Does It Matter to You if AI Makes a Work Of Art You Love?
WSJ Readers Are Divided
New tools amplify the efforts of artists and amateurs. Should this change how we feel about art?
BY DEMETRIA GALLEGOS
SOME ARTISTS, musicians and authors have dedicated themselves to years of grueling training. Some are intuitive, self-taught but with a vision they strive to express. And some simply enter keywords into a query field and click “Generate.”
Artificial intelligence has been used to write scripts, compose music, and create art for years, but lately, it has gotten much better, and user-friendly applications have helped more people experiment with it. The output is increasingly indistinguishable from works created by a human.
So how should we feel about such AI-assisted works? As part of a series of articles looking at ethical questions raised by AI, we posed this question to WSJ readers: If a painting, song, novel or movie that you love was generated by an AI, would you want to know? Would it change your reaction if you knew the creator was a machine? Should an AIgenerated piece of art be allowed to enter an art competition?
Here are some of their answers.
We deserve to know
We listen to music from an electronic guitar differently than from a wooden one. We value handmade furniture more than machine-made. We prefer natural pearls to cultured ones because of the imperfections.
Analogously, we should know whether a piece of art was handmade or AI-made, and failure to acknowledge it is as fraudulent as passing a reprint of a painting off as the original.
—Daniel Brand, Kailu, Hawaii It isn’t art
Artificial intelligence can’t create true art. You can’t create talent, vision, a unique style, a unique anything with AI. AI has no emotion or original thought. AI-assisted art is as good as the computer scientists who built it, who may never have created anything artistic in their lives. That’s a different part of the brain, I’m afraid. It can’t be taught or bought or borrowed or faked. I say this as someone who attended art school, and yet would be hard-pressed to explain or re-create the creative process in any meaningful way that could be duplicated, even by another human. It is a gift. The works that AI would produce are unable to touch the human heart or spirit. It would then become immediately obsolete, serving no purpose to better mankind or reflect human existence or offer anything for viewers to enjoy and connect with. It would all have a thread of sameness, I would imagine. The work would only be for the dead enjoyment of other machines. I don’t believe an artificial intelligence can be created to respond emotionally, and reflect upon, the human condition in the world around them.
—Laurie Brown-Cross, Wayne, Pa.
Social media has allowed anyone to have an audience of millions regardless of the value of their contribution. I'm not sure that has been an improvement. Allowing anyone to be an artist (many without talent) may not be an improvement either. I guess we will find out. I support full disclosure.
There is a poll you may choose 2 options.
WSJ Readers Are Divided
New tools amplify the efforts of artists and amateurs. Should this change how we feel about art?
BY DEMETRIA GALLEGOS
SOME ARTISTS, musicians and authors have dedicated themselves to years of grueling training. Some are intuitive, self-taught but with a vision they strive to express. And some simply enter keywords into a query field and click “Generate.”
Artificial intelligence has been used to write scripts, compose music, and create art for years, but lately, it has gotten much better, and user-friendly applications have helped more people experiment with it. The output is increasingly indistinguishable from works created by a human.
So how should we feel about such AI-assisted works? As part of a series of articles looking at ethical questions raised by AI, we posed this question to WSJ readers: If a painting, song, novel or movie that you love was generated by an AI, would you want to know? Would it change your reaction if you knew the creator was a machine? Should an AIgenerated piece of art be allowed to enter an art competition?
Here are some of their answers.
We deserve to know
We listen to music from an electronic guitar differently than from a wooden one. We value handmade furniture more than machine-made. We prefer natural pearls to cultured ones because of the imperfections.
Analogously, we should know whether a piece of art was handmade or AI-made, and failure to acknowledge it is as fraudulent as passing a reprint of a painting off as the original.
—Daniel Brand, Kailu, Hawaii It isn’t art
Artificial intelligence can’t create true art. You can’t create talent, vision, a unique style, a unique anything with AI. AI has no emotion or original thought. AI-assisted art is as good as the computer scientists who built it, who may never have created anything artistic in their lives. That’s a different part of the brain, I’m afraid. It can’t be taught or bought or borrowed or faked. I say this as someone who attended art school, and yet would be hard-pressed to explain or re-create the creative process in any meaningful way that could be duplicated, even by another human. It is a gift. The works that AI would produce are unable to touch the human heart or spirit. It would then become immediately obsolete, serving no purpose to better mankind or reflect human existence or offer anything for viewers to enjoy and connect with. It would all have a thread of sameness, I would imagine. The work would only be for the dead enjoyment of other machines. I don’t believe an artificial intelligence can be created to respond emotionally, and reflect upon, the human condition in the world around them.
—Laurie Brown-Cross, Wayne, Pa.
