Category: Articles

The emergence of generative artificial intelligence has split artists over whether AI is a threat or a tool for creativity.

Generative AI tools can produce detailed pieces of art in seconds. For some artists, this technology opens up new avenues for creative possibilities, but for others, it undermines the skill and effort of artists, threatening their livelihoods.

Generative AI refers to technology that creates content from text prompts using machine-learning models trained on large datasets of existing artwork. Programs like DALL-E, Midjourney and Stable Diffusion have made it possible for anyone with a computer to create digital art for free or at a fraction of the cost of hiring a trained artist.

AI models have rapidly evolved over the past three years. Images created by AI used to be crude, blurry, and rife with errors, making it easy to distinguish from human-made artwork.

That progress has completely changed the conversation. Now, AI-generated art is almost indistinguishable from human-created art, prompting some artists to worry about the future of creativity.

“Personally, I see generative AI as a danger to creativity,” said Philip Bousquet, a commissioned artist. “People say it can be used to bring ideas to life if they don’t have the ‘talent,’ but I think the thing they miss is that art isn’t a product — it’s a process.”

Bousquet argues that dependence on AI diminishes the bond between artists and their work. “Putting a vague idea into a generator so it gives you a sloppy, blurry rendition of that thought doesn’t give you the same feeling as finishing a piece after days or even months of work,” he said.

Brooke Arledge, a graphic designer, says generative AI will threaten the livelihoods of artists.

“Initially, AI was supposed to act as a tool to help artists improve and get their creative ideas flowing, and in theory that is revolutionary,” she said. “Now it not only threatens many artists’ jobs but also forces us to compete with a computer that you don’t have to pay — and guess what big companies will almost always lean towards.”

Bousquet agreed and said the process of replacing artists with generative AI has already begun.

“Yes, and we already see it happening with companies like Coca-Cola,” he said in reference to Coca-Cola’s newest ad campaign created with generative AI.

“Their AI commercial was bad enough, but they’re now generating AI concept work to ‘prove’ it was real,” he said. “Why pay for a professional videographer, editor and artist when you can just generate a video?”

Arledge and Bousquet are not alone in their opinions. According to an opinion poll by the Design and Artists Copyright Society, 77% of artists interviewed believed that AI would replace jobs and opportunities.

Some artists disagree with the notion that generative AI will eventually replace human artists. They argue that AI could be used to brainstorm ideas, test color schemes and democratize artwork for everyone.

“Not everyone has the skills to draw whatever they want,” AI artist Jeanluc Martel said. “AI has essentially allowed anyone to bring their ideas to life.

“Let’s say I want to write a song; I can still write the lyrics, but I can use AI to make the lyrics I wrote into an actual song.”

However, Martel understands why artists dislike generative AI.

“I agree in many ways with those who rail against AI,” he said. “But people like me who use AI for fun are not the problem.”

“This is a symptom of capitalism. If anyone is at fault, it’s the billion-dollar corporations pushing to use AI so they don’t have to pay people anymore.”

From: https://substack.com/@quinlanf/p-186251071

A 3-year-old girl named Ahed al-Biouk was murdered by the occupation forces in Gaza last Sunday.

IDF soldiers shot her after she reportedly crossed the invisible “yellow line,” the boundary the military uses to justify a free-fire zone between the Palestinian-controlled side of Gaza and areas under its control. Palestinian sources deny Biouk crossed the line and claim she was still within the area under Palestinian control.

Even if she did cross the invisible line—which is highly doubtful—there is no justifiable reason to kill a toddler. It is absurd to suggest that this young girl posed any threat to Israeli soldiers.

In reality, like the genocidal monsters that these soldiers are, they found a reason to kill a child — the next generation of Palestine — and fired their guns.

On that same day the murder occurred, the official IDF account on X, formerly Twitter, said that its troops in southern Gaza “identified a terrorist who crossed the yellow line and approached the troops, posing an immediate threat to them.” The tweet also added, “The troops eliminated the terrorist.”

Even in death, young Biouk was dehumanized and called a terrorist. Biouk was effectively murdered twice: once after being shot, and again after they destroyed her character.

This murder was not an isolated event. On November 29, the IDF killed two young boys, Fami, 8, and Juma Abu Asi, 11, in a drone strike.

That same day on X, the official IDF account said, “Two suspects who crossed the yellow line, carried out suspicious activities, and approached troops in southern Gaza, posing an immediate threat.” The post added, “The IAF eliminated the suspects to remove the threat.”

Supporters of Israel quickly began spreading a false narrative that the two boys were forced by their parents to cross this invisible line and intentionally put themselves in harm’s way. Even if this story were true, Israeli troops intentionally drone-struck these children in a free-fire zone, which is still illegal under international law.

These two boys were collecting firewood because centralized heating does not exist in Gaza, and people are living in tents with little to no protection from winter weather. Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip has led to shortages of winter clothing, blankets and fuel, prompting people to scavenge for firewood.

A deeply disturbing pattern has emerged across these killings: Palestinian children are routinely labeled as “terrorists” or “suspects” after they are killed. This is not incidental; it is a deliberate tactic that serves to justify their deaths retroactively.

Fami, Juma, and Biouk were not combatants. They were children just trying to survive.

The terrifying reality is not just that these horrific murders occurred; it’s also the lack of accountability. These soldiers will more than likely never see a day in court for their crimes. And if they do, they will most likely get acquitted.

In 2004, a cruel example of this took place. An Israeli officer identified as “Captain R” unloaded an entire magazine into a 13-year-old girl named Iman Darweesh Al Hams. He would confirm his kill by shooting her in the head. Despite witnesses, which included soldiers under his command, saying she didn’t present a threat, he was acquitted in court. He was also promoted afterwards and given compensation.

Equally disturbing is the response — or lack thereof — from much of the mainstream media. Rather than demanding accountability, many outlets fall in line and repeat what the IDF says. At the same time, Israel supporters will spread lies that either paint toddlers as terrorists or their parents as fundamentalists who are willing to sacrifice their children for the Palestinian cause.

What is left is a horrifying truth: unless the world is willing to confront this injustice, more children will meet the same fate—and their stories will be rewritten just as quickly.

From: https://substack.com/@quinlanf/p-180543092