AI use in Art

Let me start by saying this topic is a contested grey area with many aspects to consider. The point of this post is for me to write out my position on this topic as an artist. Others will not have the same opinions, and that is perfectly fine. It's ok to disagree. I will attempt to address specific aspects individually, starting with a brief background of AI.

AI is being used in creative and artistic fields. Text, sound, and images can be input and processed, resulting in songs, images, videos, lyrics, poems, and stories. You can specify different styles, moods, genres, themes, subjects, characters, scenes, and concepts to guide the AI closer to the desired result. You can also tell the AI to try again and regenerate the output, creating new variations.

There are many different AI models available to use with different focuses and types of outputs (ChatGPT, Midjourney, DALL·E, Suno, RunwayML). The models are trained using existing works and were inspired by the human brain. These AI models that generate output are referred to as generative AI. There are also LLMs, or large language models, that primarily use text output. LLMs are a subset of generative AI.

As an artist, I have thought a lot about the use of AI in art. I have also discussed this topic with many people. I have no doubt there's more to consider, so I remain open to new information and perspectives. Most of us (myself included) don't know everything about this topic. How could we without being subject matter experts in multiple fields? It's ok to be wrong, learn, and change your opinion.

Let's begin with a concept that ties into many of the others.

Is AI art real art? Are AI users real artists?

There are two large camps of thought at the root of this. Some define art primarily by the emotional or labor-intensive process behind it, while others focus more on the aesthetic or conceptual impact of the finished work. It's not completely binary, there is a spectrum like with most things. I see art more as the result because that is ultimately what I, the audience, interact with. But within that result, I see and appreciate parts of the process that add to its value.

There is another split between people who think art should be entirely or mostly human, and those who are fine with an artist leaning heavily on tools and computer assistance (not even just AI, cameras and Photoshop used to be treated similarly). Some say the point of art is that it's cool that it's made by a human person. I generally agree, but a human is still driving the AI. Yes, AI does take away some (sometimes most) of the intimacy of the creative process, but not all of it. Some people don't want to see what a machine can do because it's easy. I can understand this, but sometimes I just want to see cool stuff for the sake of seeing cool stuff.

Art is incredibly subjective. Many see it as a form of expression, and you won't always understand or connect with the goal or vision of the artist. There are people out there who genuinely dislike some of the so-called greatest artists of all time, and that's ok. But it doesn't mean that they aren't artists. Your value doesn't decrease because of someone's inability to see your worth. I think even ideas and concepts can be art, consider fiction stories and poems. Saying what is and isn't art feels like gatekeeping. Who are any of us to say so, especially if others are enjoying it? That's like telling someone the fun they are having isn't real.

I personally view AI art as real art but understand that I do not view it to be on the same level as the Sistine Chapel ceiling painting. I think there are tiers to art based on the required effort and amount of human involvement. I view AI generally as a lower tier of art, but still art. This is because the human involvement is minimal. However, consider that some artists incorporate AI into a workflow and use original content input, modify the output in other programs, or combine the output with other content in creative ways.

I can understand why people don't view someone who uses simple basic prompts as an artist, especially if they always take the first result or claim they made it all by themselves. But higher tiers exist and you can get detailed and creative with prompts by specifying multiple tags or operators, creating long complex prompts, modifying the prompts if the results are not what you want, and generating hundreds of variations before choosing a final render. Let's not forget that when people first start making art with a medium, it's typically low-tier results and hardly ever close to a masterpiece. AI output can be poorly made, but it isn't always the case.

Saying AI artists aren't real artists is like saying people who use calculators aren't real mathematicians because "real" math is done by hand. But calculators don't replace understanding, they just make execution faster. Likewise, AI can help artists who may lack technical skills express a strong vision. People use the calculator because it's more convenient than devoting the time to memorize formulas, and functions, and solve math by hand. For artists that lack drawing skills, but have writing skills, it provides an easy outlet to generate visuals for their story while being able to focus on the writing which they have more passion for anyway.

Some say AI art eliminates the need for passion, hard work, and trial and error. Generally, yes it does reduce the required hard work and trial and error, but let's also not count it out entirely. There can still be plenty of passion in the idea, and some people tweak their prompts hundreds of times and generate several hundred outputs to reach their desired vision. I understand most people are generalizing and speaking about basic prompts and limited generations.

