How should AI art (of any type) be tagged when "published"

  • Assume it is AI generated unless "certified" that it is human created

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • AI generated designation should only be required on some art types and not others (which?)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other, please specify

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    6

Birdjaguar

Hanafubuki
Super Moderator
Supporter
Joined
Dec 24, 2001
Messages
55,029
Location
Albuquerque, NM
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.
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

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.
 
Art for this thread can include: painting, drawing, movie scripts and images, books, TV shows, advertising, any published writing, speeches, etc.
 
Disclose. I have to wonder at what point an AI, which draws its “inspiration” from other sources effectively becomes a computerized art thief?

I’m assuming that in order to generate something, a computer needs a reference to something else—as far as I know no one is able to endow a computer with human creative talents in the sense that we understand them to be.

Now I would be careful in saying that computers can’t be a part of it: take for instance a photographer that uses photo editing software to remove some noise or modifies it entirely to create a new piece of art altogether; the human is still presumably doing the work, so the credit would go to them rather than the software.
 
Let’s see how far we can take AI art, and only fight it where it proves itself bad.
 
It would never occur to AI to enter its "work" in a competition.

On topic. I'm skeptical it will ever write a passable novel. AI is good in short bursts, but the longer it goes the wonkier its replies get. I'm skeptical it can be taught to write metrical verse.

Certain kinds of art forms--more abstract images or more impressionistic poetry--it can give the illusion of producing work similar to that of humans.

Whatever AI proves able to do, humans will just invent new art forms that it can't do.
 
It would never occur to AI to enter its "work" in a competition.

On topic. I'm skeptical it will ever write a passable novel. AI is good in short bursts, but the longer it goes the wonkier its replies get. I'm skeptical it can be taught to write metrical verse.

Certain kinds of art forms--more abstract images or more impressionistic poetry--it can give the illusion of producing work similar to that of humans.
If you feed the AI information on any of the competitions and entry dates etc. It just might decide to do so.
 
It could maybe be taught to do that, yes.

I think I'll start writing my poems in my own blood. It'll be a long time before AI can imitate that.
 
Last edited:
It gets wonky particularly when it loses context. When it loses context, it kind of aimlessly draws upon its general knowledge and doesn’t dial into the conversation or project at hand.

In the case of text context, they are using tokens which can be as short as a character and as long as a couple words, generally a part of a word. Context is limited to a set number of tolens.

When gpt3 came out and blew people away with how good it was, context window was like 2048 tokens. Recently on chat gpt, Gpt 3.5 and 4 had like 4096 tokens. And 4 of course is leagues better than 3.

But two days ago they released a new gpt4 with an over 128,000 token context.
 
Why art? Machines have been taking jobs for years. We could go back to the spinning jenny, we could talk about the automation of farming and manufacturing. We could talk about word processors and spreadsheets putting typists and clerks out of work. Even if we restrict ourselves to the current crop of large convolutional neural networks there are plenty of things we use that have AI "labour" in them. Do we need to label matrix maths and chip design as being "Made by AI"? What about software? I can think of some answers to this question, which I shall respond to to in advance.

I do like compulsory labelling of some things, GM food being one. You cannot tell from the outside and it could make a different. However it has a massive overhead, in terms of the individual producer (I want to sell X, now I need to work out what label is required and padd it), lawyers (this is going to come up in the courts a lot) and lawmakers (the rules are complex and probably need some level of international cooperation, and that is in short supply these days). I just do not see why AI or not in the artworld specifically is a case where this is required.

We should do this for everything

This would make a lot of sense. Effectively mading everything have a "Handmade" or "Not Handmade" label on it. I can see there being a lot of legal wrangling about it, but in principle I could support this idea. I think mandatory labelling can have a big positive effect in the capitalist market. Since they can even sell mass market crisps as "handmade" it may be less of an impediment to AI than some want.

