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.”