With AI music, some say they have yet to hear anything that surprises them. They say so far it's lesser copies with the "it" factor missing. That may be the case for some, or it may simply reflect a bias against AI-generated work, which is a valid personal preference. One genre I've encountered thanks to AI is "caveman country", a surreal and hilarious blend of primal grunts and country twang that captures a bizarre, imaginative niche. I've yet to hear anything quite like it from human musicians.

A lot of human-made music is also rough imitations of existing songs and styles missing the "it" factor. Some human artists rely very heavily on sample packs, presets, drum kits, vocal samples, etc. Some songs are just a repackage of existing stuff without much thought. Others make music uniquely and with more of a human creative element and less sampling. With AI music, sure you aren't learning or using traditional production skills, but you can still apply your existing knowledge of influences, style, genre, lyrics, etc and ensure they are present to your required degree.

Yes, the producers that mostly make near copies and are not very original aren't a large percentage of all producers, but similarly, the people typing really basic prompts like "Mumford and Sons style rock" and releasing them as if they made it in the studio themselves is also a small percentage. Many people just make it for laughs or to try out the concept and share it with their friends. They still came up with the concept. What difference should it make if someone could hear an AI song or a human song and still like it?

Some say that if someone commissions a work of art, they aren't an artist. I say, they can be, it's on a spectrum. If you take a very basic idea and ask someone else to make it with little to no involvement, sure you aren't the artist. But if it's a complex idea, maybe you have some rough drafts already, you provide detailed requirements, and you constantly interject and guide the artist so the result better matches your vision, then you have a claim to artistic involvement. This is the reason why so many people are credited for movies and large projects. They each helped the art come to life and are in turn some level of artist while the director and creator of the story are the ones put front and center.

Ultimately, I believe art exists on a spectrum, and so does authorship. The involvement of tools, whether a brush, a camera, Photoshop, or AI, doesn't automatically invalidate artistic intent. What matters is the vision, curation, and creative choices made along the way.

Has anything like this happened before?

Yes, technological advancements have had similar impacts on art fields many times in the past, but AI has the biggest impact so far. Broadly speaking, when new tech makes aspects of artwork easier, people become frustrated and reductive. This pattern isn't new. When photography became accessible, critics claimed it wasn't art saying it just involved "pointing and clicking". Photoshop was also derided as lazy or fake when it became widespread. But both are now accepted creative tools. AI is simply the latest in this long cycle.

Some people say there is no creativity involved in AI art. Sure, AI is making a lot of creative choices for you, but the idea or concept itself (before even reaching AI) can still be unique and creative. Many people who use AI also have traditional art skills (like myself). Not everyone is on the same level, but these skills are used during the decision-making process of what to accept or reject and why. With countering "I don't know how to draw", some say that all artists didn't know how to draw at some point. I would ask those artists how long it took before they were drawing to the level of their imagination.

Some critics call AI output soulless or generic, claiming they can always spot it. But I've seen cases where even artists misidentified human work as AI and reacted emotionally, only to find out it was hand-made. This shows that assumptions about AI art being "obvious" or "bad" aren't always reliable. Let's also not forget that there is plenty of 100% human art that is soulless, sloppy, and objectively not good. Additionally, what you may consider amazing someone else may see as lame or uninteresting. Preferences exist, let's not forget that. Some AI art can have soul if properly guided by the human that had the creative thought to begin with.

You are allowed to not like AI, or think it doesn't look good. That's your opinion based on your taste. But to make such broad negative strokes reminds me of the full-blooded hate of people that don't/didn't like anime because they think it is incapable of delivering cinematic scenes and deep well connected plots and character growth. AI and anime are both just mediums. Types of ways or paths you can use as an avenue of expression. The concept is the core of the art. And a concept can be portrayed in pretty much any medium.

Saying that AI users aren't artists because they rely on a tool is like saying potters aren't artists if you take away their clay. Of course, they need materials, they're working in a specific medium. Could they work in a different one? Sure. But so could an AI user. The tool doesn't negate the creative vision. Just because they can use a different medium doesn't mean they should have to. Many artistic and creative concepts and ideas are transferrable.

