AI Art vs. Human Art

 

Photo by pure julia on Unsplash

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is becoming increasing popular in the world of art. AI-generated art is created using various techniques, such as algorithms and machine learning. While AI art is created with these programs, traditional art is created by human artists using their skills, creativity, and imagination. With traditional art, there is a level of control that the artist has over the final product. With AI art the algorithm is responsible for the final creation. Human artists have unrestricted freedom of choice in terms of aesthetic direction, colour palette, style choice, and revisions during the creative process.

AI programs are not producing original works of art, but rather replicas. The problem with AI generated art is that to learn how to create their artwork, they are pulling art from human artists without their agreement and without giving any acknowledgment to the original artist. Artists on the human side should have the choice to opt-in to these AI platforms using and learning from their work.

Personally, I do not agree with AI generated art as I understand the frustration of having your work taken without your consent, but I can see the appeal behind it. I think it should be created in a way that is not harmful to human artists, as I mentioned above by giving them credit and receiving their permission. 

Many people use AI-generated artwork for fun, for character inspiration, or for character artwork because it's an inexpensive way to express their creativity. Many see AI-generated artwork as an approach to making high-quality artwork accessible to a wider audience at a lower cost. Not to mention, it is created quickly and easily, and is becoming more difficult to distinguish the difference between AI art and human-created works of art. 

It can take some artists years to develop a signature style that truly expresses their voice and emotion. AI art does not need the time that human artists require to learn or to create. Algorithms can now make art for you in a matter of seconds, drastically shortening the time it takes from idea to finished product.

I wanted to reach out to an artist to get their opinion on AI art and how and if it has affected them since it has becoming more and more popular. I have many friends as well as artists I have worked with and this is what one of them had to say:

“Art is something done with great passion. Artists put a lot of hours and determination; the concept alone takes time. And once a brilliant idea clicks in my mind, it fills me with joy and motivates me to create more. It takes up to a week for me to create an artwork, if not more. 

It honestly feels bizarre. With the kind of attention it gets (AI art) and people appreciating something that was put together from the scraps of other artist’s work, honestly, it’s not only disheartening but highly demotivating as well. Being inspired by art is one thing, and copying and editing an art is another. The main issue here is using the work of other artists and getting away with it. It not only loses the originality, it is cheating many!”

Real artists will have a harder time keeping up with AI's rapid art production. Contrary to popular opinion, I do not think the rise of AI-generated artwork spells the death of human creativity. Nevertheless, I do think that many human artists will lose their inspiration and drive as a result of this trend.

Danielle Hill is an Amazon Top 10 author of drama filled, swoon worthy and magical contemporary fantasy novels. Danielle first came up with the idea for A Kingdom of Sun and Shadow in late 2017 and began publishing chapters on Episode shortly after. After a warm reception on Episode, she decided to expand the story and began writing the manuscript in February 2018.

AI Writes Like a Drunk Middleschooler

Artificial Intelligence. AI. It sounds so innocuous unless you grew up in the 60s and early 70s watching cheesy scifi matinee movies about rogue robots going on rampages. Maybe if you read Asimov and realized that the entirety of his writing career was spent coming up with the laws of robotics and then BREAKING them.

Sure. At the moment, we're talking about using AI to generate words or art for us (though I guarantee that AI is already in use a ton of other places that impact you already - you just don't know it.) It's a big gap between cribbing someone else's work and dodging Skynet. 

I am already using AI (specifically Chat GPT in this case)  to write with. It's for the day job where I'm part of a research group working on using the power of AI to transform our business model. I'm taking classes from those smarter and more experienced in the arena that I am so I can learn how to wrest forth the best of what AI has to offer. Benefit: I'm producing technical writing content for clients that is roughly 1/3 AI written based on prompts I give the AI. Problem: AI writes like a drunk sixth grader. Maybe a seventh grader. There isn't much that AI writes that can remain untouched. I cannot simply copy and paste wholesale and move on. Second problem: I MUST know my subject matter because AI is pulling information from the web. Some of that information is outdated. Some is dead wrong. Result: AI has shifted me to being a knowledge worker rather than someone who sits around and thinks up words to write for clients.  It's not all bad. Drafting is my weak spot. Editing is my strong suite.

AI favors writer/editors who have a grasp of their subject matter and who know how to match a brand's tone and voice. The moral of the story is that no matter how much or how little AI content I include in a piece of work, I will always have to tweak it or rewrite it. Always.

