Board 8 > Generative AI and the creative arts.

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'm leading a class soon where we'll be exploring the strengths, weaknesses, and overall ethics of using ChatGPT/Bard/etc. when you're a writer...figure this topic easily broadens to things like DALL-E for images, MusicLM for music, whatever people are using for voices like these rap parodies, animations like whatever people are using for forever-shows like Nothing Forever, and probably more.

If you are a creator, can you ethically use generative AI at all? If so, in what ways?

For a starter thought: I saw this video earlier while researching...

https://youtu.be/EjbcDF66vy4

...and I appreciate his openness and strategy to the process, but early on he had a quote that made me cringe a bit: "I've sort of been hesitant to show this one [prompt for ChatGPT] because this is also how I get so many ideas for videos, so many ideas for content, so many ideas for the tweets that I put out." I really dislike the tweet and content parts while I also wondered if the other part about video ideas would be divisive among people.

This topic expands a lot of directions...thought I'd open it up here and see what you think.

Yeah pretty much anything short of "make me something in the style of this specific artist" and "make me something with these licensed characters" is fine. All kinds of art involve a lot of drudgery. It can generate ideas for you whenever you have writer's block.

What's the argument against it ethically?

If it's somewhere in the ideation process, I personally think it's fine. It's just a step removed from looking things up on Google or Pinterest.

MarkS2222222222 posted...

What's the argument against it ethically?

There's two main arguments against it-
1) The AI is trained by looking at tons of existing art, meaning that anything it comes up with is, to some extent, derived from copyrighted work by existing artists who aren't getting credited/paid.
2) As in any other field where machines are replacing humans, it's reducing the amount of paid work available for human artists.

Obviously there are arguments about how true/big of an issue both of those points are, but they seem to be the main objections people have.

Well, there is a third one, but it's relatively minor-
3) Artists who put actual effort into their work hate it when people just feed an AI a prompt, post the result, and call themselves artists.

BlackMageJawa posted...

1) The AI is trained by looking at tons of existing art, meaning that anything it comes up with is, to some extent, derived from copyrighted work by existing artists who aren't getting credited/paid.

Isn't this fundamentally how most art is made?

You can also argue that the art should belong to whoever designed the AI, rather than the artist, since the AI actually did the work

I picked the last option since it was closest, I think people should be able to opt out of having their work being used by AI to make a sellable product though. Something similar to Fair Use should apply.

The whole debate around this is very poisoned because people are trying to use the notion that stealing is wrong to say something about AI as a whole.

If you're using existing artistic creations as input without compensating and/or getting permission from the creators then it's wrong. Otherwise it's fine.

MZero posted...

You can also argue that the art should belong to whoever designed the AI, rather than the artist, since the AI actually did the work

As it is, the AI was just a tool for creating something, therefore who designed the tool has no claim. It would be akin to saying that a drawing belongs to Faber Castell.

Do artists credit the programmers of Photoshop or the people who produced the canvases, brushes, etc. used to create their art?

do people view commissioners as artists is the real question

It has use as a tool in the creative process, but it should not be directly used in the finished work for ethical and moral reasons.

This is great so far, thanks -- I didn't expect the results to be so split, but also I'm often around writers. I'll be curious to see if this holds up with the workshop.

I'm gonna poke at some gray areas I'm seeing.

NeatoAnAccount posted...

Yeah pretty much anything short of "make me something in the style of this specific artist" and "make me something with these licensed characters" is fine.

If your name is the one credited for authorship, does a generative AI have to mimic something already existing in order to be unethical? Or is the fact that you used the content AI gave you mimicry of the AI enough to cross this ethical threshold you're describing? It may not be in the voice of Jordan Peele or SpongeBob SquarePants, but it is in the voice of the AI model.

BlackMageJawa posted...

Well, there is a third one, but it's relatively minor-
3) Artists who put actual effort into their work hate it when people just feed an AI a prompt, post the result, and call themselves artists.

I would add that I recently saw a submission opportunity declining to see work that was assisted by AI. There will be questions about how to catch and prevent that, yes, but also trying to recognize there are human gatekeepers seeking human artists as well -- it's not just human artists feeling competitive with AI.

MZero posted...

You can also argue that the art should belong to whoever designed the AI, rather than the artist, since the AI actually did the work

But is the human not doing work too when working the AI? We understand DeWalt won't get credit for many houses being built because of the human work behind those tools. Or, alternatively, does an artist have to share credit for their work on Photoshop if they used Content Auto Fill at some point?

RikkuAlmighty posted...

Do artists credit the programmers of Photoshop or the people who produced the canvases, brushes, etc. used to create their art?

Closest thing I can think of for that is I thiiiiiiiiiink Unreal Engine gets its developers credits when people make games from it. Otherwise, I don't think so.

There's some skill in making prompts, I suppose, but I wouldn't sort it with drawing or painting.
LordoftheMorons posted...

Isn't this fundamentally how most art is made?

Only to the extent that one of these systems is the same as a human brain.

