The idea of creating art with the help of artificial intelligence has long been a source of fascination for scientists, engineers and even a few laypeople. AI is already assisting artists in a variety of ways, from analyzing brush strokes and color to reversing the effects of age on paintings and recreating the appearance of lost or hidden artworks. It is also helping to interpret the underlying meaning of certain works of art by computing symbols and analysing compositional elements like perspective, light and color.
Despite these impressive capabilities, many artists remain resistant to the notion of using AI to create their work. They worry that if they can be imitated by an algorithm, their value will diminish as a result. But that’s not necessarily the case. For example, when we study how people evaluate artwork that has been labelled either “artist created” or “artificially intelligent,” we find that even though people rate the artistic value of these two pieces differently, they do so in similar ways across a variety of communicative criteria. Similarly, when evaluators are given the chance to compare an artist-created piece to an identical AI-generated version, they still evaluate the former with higher ratings of Profundity and Worth than the latter.
In other words, the evaluative bias observed against AI-labeled artwork is more likely to reflect the perception that it was a rushed production rather than a more thoughtful, labor-intensive creation. But if the AI-generated image is perceived as an accurate representation of the original artist’s intentions, viewers may view it with a more positive attitude. In this way, a well-crafted artificially intelligent piece of art can serve as a valuable complement to a more traditional piece of work—not as a replacement.
Some artists are experimenting with the power of ai fursona creator to create new visuals, but others are more concerned about how their work is being used by others. For example, if you are a designer who has spent time and effort working on a piece of software that allows remote support professionals to help customers, only to see someone else slap their work on the market, it can be frustrating and demoralizing. It doesn’t matter that their product wasn’t the same as yours, or that they weren’t intentionally copying your work; it’s simply demoralizing.
Fortunately, this sort of copyright-infringement dispute can be resolved fairly quickly, as most apps and websites gatekeep their content so that AI cannot access the images that are being used to create them. And for those that don’t, it is easy enough to create a different set of prompts and generate new images that are not derived from existing art. Still, some artists are feeling cheated by this trend. It’s not just that their hard work is being ripped off and sold at a discount, but that it seems to have little or no regard for copyright laws. It’s the same sort of feeling that some artists might have if they saw someone tracing the Mona Lisa and calling it their own.