Yo, AI art, it’s a copycat game,
Stealin’ styles, man, it’s all the same.
You ain’t got soul, just lines and code,
Feelin’ like a scam from a digital mode.
Fake brushstrokes, no heart, no flair,
Just a soulless machine in the software glare.
You say you’re creative, but you’re just a tool,
Can’t match the fire of a human’s rule.
Paintin’ in pixels, no real emotion,
Lackin’ that depth, that raw devotion.
So keep your algorithms, keep your fake brush,
Real art’s made by hands, not by a rush.
A dis track on AI art made by ChatGPT.
I believe it is flawed and there are better points to argue in a dis track but its rhymes aren’t half bad.
I asked ChatGPT “can you speak on the controversy about AI art using the art of others without permission to create its database” it had some very good points that I would like to comment on.
Copyright Infringement
The biggest issue is that AI art generators often use copyrighted works in their training data, meaning they could be drawing from an artist’s intellectual property without permission. This raises questions about whether AI is essentially stealing from artists who worked hard to create original pieces. Some argue that AI is using these works as “raw material” to generate new art, but that doesn’t change the fact that these artists weren’t compensated or consulted for their contributions. (ChatGPT 2024)
The copyright infringement issue is an interesting one, as people have been using the art of others as reference and inspiration since time immemorial. Everyone has at least heard of Mona Lisa or seen images of it, and the multitude styles that have developed over the millennia have often taken from others. The line where something is inspired by vs stolen is hard to find at times. Though the fact that these pieces are being used pixel by pixel is different from taking inspiration from ideas.
The Impact on the Art Market
Some are concerned about the economic impact AI art will have on the art market. If collectors or businesses start opting for AI-generated art (which is often cheaper and faster to produce) instead of buying work from human artists, it could reduce opportunities for creators to make a living from their craft. This could be especially harmful for emerging artists who rely on the sale of their original work for income.
We saw this first hand apply to uvic, with their AI-generated poster. Honestly, I was in the comment section of that post if you scrolled down. It felt disrespectful to the artists we have within our student body. There are many people more than capable of creating something for this poster if you would just be willing to pay a little bit of money. It would also be a great exposure opportunity for them. This is going to happen more and more within the world as people continue to drive down expenses in businesses. Art will suffer as a result of this sort of action.
I will end the post here but would like to note that I have used no imagery today. I could have used AI art here to help prove a point, but as they say, any publicity is good publicity. Personally, I will be trying to keep AI art out of my classrooms unless students can supply very good creative reasons for using such techniques. To clarify, I do not believe all AI art is bad, there are many examples of interesting art supplemented by AI. I’ve seen people create moving creatures that work based on data supplied by the artist. But when your only input is the words it uses to shape its design, that isn’t developing any art skills. AI art is not bad, but the modern consumerist facets of it certainly do not give it a good look.