We care about artists more than other professions

If we compare the economic position of the average artist to that of the average computer programmer or matrix mathematician it is reasonable to conclude that the artist needs more protection in the current climate. However they may not compare so poorly to the average farmer or textile worker. You may also not be aware of how poorly compensated the open source world is.

AI art is inherently worse than human art

Any time in commerce when an inferior product can be passed of a superior product the market is harmed. Compulsory accurate description of the product is the solution to this, and is common. If one could make the argument that AI art was to human art like knockoff medicines are to real ones or a 0.95l bottle is to a 1l bottle or something, then there would be a very good case for mandatory labelling. However, for many types of art at least, this really is not the case. Perhaps music is the most obvious one. If I listen to a track I have experienced all the content of that art, there is nothing that is hidden from me that could alter its value so why would this product in particular need a label?

It is about the individual creators authenticity

The way art works is that who created it matters. If a famous artist created something it is inherently more valuable than if a nobody created it. This is very true, but is quite tangential to the AI or not label. I will say that digital signing is the solution to this, and I am amazed it is not far more common in all sorts of fields but particularly the creative industries.

AI art is created by theft

I think this could be its own thread, so I will just say that I think legally (as opposed to morally) if you release your copyright protected work on the internet you are implicitly giving non-commercial researchers the right to use your work for text and data mining, and contract terms that stop researchers making copies to carry out text and data mining will be unenforceable. There certainly may be some activity going on that breaches copyright, but if you are assuming the current laws adequately prevent the legal use of copyright works distributed on the internet for training AIs and therefore releasing your work freely then I think you should really look into it.

And from the OP:

AI has no soul

Is anyone here going to support the idea of a supernatural soul?

So competitions should reflect the level of AI usage in their judgment categories

I be clear I am talking about the open market. If you are playing a game you can have whatever rules you want, and breaking them is wrong.

If I value art as an expression or craft, then I’d want to know if AI was involved in its creation.
I value art as an expression of the human experience as well as for my emotional response.


I guess I can sympathise with this, but it is pretty niche. You can get this be ensuring you know the specific artist. If it is just you why should the whole world worry about compulsory labelling? If it is lots of people there should be enough demand for optional labelling.
 
Last edited:
Disclose. I have to wonder at what point an AI, which draws its “inspiration” from other sources effectively becomes a computerized art thief?

I’m assuming that in order to generate something, a computer needs a reference to something else—as far as I know no one is able to endow a computer with human creative talents in the sense that we understand them to be.
I'm pretty sure that human creative talent is also a function of how they internalize and process external sources. I think there is an interesting question about if there is an actual fundamental difference in AI and human creation.
 
I'm pretty sure AI can randomly create nice music tracks (1 out of 1.000.000, but still non-zero).
After all, music IS math, so it's entirely possible to roll a perfect sequence of numbers randomly.
Unlikely, but absolutely physically possible.

A somewhat similar programing (but way more complex) result could also apply to text creation.
Contextually similar to chess, we COULD teach AI to generate random stories out of cut-and-edited-for-names sentences.
Again, it'd be "1 out of 1.000.000.000.000" to end up with anything coherent (let alone interesting), but it's still possible.

Literal art (paintings), though... not so much, unless we're finally talking about direct theft of existing paintings.
See, music is math, and words are separate data bits - but pixels DON'T make up a painting (in any palatable manner, obviously, thus I'm NOT talking about "abstracthorsehockyonism").
Thus, painting art is where AI would not be able to do horsehocky "on its own".
Music, it can randomly concoct something nice - just give it enough time and lots of testers. Eventually, someone will like something.
Text, it can randomly concoct something readable - just give it enough words and lots of readers. Eventually, someone will like something.
Art, it CAN'T concoct horsehocky, UNLESS it steals at least some "basic forms" and then "edits" them (which is itself a big question).
Sure, AI can recolor something (again, math and separate pixels), but I don't see how AI can create a reasonable image without having one already in its database (hence theft).
So, if you expect an AI to be capable of RANDOMLY drawing a believable human form from scratch via pixel mashing (without knowing how it looks first) - I can only LOL at you.
 
