Do Ethics Have a Place in an AI Society?
Or are they just considered a pain in the ass on the road to more profits
Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly prevalent in the creation of art. AI models are being used to generate music, visual art, and even prose.
These tools hold great potential for the democratization of the arts, making creativity accessible to more people.
However, many artists and art enthusiasts are worried that these AI art tools may threaten the livelihoods of artists by eliminating the cost of labor.
And this is inevitably true.
The market for mid-level concept and texture artists, animators, and Twitch emote creators is in particular danger of being targeted for destruction. As well, junior art directors, copy assistants, intermediate designers, and creators in the social media departments of many large companies.
These roles, which are already low-paying and often exploited, are under existential threat as AI art tools are being developed that can do the same job without requiring payment. Making billionaires more billions… faster.
An “artist” is not needed for many of these jobs, but someone with an artistic understanding, as well as scrupulous attention to technique, style, and context is.
The big lie.
AI art tools are not “artificially intelligent.”
Referring to AI-generated art as “artificial intelligence” is false advertising and obscures the reality of what’s being sold.
AI art tools are probability models and not creative in any reasonable sense. They create charts, graphs, and visual representations of data.
AI “artists” keep telling us that it is their work, they are the artist.
And therefore lies the conundrum:
If machine learning algorithms are indeed creative, then the prompter cannot be credited as the artist.
If the machines are NOT creative, then it is simply a fancy printer following instructions supplied by the prompter.
Instructions are not art, nor are they copyrightable.
Machines can not hold copyright.
There is no middle ground here.
The prompter is the commissioner of a piece of visual art.
Much like a commercial artist receives their work brief from an art director or editor, the prompter simply tells the “creative” what they want.
Therefore, prompters are not artists, they are actually commissioning clients.
To claim otherwise is a lie, and an ethical breach of trust between artist and viewer.
The Missing Context of Ethical Malfeasance
Machine learning algorithms are tools that can be used creatively, but real-world context must be considered.
One of the key concerns is that these AI art tools cannot create anything new.
The tools themselves rely on stolen labor, drawing upon enormous databases of previous art, compiled from millions of images used without the artist’s consent or payment.
Additionally, AI art tools inherit every single bias already present in their training data.
Therefore, it is easily argued that AI art tools are converters that cannot produce anything new without the creativity of human artists, whose work forms the basis for the tool’s functionality.
Human artists who were actually the victims of the largest art heist in the history of civilization.
Remember how important it was deemed to return the antiquities stolen from countries or the art stolen by hordes of invaders or totalitarian authorities?
I remember the battles for copyright and ownership of the work that we created in order to actually have something for all of our time, toil, and occasional heartbreak.
And now I see photographers who championed copyright control, railed angrily against those who stole intellectual property, and sued corporations for even small infringements happily making AI “art” from stuff that was stolen from others.
Hypocritical doesn’t quite cut it.
Disgraceful, deceitful, and incredibly duplicitous are words I could use.
The Inconvenient Truth
Some may argue that the practicality of AI art tools comes at the expense of creativity. Instead of opening brave new worlds of possibilities, the machines will learn to do the most bland, publicly accepted dreck.
Image generation tools regress towards the lowest common denominator, homogenizing art and creating a culture where originality and innovation are sacrificed in favor of efficiency.
As the prompters keep training the machines on the most “popular” results, the machines will keep producing the most “popular” results. As creativity begins to crater because of the massive amount of non-artist involvement, it will produce less and less interesting work.
No matter what the ‘prompters’ tell it, it will produce what the masses prefer.
AI art tools were created for practical purposes, similar to the automatic loom, which mechanized and took the human touch out of textile design. It didn’t create new designs or breakthroughs in aesthetics, it created a boon of crap that could be quickly created, sold cheaply, and at a greater profit.
I am not against profit, but I do believe profit can be gained with ethics and humanity-focused work.
The proliferation of AI art tools also raises ethical concerns regarding labor and copyright laws.
If the machine is the creator, as established above, copyright cannot be upheld.
If the prompter is the ‘artist’ then the machine is just the producer and words — no matter how they are used to prompt the machine — cannot be copyrighted.
So… no man’s (or woman’s) land.
The Inconvenient Conclusion
Human beings must be fairly compensated for their labor, and creators of AI art tools need to obtain licenses for the training data used.
This needs to happen sooner than later.
Getty has filed suit to do so, and several arts organizations and class action suits have been filed.
We will have to wait — too long, most likely — for the outcomes of these legal eagles and their clients to prevail. If, as I believe, they do.
Without this, corporations are likely to continue to exploit the labor of artists and manipulate copyright laws for their own benefit. Of course, this is not new.
Remember the call of “income inequality" that was talked about at all the “right parties”? I do.
Well, I guess that too has passed.
We now have billionaires exploiting working and middle-class artists in order to grab even more billions.
Sounds like textbook income inequality to me.
And artists who should know better are rejoicing because they can make an illustration of a duck on the moon wearing galoshes and sunglasses.
AI art tools pose a real threat to many artists’ livelihoods, where the benefits of reducing the cost of labor come at the expense of creativity and originality. Looking around at who is running this thing, do you see any hope that they will put creativity and humanity first?
I certainly do not.
The creators of these tools must address the ethical concerns around labor and copyright laws, ensuring that human beings are fairly compensated and their rights are protected.
If not, humanity will be changed for millennia and the change will not be what so many of the people creating this so-called ‘art’ think it will be.
My name is Don Giannatti. I write on Medium and Substack. I make photographs, art, and music. I love creative people and will fight for them whenever and however I can.
