Karachi:
Over the past few centuries, human life has changed dramatically. From the Industrial Revolution to the Information Age, and now the age of artificial intelligence, every era faces new problems and ways to adapt to them. Today we are facing new challenges in the form of what is called AI art.
The use of AI in the art has received much criticism. And while many arguments can be made in favour of the use of AI in ART, it raises multiple dilemmas and raises moral and ethical issues.
Natural evolution
It may look like this. The invention of cameras threatened the medium of painting and did not take cinema seriously as an art form of the early 20th century. Therefore, AI art is the next step in this natural evolution of the combination of art, engineering and technology.
However, countless issues surround AI art. One of those that answers the aforementioned evolutionary progression is theft. Cameras, film and digital did not generate work based on existing human art. I had to spend my time and skills learning the equipment and knowing how to use it.
Whatever the medium is, you need to practice crafting and master it to create your own original work. However, AI generates “art” based on the data supplied to it. That data is an existing work by an artist used without consent.
It raises two main issues. The consent of the artists used to train AI and the fact that the typing prompts correspond to putting hard work to learn all the skills.
This does not democratize art, it disregards it. If you can generate AI images and videos and call yourself an artist, then there’s no one there. There’s nothing to respect and improve. It replaces learning to craft and unlike Andy Warhol’s pop art, it paves the way to ready-made art. But even he put more effort into entering the prompts in AI software.
Therefore, AI art generation is not a creation, but an act of translation. If you can enter a word, you can generate anything.
You also need to consider current limitations of AI. AI benefits in many areas, but you have to see what it did to the language. Anyone can read the paragraph and evaluate what was written by AI. The structure, vocabulary, and grammar of sentences all follow a specific pattern. And generally, AI-written texts are so bland in their language that it’s just that you can’t feel anything.
Meaningless imitation
AI art is the same in that it lacks emotion. That sentiment comes from the artist. It comes from the emotional journey that the artist had, the catharsis he felt by striving for the act of creation. It’s all lost, and AI art leaves behind a meaningless imitation of human nature.
“You can’t mimic emotions,” Dr. Deepak Kazanch, professor of information, science and technology at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, said in an interview with Hayden Ernst in a research paper on the use of artificial intelligence.
Dr. Khazanchi, who has decades of experience in AI and machine learning, vehemently denys that AI can replace humans.
Another argument for this is the social and cultural context of art. Art is a unique human product and is the basis of our existence. Artists create after being exposed to internal and external stimuli that provide a collision in connection with the world we live in. Art is the way we justify our human existence and the process in which the act of creation affirms our place in this world.
We must also see art as a way of connecting with our surroundings and fellow people. The AI art generation loses the creative process itself and is almost directly arriving at the final product, thus stealing us from the collaborative elements of artmaking. It brings so-called art with no nuances or depths that arise from human experience.
The study entitled “Human vs AI” is a study that, in Lucas Bereice, Rohin Shahi, Martin Harry Turpin, Anya Laguna Turpin, Sean Sprockett, Sean Sprockett, Nathaniel Barr, Alexander Christensen & Paul Seri’s Certified Research Diary for Art Research Day ‘again’s Again’ for the again for the again for the again for for for for for for for for for for for for for for for for for for for be for aaa, as their beliefs about whether humans prefer to create and why they are about the amount of effort that has led to an increase in artwork. ”
Limited range
It also leads to specific homogenization of art. You might argue that at least in the mainstream, it already happens in human art. However, if all art is created using AI, it limits the scope of the art, all of which are copies of copies of copies that have no room for change. It becomes a closed loop, a simulation of self-replication of human experience.
But perhaps the biggest argument for AI art doesn’t even concern AI art itself. It’s about the AI art generator’s claims as an artist. In his paper, Ernst said, “It’s not that art is not good, creative, nor creative. It can be very good. But the process is more art than the final product. The images that can be produced now are imitations of what people can make.
This paper is also consistent with what this study published in the Cognitive Research Journal. It turns out that people prefer art created by humans rather than art created by AI. “This preference was particularly evident in the standards that conveyed the deeper meaning of art (e.g., richness, values). On a more sensory level, the differences between the art of human and AI labels were much more modest, but still, a significant difference was observed.” “In conclusion, people tend to perceive art as reflecting human-specific experiences, but creator labels appear to mediate the ability to derive deeper evaluations from art. Therefore, according to human evaluators, creative products like art can be achieved by non-human AI models, but only to a limited extent, protect valued antropocentrism.”
Therefore, this issue is not merely an AI-generated art presence, but rather a generator’s claim as an artist (or filmmaker). As Ernst says, such generations may have a place, but not an exhibition or a film festival. So, using AI to generate Ghibria butter won’t become Ghibli. And no one will become a filmmaker to generate AI films. Just like wearing glasses will not become your property (the boring APE NFT currently has over 5,000 owners).
I conclude by repeating the fact that art is fundamental to human experience and existence. When I become an artist by generating automated art copies, I become a wrestler by playing WWE 2K25. Also, lip syncing to Tiktok songs will not become a singer.
The artist’s label comes from a pain and eco-friendly creative process informed by emotions and experiences. Art becomes meaningless if you have no experience with human or cultural things.
Is there anything to add to the story? Please share in the comments below.
