The Effects of Generative AI on Artists
	To be an artist is to spend years perfecting a craft, pouring your heart and soul into creation and invention. But what if those years of practice and slowly-learned experience could be invalidated with only a few typed words and the click of a button? This is the growing fear of human artists- being replaced with generative AI. Even in a world where the luxury of art is growing more commonplace and affordable, people still find it cheaper and easier to rely on a machine to create things for them. However, generative AI is a threat to artists- stealing work, replacing jobs, and lowering our standards for creativity.
	Perhaps you’ve heard of AI ‘scraping’. Also known as data scraping, it’s when AI is used to digest large amounts of information from a site all at once. It can also be used to consume art. However, scraping often occurs without the site’s owner, or the people who use the site, knowing that it’s happening. This data can then be used to feed, or train, image generation. The problem with this is that it is taking intellectual property without permission, and stealing away a livelihood. As painter Kelly McKernan reported to NBC News, “’At the end of my day, someone’s profiting from my work. I had rent due yesterday, and I’m $200 short. That’s how desperate things are right now’” (The Associated Press). Their art has repeatedly been stolen and generated by AI, resulting in a loss in sales of their paintings. Due to this, they can no longer afford basic needs. The ‘derivative works that compete against the originals’ (The Associated Press) are preventing artists from being able to promote and sell their work, and therefore, to support themselves. There’s no repayment for the theft, either- Karla Ortez argues at a Senate hearing that she has “’…never been credited. [She has] never been compensated one penny, and that’s for the use of almost the entirety of [her] work’” (The Associated Press). This is clearly a violation of moral integrity- a form of artistic plagiarism. But even as AI is stealing both works and jobs from independent artists, it’s also removing jobs from the Hollywood industry.
	In 2023, Hollywood writers- who are also artists, but of a different type- went on a five-month strike to protest the integration of AI into their jobs. This was driven by the fear that eventually, the writers would be replaced, along with the AI being unable to recognize and properly represent diverse characters, or simply to create good, meaningful writing. In Molly Kinder’s article ‘Hollywood writers went on strike to protect their livelihoods from generative AI. Their remarkable victory matters for all workers.’, she interviews writers who participated in the strike or are anti-AI, asking about their worries regarding the use of generative AI. The creator and showrunner for BoJack Horseman, Raphael Bob-Waksberg, said this “’…companies and studios never want to use [AI] to empower artists… They want to make things cheaper, cut the artists out, pay people less’” (Hollywood Writers). David A. Goodman continues this sentiment: “’As soon as the companies can get rid of writers, they will’” (Hollywood Writers). This is an incredibly valid fear- large corporations are always searching for ways to cut back on costs, and if that means removing real human artists, they’ll do it. There are also concerns over how if the AI pulls from the entire database of previously written movies, it might misrepresent minorities, or not represent them at all, instead favoring the White male majority. Being a machine, it is unable to understand the facets of culture, and therefore will most likely end up marginalizing minorities and harm diversity. Bob-Waksberg also worries that AI writing will only end up being ‘so-so’- or in other words, just good enough to pass as writing, but not good enough to be moving in any sort of meaningful aspect.
During all of this, one might argue instead that ‘AI makes art more accessible. It makes it cheaper, and easier to create something.’ However, if one goes to YouTube and searches those exact keywords- ‘AI makes art more accessible’- one will find a veritable wealth of videos demonstrating the accessibility of art, in the forms of artists showing their progress and growth over years, and of artists creating art with very limited materials, even with sticks and other natural/found objects. If the accessibility was pointed more at making it easier for people with disabilities, one should direct their attention towards famous artists such as Van Gogh, Frida Kahlo, Henri Mattise, and, although less famous, Lorenza Böttner. Despite having mental or physical illnesses or disabilities, they still managed to create well-renowned and objectively impressive works. As for cost, yes, it is cheap to pay a monthly plan to use AI, which then funds the million-dollar servers. But art is a luxury, something that you save up for. Instead of your money going to the upkeep of an unfeeling machine, it pays for the artist’s food, bills, and rent. Creating art on your own can have very little monetary cost- the real cost is in the practice and experience is takes to build up skill. Paying for commissions and the jobs of full-time artists supports your fellow humans who did take the time to build up that skill, and, who at this point, need the patronage now more than ever.
Thankfully, even though ‘AI bros’ are actively lowering ideals of creativity, both by pushing for widespread use of AI ‘art’, and by selling AI-generated ‘art’, the study ‘Defending humankind: Anthropocentric bias in the appreciation of AI art’ finds that humans, once knowing that art is made by AI, are less likely to buy it in favor of human-made art. The study states that ‘Participants indicated that they would be less likely to buy the AI-made poster… than the human-made poster’ (Defending Humankind). This is because ‘…an AI-made (vs. human-made) poster was perceived as less creative’ (Defending Humankind). Although this study is on bias, and neither poster was AI-made, the point still stands. Humans are ready and willing to support other humans through these uncertain times, even if it does show only in passive forms. On some level, most people understand that using AI takes away any real creative thought process or problem-solving skills. As such, they are biased against it, or rather, against the idea of a machine doing something that only humans are supposed to be able to do- create. To an extent, anyway.
Overall, AI is nothing without the artists that it feeds off of. It can only steal and repurpose existing art, made by real humans. Unfortunately, its use has become widespread, and is now threatening human artists with theft of their art, unemployment, and a lowered standard of what art really is. But we can fight back against it. Laws, albeit fragile ones, have been put in place regulating the use of AI in Hollywood’s writing. With more force and more voices, we can make these laws stronger, and perhaps prevent AI art theft and unlawful image generation altogether.