More said:AI has no soul
I have long argued that the creator of a piece of fiction or poetry is the soul behind the work. While many argue that it is unnecessary to know much about the writer in order to approach the writing, I would disagree. A current example is Barbara Kingsolver, who shared the Pulitzer Prize in literature for her book “Demon Copperhead.” Research could easily have produced the opioid-saturated world of the back hills of Appalachia, but only someone who really loves and knows the area as Kingsolver does could have given authentic voice to her young narrator.
—Kathryn Hasselblad Pascale,
Green Bay, Wis.
How much did AI help?
Especially in the near future, as AI becomes even more integrated, usage of it may vary greatly. Someone may use it, for example, to mix a single color on 2% of their work, while someone else uses it to create 90% of the work. So competitions should reflect the level of AI usage in their judgment categories.
—Wendelin Comen, Raleigh, N.C.
Separate the AI work
I think art competitions should have an entirely separate category for AI-generated art. I think it would change my reaction to know the creator was a machine. But my reaction might not be negative, just different. There-fore, I would want to know if it was AI-generated, so I could have an authentic reaction.
—Dawn Taggblom , DeLand, Fla.
Be transparent
Disclosure is key. Since AI art is trained on human-created pieces it would not surprise me if I would like something that it generates. Much like autocomplete helps with sentence options when typing, this would be similar for media. With the appropriate disclosures, AI art should be allowed in competitions.
—Jeff Schloemer, Menlo Park, Calif.
Unfair competition
No AI creation should be entered into any human competition! The purpose of those is to recognize, encourage and reward human effort. Allowing AI entries introduces obvious unfairness to the contest, as some will have access whilst others will not.
—Jim Sky, Bellevue, Neb.
It’s only a tool
AI is just another tool, just as a sign on a museum exhibit specifies the medium, such as oil paint on wood. As long as the AI used is specifically cited (e.g. ChatGPT) and such use is allowed in the specific competition, AI-generated art is fine. I do want to know what is generated by AI versus directly by a human. That knowledge changes how I think and feel about what humans are trying to express or accomplish with that artwork.
—Nicola Pohl, Bloomington, Ind.
A simple test
If the art moves me, then it doesn’t matter who created it or how it was created. Lots of people are moved by a sunset without believing in God.
—Clint Eubanks, Houston It’s about intent
If I value art as an expression or craft, then I’d want to know if AI was involved in its creation. If what I’m looking at is purely decorative, then I’m ambivalent.
—Dave Christy, San Luis Obispo, Calif.
Human work will stand out
I would like to know if an artwork is generated by AI. I think AI origins will become valuable to know and will help us appreciate even more the works coming from humans. In this future environment, both AI and humans can thrive in creating arts. Human work will certainly stand out, especially if it is good. I have seen some work done by AI and was not very impressed. Perhaps that’s due to the tendency of machines to generate products that are polished and packaged well, versus human work, which is more nuanced and at times rough or erroneous, which may offer some margin of creativity, relatability and imagination.
—Min Cho, Brea, Calif.
A creator’s view
I have one piece of art in my home office built on AI. It is pretty cool. After I used it myself to create art for a while, I noticed that it has a certain style of its own. I now feel as though I can recognize a piece that has been derived from AI.
—Bruce A. LaFleur, Palm Coast, Fla.
A mixed blessing for artists
I believe there are many nuances to this that will come out over time. AI-generated art doesn’t come about spontaneously. It’s the result of an art strategist guiding the AI to craft the product. They should both be recognized. Will it take away from already- struggling artists? Undoubtedly. We may lose great artists that never had a chance. It will also give others that don’t have the skills to produce art or possibly new artists an on-ramp into the art world by enabling them to learn and produce at the same time. Will it help some existing artists become more prolific and improve their art? I’m sure it will. There will be many casualties though.
—Mark Aubuchon, Houston In praise of AI
Yes, I want to know if AI is involved in creating art. But strictly to be able to praise the leap in technology. To be awed by it. There is currently a lot of manufactured stigma designed to discredit AI to protect the status quo in the publishing and entertainment industries. Studies point to biased attitudes regarding AI-generated works because people view them as too easy to create. But those arguments fall flat when forced to consider the amount of technological prowess that went into creating an AI product that can manufacture great works.
—Elisa Rae Shupe, Las Vegas Beware AI learning from AI
I value art as an expression of the human experience as well as for my emotional response. In these early days, AI is learning from us all and as such represents our collective best. But as AI learns from AI, the results may diverge in unexpected ways. There is a risk of art as an emotional trigger of great intensity. The rules required to prevent emotional manipulation need to be established now, as if AI were a hostile entity.
—Leslie Bailey, Santa Rosa, Calif.
\Demetria Gallegos is an editor for The Wall Street Journal in New York. Email her at demetria.gallegos@wsj.com.
JOHN W. TOMAC
There is a poll you may choose 2 options.
