Now that “A.I.” seems to be a part of reality,* it is the source of much controversy. As an independent author who has commissioned artists for book covers, and some burgeoning graphic novel projects, I’m privy and intrigued by one facet of it: A.I. generated art.
Here are some of the arguments I’ve been observing go back and forth in my own social network, such as it is:
Stop, Thief!
Artist: Using A.I. to generate your art is abetting the theft of intellectual property.
Writer: It’s no more theft than an artist drawing or painting something after looking at other art, photos, or the live subject in the real world. Unless A.I. simply reproduced your art, line-for-line, stroke-for-stroke, your argument doesn’t hold water.
Have You No Decency?
Artist: Shame on you! You’re putting human artists out of work by using A.I. generated art. It is morally reprehensible to make money off work that includes elements not created by a human being.
Writer #1: That’s like saying it’s immoral for you to build a website, make a flier, or advertise your art in any other way unless you or another artist (who you pay) hand-create all the text, rather than using an available font from some computer.
Writer #2: Considering your price-gouging, and your undependability, you deserve to go out of business. If you weren’t so unreasonable and flaky, I might consider paying more for your human touch.
How would YOU like it?
Artist: What if A.I. writes a cheap knock-off of your novel and somebody else cut into your profits by selling it?
Writer: That’s already happening even without A.I. From the hacks selling their junk on the Amazon Slush Pile, to downright piracy on the warrez sites. It’s something we have to live with. Welcome to our world.
Artist: You won’t be so cavalier when people start buying A.I. generated books instead of yours. Then you’ll see.
Writer: We won’t like it, but that’s already happening, too. The lion’s share of the indie market is dominated by cheap, quick, formulaic, uninspired pap generated by mediocre writers who might as well be bots. Welcome to our world.
My Thoughts:
I’ve seen some really impressive A.I. generated art, but in my limited experience so far, it takes just as much time and effort to make A.I. give me what I want as it would to just draw or paint it myself. No doubt it will improve, but it might always have that “Uncanny Valley” effect.
I suspect A.I. generated prose will have an even stronger Uncanny Valley factor. Granted, most Amazon shoppers will ravenously consume it anyway. But if my creativity depended on profit margins, return-on-investment, or any financial metric, I would have given up on creative pursuits long ago in lieu of something much more consistently profitable like politics, real estate, or telemarketing.
What are your thoughts on the role of artificial intelligence in creativity? Let us know in the comments.
*I’ve heard some tech-savvy folks say what we’re witnessing is not true artificial intelligence, but merely complex computer programming. I tend to agree, based on its performance. I don’t think it will ever truly be intelligent without imagination and probably self-awareness.
I think as a a writer/artist, the point of whether AI is fair game or not, soul-less or not, is moot. It’s up to YOU to give consumers the incentive and the good reasons to buy your product. Period
Giving them something they want more of is the bottom line, for sure.
In my view, AI is just another technological advancement in the endless march of progress. A decade from now you will struggle to find anyone who remembers the current hysterical ‘debate’, the technology will be so normalised. We’ve seen it all a hundred times before.
When the daguerreotype was pioneered in the 1800s, fine artists bemoaned that art was dead. Who would want portraits, or landscapes, when a photograph could be generated with the click of a button?
Did Art die? Of course not. It morphed, evolved, transformed. Impressionism, surrealism, cubism and what have you. Fine art is still produced, and still sells for millions.
The same with electronic instruments and popular music in the 1970s and 80s. Who will want or need a drummer, with all that gear to lug about, when you can carry a Roland drum machine in your pocket? Did ‘real’ music die? No, and drummers are as in demand as ever they were. But we got electronic music, techno, ambient, dubstep, and a dozen other new genres besides through the creative use of the technology.
You can name countless other examples. The word processor, the internet, the car, Photoshop, the sewing machine, and digital art. Heck, maybe the monks who spent their lives hand-copying manuscripts hated the first printing press, who can say?
The whole argument boils down to, ‘you took a potential job from me’. As if these jobs are finite. As if that person had a chance at that job, anyway. Neither is sure. Maybe the job wouldn’t have existed without the technology that engendered it. It’s fear, and fearmongering. And it’s pointless.
Because AI isn’t going away. Genies rarely go back into their bottles. The cats stay out of their bags. But human Art isn’t going away either. If anything, it’s far safer than all those production line jobs that were replaced with robots. Why? Because Art is something human beings create for its own sake. It has no real value. It has no function. And we want and desire and need it anyway. And we always will.
I doubt AI will ever be able to match what one of God’s creatures can create. If 80% of reviews and ratings on ‘Zon are not fake, then that probably won’t matter much. Nevertheless, I appreciate your thoughtful answer and may duplicate or excerpt it in an effort to bring others into the conversation. Thanks, Robert.
Excellent commentary, gentlemen: I agree with the article and with (apparently) all of you.
AI is a tool for creating images, and (to echo the obvious) it’s not going away.
All of the people crying about “theft” all seem to be the uninformed ones, and I’m totally with Robert that this isn’t going to kill art.
I also really like the point you made, Machine Trooper, about how even pre-AI, so much of the Amazon self-publishing space was dominated by uninspired stock novel-content.
We all know that self-publishing removed the gatekeepers of tradpub, but one effect of this has been to expose readers to the slushpile.
With AI, I have no doubt whatsoever that slush pile will get a lot bigger… but I see a silver lining for those of us who are working to write quality novels.
To my eye, AI-produced stock novel-content is only bad news for mediocre hacks who produce the human-written version.
Yes, self-published fantasy and sci-fi may be oversaturated markets–but only for quantity, not quality.
Write quality stories, and there will always be a market for them (at least until the sun goes red giant or whatever).
I think we’re gonna need an alternative to Amazon, though, that will allow the cream to rise to the top based on merit, or the same problem we have now with good literature being hidden from its audience–only worse. Probably need a platform that weeds out the slush, too, while I’m dreaming. I can dream, can’t I?
An excellent summary of the debate! I especially agree that quality will always rise above schlock, (however it’s produced).
I meant however the *schlock* is produced…we know true quality has to have a considerable amount of the human element!!
I read you 5X5, Sarah. But IMO the platforms which are supposed to be all about making a profit are vigilant about thought-policing, so that quality work which questions The Narrative is forbidden to rise above the slush.