Sure, AI can recolor something (again, math and separate pixels), but I don't see how AI can create a reasonable image without having one already in its database (hence theft).
If you are talking about law not morals you have to point at the law being broken. We will find out with all the lawsuits coming up, but I do not see how non-commercial AI training on copyrighted works is copyright breach.

You have seen the AI pictures thread?
 
If you are talking about law not morals you have to point at the law being broken. We will find out with all the lawsuits coming up, but I do not see how non-commercial AI training on copyrighted works is copyright breach.
I'm not the one who asked about theft. My point is more about quality, where "theft" is not monetary, but quality-related: discussing whether AI can actually "create" something of its own.
I think "kinda yes" for music and text (since randomized notes and words may work), but "pretty much no" for painted art (since randomized pixels do not produce recognizable images).
 
I'm not the one who asked about theft.
Sure, AI can recolor something (again, math and separate pixels), but I don't see how AI can create a reasonable image without having one already in its database (hence theft).
You did not ask about theft, but you appeared to indicate that it was theft.
 
If you are talking about law not morals you have to point at the law being broken. We will find out with all the lawsuits coming up, but I do not see how non-commercial AI training on copyrighted works is copyright breach.
Can a computer create a derivative work that could hold up legally in a court?

Could that computer also have standing in a court to defend itself?

I think that’s also one of the things to answer your earlier question about why art and not something like a power loom: the loom puts in the same fabrics as the hand-sticher, and either of the products are unique to themselves and can’t be digitally willed into existence like a song or a book.
 
Can a computer create a derivative work that could hold up legally in a court?

Could that computer also have standing in a court to defend itself?

I think that’s also one of the things to answer your earlier question about why art and not something like a power loom: the loom puts in the same fabrics as the hand-sticher, and either of the products are unique to themselves and can’t be digitally willed into existence like a song or a book.
There are two quite separate questions:
  • Does training an AI and/or creating an AI work of art infringe on the copyright of the training set?
  • Is the resultant work protected by copyright?
The former question is the big one relating to if AI art is theft. The latter is seperate, and my understanding is that the U.S. Copyright Office/Federal Register says no.
 
You did not ask about theft, but you appeared to indicate that it was theft.
And it is in the cases I was referring to, but not necessarily monetary.
Still, "theft" here is a rather major factor in whether we should support or condemn the spreading of AI-made anything.
Basically, do we really need 100 copies (with superficially different results) of the same mix-and-mash something made by AI, if none of it is better than the original?
This is somewhat related to "mass-production of low-quality pseudo-culture" that actually already happens today, though it's so far mostly abused by human "creators" (read: thieves).
It has little to do with "protection of one's MONEY" - and everything to do with "protection of one's TASTE and SANITY".
Quite literally so.
You are free to disagree, but I know what I'm talking about.
 
You are free to disagree, but I know what I'm talking about.
I'm not the one who asked about theft. My point is more about quality, where "theft" is not monetary, but quality-related: discussing whether AI can actually "create" something of its own.
I think "kinda yes" for music and text (since randomized notes and words may work), but "pretty much no" for painted art (since randomized pixels do not produce recognizable images).
The tech for music, language, and images is fundamentally the same. It requires consuming a huge body of other works and imitating that with variation.

Just as it doesn’t just randomly assign pixels, which given infinities would produce a great work of art but in a world with limits would make colored visual static, randomly creating sound waveforms from the basis of pure tones (which is how all sound is fundamentally made) will also in practice only ever create noise. Literally radio static fuzz. Given infinities, music will emerge, but there are not infinities. It’s not even AI if it’s just doing it randomly, anyway.

All AI music is training on real music and then fitting to stylistic convergences exactly the same as visual art. It is equally theft or not theft.
 
Top Bottom