People are simply choosing to use AI as a medium and there is nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't want to have to make all of my pots. Someone against AI I was speaking with said this: "As a working professional, my time would be better spent elsewhere." That's exactly the point of using AI as a medium. It saves time, just like hiring someone or using pre-made tools. The difference is that not everyone can afford commissions, and even then, commission results may not match the vision. AI provides more people a chance to express ideas without breaking the bank.

Is generative AI stealing?

I will start by clearly stating that I do not support stealing or plagiarism of others' work, regardless of the medium (songs, writing, paintings, drawings, pictures) or method (human or AI). That said, stealing does not occur in the AI scenarios since the original is untouched. People are usually referring to conceptual theft, and plagiarism does not occur in the majority of scenarios. The real concern is copyright infringement. There have been court cases that ruled in favor of the AI developers because if the original artists content is not displayed or distributed by the AI or developers to the users (or in general), then there is no infringement occurring.

In many, but not all, cases the AI models are trained with images or text that the creators did not consent to have used in such a way. In my opinion, if something is published, AKA made public, then it can be referenced. While referencing is different from directly uploading someone's art into a training set, I don't think the distinction is as large as some make it out to be. After all, our brains store images and ideas we've seen, and we reference them constantly in our creative work. If a public thing is used such that the outcome is not the same as the thing that was referenced, why should it matter?

Some people claim AI is only capable of producing copies of existing work. This is simply false. AI is more than capable of combining existing things in a way that generates unique results. Yes, it is also capable of copying and that's not good, but the majority of people are not using it this way. Besides, I believe that would be copyright infringement which the developers could face repercussions for. Humans are also capable of copying, even exact copies if they trace or cut and paste. But most humans are not creating copies and claiming they made them like it's an original piece.

Since copying is possible by both humans and AI, we should treat them similarly. I think we need to define a line. Some kind of percentage of variation from existing works that is required for it not to be stealing. Much like how with school essays, it's plagiarism unless what you write is different enough from your references. For AI art, I would say if there's a 15%-20% variation at least then it shouldn't be considered stealing or plagiarism. It would instead be considered an adaptation or artistic take unless there's a lot of variation in which case it would be original. But remember also that not all ideas are unique, two people can create very similar pieces completely independent from each other.

Human artists reference existing work, often using small aspects of many different works and combining them. Yes, they also have original concepts, but artists do not exist in a vacuum. Whether intentionally or subconsciously, they are constantly utilizing existing works in their creative process. Especially when following a tutorial or mimicking a style. I understand the scale and speed are not the same, but conceptually they are incredibly similar processes.

Speaking of style, can we truly own a style, method, genre, etc? These things are intangible. It would be like saying other people can't make surrealism art because someone else invented it and has dibs. Art is part of culture, it is meant to be shared. Otherwise, each style or genre would be a very niche pocket with limited content. Some claim the styles in AI only exist because they come from an existing style. I disagree. Style variations are how new styles are discovered, and a big part of that is the combination of existing styles.

Take the Miyazaki-style AI trend as an example. It sparked a lot of outrage, but I saw it as people having fun, reimagining things through a Ghibli-inspired lens. No one is claiming to have invented the style, and most people recognize it as an homage. It's not unlike someone redrawing a scene in Miyazaki's style by hand. It combines two existing things and creates something new and unique. I understand it is watering the style down in a way, but remember we live amidst infinite infinities. If it can exist it will exist.

Parodies are another interesting example. I'm pretty sure you can legally make parodies without contacting the original artist. There are rules around this, and it must add new meaning or expression to the original work to be considered transformative enough. If too much of the original concept is used it could still be considered copyright infringement. But you can make your take on a monster movie, based on Godzilla, that is different enough that it isn't Godzilla, just a creative alternative.

I can understand the frustration of people paying for an AI that's trained on your art and not making that money yourself. But we also need to consider that many people see ideas of crafts or whatever online and choose to do it themselves instead of paying that person. A potter might see a pot you make, really like it, and make some for themselves or to sell. Sure, it would be nice to get credit and money, but art at its core is not about credit, numbers, fame, or wealth. I would say "real" art is more about the idea, concept, or execution of the piece than anything else and a "real" artist's main goal is to create and inspire.