Chat GPT is good at distilling information from the dark, dusty corners of the WWW and bringing back something reasonably cogent. Mostly. To generate the best content, you'll need to understand what Chat GPT needs as a prompt. It's powerful for nonfiction. It's a little less useful for fiction. Like too many of us, it seems to want to avoid conflict.

I'm experimenting with AI (Sudowrite, in this case) in novel generation. I'm finding it is a much better fit for fiction. I do not like it at all for nonfiction. At least not the kind I'm working on where I need to bring hard data to a paper.  Sudowrite also requires super robust prompts that are loaded with details around your story. There are classes available for this. Some are free. If the tech interests you, the classes are worth the time. Benefit: Collaboration with that drunk middle schooler I mentioned earlier. Sudowrite takes a prompt and generates 2-3 text options. Problem: The writing is pretty terrible. Unless you declare a POV character in your prompt, Sudowrite defaults to omniscient POV. It's all tell and no show. It's pretty bare bones. The power of Sudowrite is that you can change all of that with different options in the interface. Maybe you want more action. Sudowrite can rewrite for more action. Or more description. Or more intensity. Sudowrite isn't afraid of conflict or blood. And as you write or paste in your own writing, Sudowrite learns to match your style a little better.

Sudowrite isn't capable of generating a novel without a writer to knit everything together and direct the story. Like one of the instructors said in class - think of AI as a junior writer. You're still senior. You know the craft. You know the story and the characters. You will always have to supervise and direct the junior writer's efforts. Just like with Chat GPT, I cannot take big chunks of text from Sudowrite and import it to my WIP. Just can't. I can pull a cool turn of phrase or a sentence or two. But mostly, Sudowrite's power is in making me question how I'm thinking about my story and the direction it needs to go. I have not successfully completed a book with it. I do know people who have and who continue to use it to spur their writing.

So. AI. Evil? Benign? Beneficent? Eh. Yes. To all of it. There will be good. There will be bad. Most of it will be neutral. But AI is a genie that escaped the bottle. There's no getting it back in there, now. We're going to have to learn to cope with it. The way that generations before us had to learn to cope with the evil televisions rotting our brains and making us all go blind because we sat too close. Or computer games. Or cell phones. Or whatever other technology destroyed hearts and minds and the modern family and civilization as we know it.

I do believe that AI will change the shape of work. It already is and has. You can figure out how to work with it, or you can ignore it like most of us ignored crypto. I expect that publishing will break up into camps. One will expound the evils, the other will tout the benefits, and somewhere in the middle, the rest of us will just try to finish our stories and get them out into the world.

100% Human Made

Kears Broom Shop, Gatlinburg TN...a great story

We’ve all seen the Terminator, right? “Dense network computers. New…powerful…hooked into everything—“ You’ve seen it, good. Then you knew this was coming. Artificial Intelligence art and composition. 

I’m a sci-fi consumer. I love it, I binge it, I can’t get enough of it. Heck, I even wrote about a pandemic that raced across the earth a few years before the COVID pandemic hit. So it’s no surprise to me that AI is now writing.

My husband and I had dinner with some friends recently. One of them pulled up ChatGPT and entertained us with some limericks and romantic poems, all written by the app. And they weren’t bad. The interesting thing about the app is that it will learn you, meaning it will pick up on your wording and speech patterns and become even better at writing for you. 

I’m still not surprised. 

What did surprise me was when our friend with the ChatGPT asked me what I thought this would do to authors like me who write books. He asked, what will we do? I shrugged and offhandedly said that we’ll end up marketing our work as 100% human made, our writing will become more of an artisan craft. 

But that quick reply is truly what I expect to happen. Authors, those of us who are passionate about the written word, will continue to write. Yes, publishing will become, and has already been in some areas, inundated with AI crafted and AI assisted novels, short stories, articles, poems, and every other type of writing that can be submitted for payment. Yes, it will become even more difficult to make a living as a writer. Which means that yes, for those of us that persist, we will need to become even better at marketing ourselves. Because now, more than ever, it is ourselves, our human nature, that will become a selling point.

I love traveling and finding shops that craft and create their own products. Even better than finding said shop is actually talking to the people who made the goods, hearing their story, and finding out the history of whatever item I’m holding in my hands. I also love supporting the people that live in my area and work, grow, make things that I use. Why? Why do I pay more for a mug handmade by a gentleman that lives 30 miles from me over a lovely, cheaper, mug I can pick up at Target? 

