'd say it's 100,000x more unethical than tracing.


It's sketchy AF what people are doing with it, though. And quite disappointing how quickly it's gone mainstream. This will kill entire industries (because people will largely gravitate to what's quickest, easiest, and cheapest, and nothing is quicker and easier and cheaper than stealing from thousands of artists simultaneously.)

This. But I believe people will still value art made by other people, since at the moment the input of the "soul" can't be replicated, if you get my extremely weird meaning.

You can tell when something was made with passion, basically, and when something was made by a bunch of algorithms and created solely for the end profit. Maybe the discussion will change if and when there's an AI that becomes self aware and makes it own art.

For the time being, learning that someone used AI art would make me turn off of whatever they made. I want nothing to do with it, like NFTs and such. Instant turn off.

I see nothing wrong with artificial intelligence generating texts. This is why robots and other mathematical models were created - to free people from routine and monotonous work and to allow them to work more creatively.

Tricky subject. My initial answer would be "no", but I don't have a firm opinion. Some people are comparing it to taking inspiration from, drawing with references. It's not the same thing. Someone mentioned tracing... not exactly the same thing either. We're dealing with something that has no precedents, it's hard to compare.

Ultimately, I this will be decided legally. And I hope they just create rules that forbid AI to be trained without the permission of the owner of the content, which should drastically weaken them.

I used a single piece of AI art in my game, and I decided, as a personal policy, to mention it was AI generated in the credits.

----edit---

I'm also surprised people are not discussing other AI content, like chatGPT. Same problem. People are usually less particular about property of they texts, but still, lots of text were used without permission.

author=calunio
I used a single piece of AI art in my game, and I decided, as a personal policy, to mention it was AI generated in the credits.

I actually had this same thought as well. You wouldn't write a song with a featuring artist and not credit them in the title. I think legally it should be credited as AI generated, just like you would credit any human who produced a resource for you.

At the end of the day though, what we're dealing with is something that has no original thought. You can't tell an AI "make me some art" and expect anything original or of astounding quality without giving it a ton of direction. Same with music or games or whatever. Machine learning is not the same as self-awareness and reflection on the context of your personal experiences, which is essentially where original thought comes from. Until an AI can do THAT, I don't think we really need to worry about them seriously replacing jobs. People will always pay more for something authentic than they will for a cheap knock off. If I'm gonna buy shoes, I'm looking for Adidas, not Mydaddys.

I would be tempted to agree with you, except the difference is that the produced image did not come from the mind of the person using the tool. No thought or inspiration necessary. Maybe a vague concept, but that's about it.