As far as my ideas, art, concepts, and intellectual property, I am completely fine with either an AI or a human referencing it. This is partly because I can not stop my public work from being referenced, nor do I really want to. Do not confuse referencing with copying. I am not ok with a human or an AI copying my existing work. If someone releases one of my songs as their own (whether they made it by hand or used an AI), then I would take legal action. But I also understand that if my work is referenced, most of the outcome of those references will not be an exact copy.

I don't think I own my style or my sound. Yes, I came up with them and used them, but why should I prevent others from being similar to me if they aren't copying exactly? I make art first and foremost because I like it myself. If others like it too, that is a pleasant bonus. If someone likes what I do so much that they also want to do similar, that's an absolute honor. Imitation can be flattery, inspiration can come from anywhere, and art has always been built on what came before. I believe what matters most is not how something is made, but why, the intention, the thought, and the feeling behind it. Some have said I am ok with my work being used for AI because I don't respect or appreciate my work enough which is simply not true since I love the songs I make.

Does AI make art more accessible?

The keyword here is more. Many disagree saying things like "art has been accessible since humans were carving into stone." They also say art is already more accessible these days because of the plethora of free programs and content to help you learn. Yes, art has always existed, but the level of accessibility has varied greatly depending on time, tools, resources, and ability. AI doesn't invent artistic access, it expands it, lowers barriers, and gives more people a path to express ideas that were previously locked behind steep learning curves or costs. I can understand the frustration of others getting similar results much faster than you and with less skill required. For many people though, they do not want to dedicate their life, or large portions of it, to develop the necessary skills for a one-off or infrequent aspect of their life. Nor should they have to! If they have a creative idea, they should not be required to only realize that idea completely on their own.

If we treated everything the same way, nobody would have time for everything. I wouldn't expect everyone who wants a website to learn how to code it completely by themselves. One could argue, "You can code, you're just choosing not to learn," but I don't think that's fair. I don't think someone should have to learn a bunch of coding just so they can have their basic website and never code anything else. That's a big time sink that they don't need so they can focus on what they truly enjoy learning and doing.

Sure, you can hire someone to program something for you, but that's another large barrier. Not everyone has the money for that. That's why people use online site builders, it's easy and inexpensive. It's not that creative people were previously stopped altogether, the barrier for entry has just been lowered more. We've seen this happen before. The rise of digital painting tablets made illustration more accessible. Music production software lets people create entire albums from home. These tools didn't destroy their industries, they changed them and opened them to more creators. Creativity is not the same thing as someone's skill level within a medium. AI is simply a tool to be used by humans. AI is also a great accessible creative outlet for people with disabilities.

AI art is partially more accessible because of its lower cost. Some people counter by saying that Van Gogh was poor throughout his life, and his art only became popular after his death but he still dedicated time to his art. That's great for him because he wanted to dedicate all of that time to his art. It was a big part of his life, so it was worth the time investment. Not everyone wants to spend that much time learning to paint just so they can try out a few ideas and be done.

Some people say that art is a luxury and not something everyone deserves. To that, I'd respond maybe, but we are creative by nature and a life without a creative outlet is not as fulfilling. Others claim that there are so many free programs one could use (IbisPaint, Autodesk, Flipaclip, Whiteboard, iArtbook, Tayasui Sketch, Concepts, Flow, etc) as if not having money is the only reason someone might use AI. Again, even if those are free, it takes time to learn them and the skills required. Why should they HAVE to make it all themselves?

Some critics call AI art lazy, claiming that it skips the “first step” of creation: effort. But effort alone doesn't define creativity. If a person has a compelling concept and brings it to life using a tool regardless if that's AI, Photoshop, or oil paint, the result can still be meaningful. This ties back into whether the process or the result is the art. Again, users of AI don't need it to get the result, they are simply deciding to use it that way. Just like someone doesn't need photoshop to make a scene, they could instead spend time to learn to paint it. But maybe Photoshop is what they view as the best option and use of their time.

Some say that AI was created because we wanted to cut corners, and now people are upset because to cut those corners sacrifices needed to be made (the process). People like to brush off and dismiss comparisons to Photoshop, since they view Photoshop as needing more effort. And in many cases it does need more effort. In some cases though, it hardly takes any effort. AI is even integrated into Photoshop now to help blend things or regenerate new objects into an area of the scene.