Because of the story. 

When you create something, that item/process now has a story. My husband and I entertained a group of work colleagues. No, they don’t work for the same company as my husband, they work for a supplier, but he has met with them so many times over the years my husband became sick of the same old conversations around the same old restaurant tables. So they arrived at our home.

We had our wood-fired oven hot and ready and as we entertained we shared stories. Stories of how the oven arrived in our backyard, a severed finger was involved though not in the way you’re thinking, and the hand made pizza cutter that was formed out of black walnut from my husband’s grandfather’s farm. So many stories! And our guests were astounded. My husband met up with them again a few months later and they still couldn’t stop talking about it. 

All because of the stories. 

Yes, AI is going to replace a bulk of what we consume as written word. Yes, it’s going to become more challenging to be an author. But did you really come to this profession because it sounded easy? I believe you came to writing because you had a story that needed to be told. So tell your story, and then sell it proudly as 100% human made.

ROGUE FAMILIAR Delayed (Again) - But Not as Much as You Think!

 Our topic at the SFF Seven this week is Artificial Intelligence (AI) and what's going on there with the creative professions. I have Opinions, which boil down to my conviction that nothing can replace human creativity. But a lot of very smart people have written on the topic and SFWA has been collating those. Go read those excellent articles. 

For my part, I'm trying to get ROGUE FAMILIAR written. I've passed 60K words and I'm closing in on the Act II Climax. I'm getting there! But I'm not there yet. No way can I make a March release date. So I've pushed the release back. Amazon will tell you the new release date is April 24, but that's a handy lie. That's just the farthest date I could push to, just in case. I'm guessing it will be more like April 7 or 10. I can always release early! I know you all are patient and supportive, so I don't need to apologize. (But I feel I do.) Anyway, I'm working away on this! 

No AI involved. 

AI-Generated Content: Here to Stay

 This Week's Topic: AI Art vs Artist / AI Composition vs Authors

Whoooooboy it's wild to be alive during another episode of technology aiding and infringing upon creative works. This season on Helpful and Harmful, we have machines being trained on copyrighted works and regurgitating bastardizations of those works without permission from Intellectual Property owners or remuneration paid to said owners. 

All was well and good in AI's nascent stages when developers used works in the public domain as source material. Then, sourcing tapped into lesser-known protected works under the education umbrella of the Fair Use Doctrine. Still hungry for data, sourcing leveled up to web crawling, blowing past any pretense of acknowledging Intellectual Property laws and protections. Now, AI is like Audrey II from Little Shop of Horrors, screaming "Feed  Me, Seymour!"

Developers and project leaders pointed to Consumer Interest to continue to acquire funding. Creative AI hit the sweet spot of the 3 Cs of internet Consumerism: Cool, Cute, and Creepy. Image mashups went viral. Predictive texts got baked into apps as a "sticky" feature. It was all entertaining and time-saving. Then the fourth C of Consumerism arrived, slightly behind schedule: Costly. 

Through the theft of intellectual property, the AI projects didn't bear the cost of sourcing their data. The cost fell to the copyright holders through lost income. 

Suddenly, artists were discovering machine-generated collages containing significant portions of their original works, including modifications of commissioned works purchased by individuals and large Multinational Corporations. Reuse of purchased art without permission is a violation of the artist-client contract. So who was at fault? Neither of the parties in the contract. These modified works were being reused in commercial ventures without credit, permission, or remuneration. In legal terms, the businesses behind the AI machines infringed on the artists' copyright by exceeding the Substantial Similarity standard. 

Growing pains, the technologists scoffed. The AI "mind" is much like the human mind: the more information to which it is exposed, the more it is capable of expressing original concepts. Similarly phrased, the larger the pool of source material, the less readily identifiable the Intellectual Property infringements. Fully aware the enforcement of IP law lags significantly behind technology development, the AI teams push ahead. By the time the courts tell them to stop, it'll be far too late. Market integration and saturation will have peaked. The revenue realization will make whatever damages are to be paid a pittance, in the unlikely event that damages are awarded at all.  

Seeing artists being screwed, writers winced and wished them luck. Pirating has long been a problem for both groups, so have fan works that cross from appreciation into appropriation. Now there are machines programmed to do both with both clunky and slick consumer-facing frontends. Artists despaired, but their works remained cataloged. 