If I wanted to learn how to draw, I would. I shouldn't have to do that as my only option if other methods exist though. We live amidst infinity, and there will always be new ways to do things that are not initially accepted. It's happened so many times before. Some claim that AI artists don't even want to be artists in the first place which is why they use AI instead of learning the skills. To some degree this is true, but it doesn't remove the fact that they still acted on a creative idea. Everyone seems to have a strong opinion on the process used by others.

Is AI replacing art jobs?

Yes, it is, and frustration about that is valid. AI will replace some jobs, but not all, and not necessarily the most meaningful ones. In most cases, the replacement is happening at lower levels. AI, in many fields, is mostly capable of doing the grunt work, lower-tier skills that are usually more repetitive and tedious. Examples of more grunt work type replacements include basic asset creation and graphic design. This frees up humans for more intricate and skill-based artistic tasks. Yes, AI is always improving, and more and more will be replaced as it becomes capable of more.

AI, like the internet or digital art, will also create many new jobs that we have never even considered possible before. Movie posters used to be painted by traditional artists. Then so-called digital "artists" (sarcasm) started using computers and took jobs away from artisans and painters. Yet, look at how many new jobs digital art created. Jobs are constantly being replaced or eliminated in different fields because of innovation. It's not going to stop, and AI is definitely going to be a big part of that.

Many artists feel threatened by AI, fearing it will reduce their income potential, and cheapen their work. But there's only so far you can go with it. You will always need creative individuals to have the idea. Sure, ideas can also come from AI, but odds are they won't be as creative or unique. If a company replaces enough or all of their human artists, I would argue the company's goals were never truly artistic and they are more focused on profits than art. I also believe that companies that go full AI will be left in the dust by companies that utilize talented human artists alongside AI.

Just like calculators not replacing mathematicians, I don't believe AI will fully replace human artists. Many say AI output is slop, and if so then they truly have nothing to worry about. Also just because mediocre variations flood a market, does not mean people will not still pay top dollar for high-end products. Supercars still exist despite many cheaper cars being available. If someone buys a knockoff of something, odds are they wouldn't have paid the premium price for the "real deal" anyway.

The unfortunate irony is that the same people who fear AI will take their photography or digital art job, will also turn around and use AI for blogs, poetry, writing books, or building websites. It's extremely hypocritical that they expect their field to remain untouched but are fine with its use in other fields because it's convenient for them. Someone even told me directly they don't care that AI might impact my software engineering career.

I believe there is infinite space in art (and creativity). Anything that ever could exist will at some point. EVERYTHING. So many artists see themselves as competing with other artists when in reality they could both be thriving. Additionally, just because you have an idea, doesn't mean that someone else hasn't already thought of it or won't ever think of it. This is why some say ideas are cheap, which I kind of agree with. Acting on the ideas is what brings value. And even then two people could independently act on the same idea in the same way countries apart and never know about it.

The same is true for visual art and music. There are infinite genres, infinite possible melody configurations, infinite lyrics, infinite sounds, and the combination of all of those is another larger infinity. AI art is not kicking out humans or taking up their space, there is room for all of it. Sure, I understand the waters are muddied by AI, and it would be nice to have AI tags on those so that you can tell or exclude them from searches if desired. Heck, someone already generated billions of melody patterns, copyrighted them, and released the copyrights to the public.

Some people say that instead of AI art, we should utilize the artists on Discord who are bored out of their minds and willing to doodle your OC for you. To them I say, many of those artists are not willing or capable to create someone's OC to the degree in which they envision it, especially for free. Even when commissioning artists, they sometimes still underdeliver on your concepts. Some say if you can't afford to commission someone, then "boohoo, cry about it". But why cry when you can simply instead use AI to get an acceptable result close to your vision?

Champagne Drip posted "When AI can effectively make EXACTLY what you want to hear, I wonder if people will still care about artists." Kill The Noise responded byv saying yes, and recommended that people read Hegel and his thoughts on art, religion, and culture (the subject and the substance). KTN states he is confident that "the more things change, the more they will stay the same, at least in regards to humans trying to understand and express their relationship with the universe which is where pure art is born".

For the artists that are afraid of losing their job, or already have, I say this. Keep going, and keep improving your skills. If you can lift yourself above the noise and static of AI, and put yourself in a position where your skills can not be fully automated, then you will be just fine. If you are a true artist, the money is not the point anyway. Yes, you should be able to make a living off of your art if that is what you want to primarily do with your life. However, you are not owed that just for being a creative person. You need to earn that with skill, just like every other job field. Art isn't going away. But the way we make it, share it, and make a living from it is evolving, and it always has been.