Despite sniggering over nonsensical AI-generated scripts and genre snippets, writers felt the creep of inevitability. We may not be in the same boat as the artists, but we are navigating the same sea. 

Sure enough, before long, the composition AIs were fed enough source data that predictive text expanded from a sentence to a short reply, to an article summary, to a short article, to short stories, to novellas, to novels. Freelance writers are losing gigs to composition bots. Magazines are inundated by AI-composed articles. Publishers, already unable to efficiently manage slush piles, are buried by the AI additions.

But is AI bad? No. Just because a significant portion of its development came about through peak avaricious capitalism doesn't make the programs themselves bad. Within 3-5 years AIs integration into our daily lives will be as seamless as emojis and voice assistants. Is it the death knell for creative arts? No, of course not. However, our marketplace is going to be inundated with AI-generated content. It is going to impact our revenue. It is going to demand we learn how to leverage the technology to help us succeed or we will suffer the fate of Luddites. 

The arrival of this technology isn't too different from when ebooks went mainstream. Publishing went through massive change and expansion. Cottage industries popped up to support the development of the primary technology which then spawned secondary and tertiary supporting technologies. Remember when the book market exploded with the deluge of self-published books? We're already seeing an influx of AI-generated books.

Can we look to the heavy hitters of industry to push for responsible use of AI? Pfft. If their approach to combating plagiarism and IP infringement is any indicator, it is highly unlikely that major retailers are going to stop AI-generated content from being listed in their stores. Sure, I'd love for the creatives' guilds and the parent companies of publishers to force retailers to use AI detection and employ deterrent programs and policies, but, let's be realistic. Anyone who read the US vs Simon's Radom Penguin transcripts can see what little value parent companies place on talent. They'd have to lose billions to AI to bully big retailers like Zon, Walmart, and Apple. It's way more likely that the parent companies will have stood up their own AI divisions before investing in protections for human talent. Remember, profits matter most. 

Lest we think we are too holy to partake in the sins of AI, we can't forget that we too are business owners looking to make a profit. If we are presented with low-cost, legally licensed use of AI-generated images for our covers or marketing materials, will we turn away from it on principle? If we are presented with a reasonable cost for an AI voice-acting app to create audiobooks of our novels, are we going to decline for fear of putting voice actors out of work? We are the pot and we are the kettle.

What about protecting our IP from AI? It's an expensive Sisyphean effort, particularly once our works are indexed by machines in countries that don't participate in IP protection. Once the data is added, there's no removing it from every system that has accessed the data. That's a battle to be waged at the level of national governments. Sure, we now have small claims courts for copyright infringement in the US, and, yes, the Author's Guild recommends adding a "not for AI training use" clause to all publishing contracts, but the burden of proof falls on us--not the data farms--to prove that that specific farm was the one who imported our protected text. Good luck proving it before you go broke. 

Look, we--the authors--have never had a say in how many books of what quality are released in our genre. Sure, we worry about reader experiences and how "badly written" books turn away potential buyers, but we can't control any of it. All we can do is write our stories to the best of our abilities...and scream into the din of Buy Me in search of readers. As for welcoming AI into our creative and business processes, we shouldn't shy away, but we need to be more responsible when it comes to the IP of others. That means being more diligent about verifying the licensing of images and voice work.  

AI isn't going away. It's intended to make our lives easier. It's on us to figure out how, responsibly.

Contributing Artists

Which artists move me varies by the day. Sometimes by the hour. Music is the most obvious and the easiest because I can pipe it directly into my skull from just about anywhere. Right now, Spotify's Nine Inch Nails play list (built for me based on my listening habits - well trained AI is all that, lemme tell you) is keeping me going.

I have no idea what it is about driving beats and angry lyrics that work for me. But here I am. Maybe because the pace is fast and I get pushed to keep up. I don't have as much room to stop and overthink.

On the other hand, I have an app called Calm. It is a meditation app at core, but for me, the greatest utility is the sleep function. The app commissions a bunch of different artists to create content for the app - all centered around focus and relaxation. My two favorite are Liminal Sleep by Sigur Rós and System Sounds: Song of the Night Sky. The last one assigns a musical note to the stars in the night sky based on color and brightness then plays the results based on the stars rising at the eastern horizon. So you know that's right up my alley.

The other artists in my life are the felines. After all. It was Leonardo da Vinci who said The smallest feline is a masterpiece. Cuillean agrees.