Do I use AI?

I have personally used AI for art many times to save myself time and money while focusing on what I care about most, music. I have used AI to create cover art for the singles in my work titled "Artificial Reality". Partly because it fits the theme, and partly because I know I at this time would not be able to make covers at the same visual level without hiring very talented commission artists or sacrificing time I could have used for music. Yet, I still need cover art right now, otherwise I cannot release the song which is the whole point of what I do.

I do like creating digital art, and I have made most of my cover art in the past. But in my opinion, the quality is not always there. I would personally argue that my generated cover art (for which I try many prompts, generate hundreds of renders to pick from and use as a base for refinement, and sometimes use 3D models that I paid for as a reference for the AI) is better looking than many of my hand made covers. Many people I'm sure would disagree, but to each their own.

I have also used AI to create thumbnails for my blog posts because that is a lot of posts to make custom art for and the whole point of the post is the text and images within it. I understand even seeing those thumbnails may cause people not to read the posts (which I write myself), so for that reason, I will eventually replace the AI thumbnails. But in doing so I will have to spend a lot of time figuring out what to use or make as the thumbnail. The time that could have instead been spent writing other blog posts or creating more songs. Not all of my already self-created digital art fits the theme for my blog posts. With AI, the hard stuff becomes easy and the impossible becomes possible.

I do not use AI to produce my music, to DJ, to curate my playlists, or to write my blog posts. However, AI is built into some of the tools I use for production like AudioLens and Ozone which are used for mastering (much more technical and less creative). I also use MixedInKey for my DJ library because it analyzes all the songs and adds tags for BPM, key, and energy level. I also use AI to fact-check my blog posts, tell me if I am spelling things incorrectly, and help me reword my thoughts. But these are all supplemental uses, I am still doing nearly all of the creative aspects of my work.

Closing thoughts

Many of the discussions I've had online devolved into swearing, name-calling, saying my art was trash, or doubling down on their opinions without even considering the perspective I offered. Which, sure, you don't have to listen to me. But a lot of it is very emotionally fueled. And I get that, their frustration is valid. But unless they take a step back and look at it logically, they may continue missing a broader perspective.

If you stop doing what you enjoy because someone or something else is already doing it, you'll eventually run out of creative pursuits. AI, robots, and humans will always be doing a lot. Don't let AI take away your human life. Don't give it that level of power over you. Many of the issues people have with corporations using AI stem from capitalism and greed more than anything. Some people even jump to saying that people who use AI are narcissists and elitists, or even incapable and unwilling to reflect on their own choices, which is just such a hateful blanket assumption.

People told me to "cry about it" simply because I disagreed and questioned their viewpoints. Yet they are the ones screaming into the void about how much they hate AI to begin with. Sometimes it seems they put more energy into screaming than their art. Just because they don't see AI art as "real" art, does not mean that is the case. Just like because I believe it is art does not mean for sure that it is. Things like this depend largely on the consensus of the population, which is why it is being debated so much. And even then, just because the law or rules or consensus says one thing, doesn't mean that's what you have to believe.

If you don't like AI art, that's fine, leave those of us who do alone so we can use it in peace without the constant belittling. We must find a way to balance the growth of AI (which is happening and likely can not be stopped) while protecting traditional artists. I think AI tags, agreement on what % variation is required to not be plagiarism, and improved copyright legislation are great steps in this direction.

Whether you like AI or you hate it, I am still what you would consider a "real" artist in addition to my AI use. I have been producing music for over 12 years in multiple programs using multiple plugins. I have also been making 3D objects, materials, scenes, and animations for several years in Blender. I also DJ and make most of my own digital artwork in paint programs, and have for years. I also hold a degree in computer science and have worked hands-on with several machine-learning models. I even co-authored a published machine-learning research paper.

I will end this by stating that I am not an expert, and I may be wrong about some of these things. If so, please let me know the facts and/or your perspective so I can learn and grow. Many of these points I tried my best to remain objective, but some of it is just my opinion. Art is sacred. I'm just glad to be alive in a time when it surrounds us in so many forms.