The problem to me is if people are passing AI art off as their own or someone else's. It should have to be a legal requirement that people should have to be very clear that something was made by an AI. Maybe even make it a requirement that AI programs have some kind of embedded metadata that marks anything created with them as AI art and regulate that instead of entirely regulating it on the consumer side.

Otherwise, imo, there should be no issue legally or ethically. It is simply a tool, and the current AI models do not 'steal art' any more than a person 'steals art' by looking at it with their own eyes and memorizing it with their own mind and using that memory as inspiration for composition and technique.

RikkuAlmighty posted...

Do artists credit the programmers of Photoshop or the people who produced the canvases, brushes, etc. used to create their art?

That's completely different.

If you drive a car, the car is transporting you from point A to point B but you're still driving it. If you just say "take me to McDonald's" and it drives by itself you're not driving, it's a self-driving car

This is more like commissioning someone to make a logo and then claiming you made it

Pretty crazy just how even these votes are

MZero posted...

If you just say "take me to McDonald's" and it drives by itself you're not driving, it's a self-driving car

Congrats on describing full AI art

pyresword posted...

If you're using existing artistic creations as input

how else could AI possibly work

Peace___Frog posted...

Pretty crazy just how even these votes are

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/1/2/AABgm0AAEbeY.jpg

It's fine to play around with AI to make pictures (it's not art) as long as you aren't making money off of it.

The term AI Artist is an oxymoron, it can't actually exist.

Votes are so weirdly even that there's probably an AI voting.

lordjers posted...

Votes are so weirdly even that there's probably an AI voting.

AI Bros and Crypto Bros are the same people and they would rather die than admit their raison d'etre is a scam.

the 2nd wave of the casual revolution is shaping up to be scary as hell

HaRRicH posted...

But is the human not doing work too when working the AI? We understand DeWalt won't get credit for many houses being built because of the human work behind those tools. Or, alternatively, does an artist have to share credit for their work on Photoshop if they used Content Auto Fill at some point?

I would argue the human is not doing work when using the AI, unless there are considerably more complicated tools than the sort I've seen. If you command the AI "make me 15 pictures about X" and then pick out the one you like, you have performed work in the physics sense of the work, but you haven't actually conducted any labor.

LordoftheMorons posted...

Isn't this fundamentally how most art is made?

I would say that if an AI can create art without knowing what art was ahead of time, and further value the art, then sure.

i also imagine youre just talking about sheer production quantities, be it commercial or kids in art classes etc.

I think the AI is necessarily derivative and human art is not.

Honestly every argument I've ever read in favor of AI art has always come across as some weird attempt at a 'gotcha'. Like people cannot seriously believe that inputting commands into a prompt counts as making art. There cannot be this complete fundamental divide on a facet of human culture and the intent behind meaningful works. Either they haven't thought about it very hard or they just don't appreciate art in the same way other people do.

Maybe I misunderstood the question? I voted towards "Leaning yes" because I think there exist cases where it's fine if used in the process like for inspiration or something. Or just for fun. As the end product? I definitely think it would have to be clearly labelled as AI-generated and not passed off as anything else.

Now if you ask me how I think it actually plays out in reality then I'd probably say "lol no" because capitalism will drive people to use it to drive human artists out of jobs because it's cheaper. Basically once you involve money in the equation it goes south quick.

So I guess in theory I think there can be ethical use but in practice I really don't think we're going to be choosing that path.

HaRRicH posted...

I'm gonna poke at some gray areas I'm seeing.

If your name is the one credited for authorship, does a generative AI have to mimic something already existing in order to be unethical? Or is the fact that you used the content AI gave you mimicry of the AI enough to cross this ethical threshold you're describing? It may not be in the voice of Jordan Peele or SpongeBob SquarePants, but it is in the voice of the AI model.

If you, the human, do a SpongeBob impression, then you might be doing something wrong. You might be misleading people into believing that SpongeBob's voice actor said your words, or you might be making money off of SpongeBob's license. Similarly, if an AI does a SpongeBob impression, you might use that AI impression for those wrong purposes too. However, you or the AI might be making a silly noncommercial meme to make your friends laugh, and that's ethical in my opinion. I have no idea what the law says in practice. But I think that the AI should also be credited for its contributions.

KamikazePotato posted...

Honestly every argument I've ever read in favor of AI art has always come across as some weird attempt at a 'gotcha'. Like people cannot seriously believe that inputting commands into a prompt counts as making art. There cannot be this complete fundamental divide on a facet of human culture and the intent behind meaningful works. Either they haven't thought about it very hard or they just don't appreciate art in the same way other people do.

Getting the output of the model is only one part of the process. Good artists still have to be able to use that output to make good art. The model isn't going to give me exactly what I want, and I'm not a good enough artist to shape the output to my liking. I can't touch anything up in photoshop or paint over any problem areas. I can't really give it meaningful feedback the way an actual artist would be able to.

This is the same general thing with using AI models to program. Programming is much easier with AI help. However, you're not going to be able to fix any of the AI's bugs or spot any inefficiencies unless you yourself also know how to program. You're not going to know the difference between an easy problem and a hard problem. You can't recommend architectures or technology stacks. Users who can program can make better use of these tools.

Generative AI is only one step in the process. Once you've received the output, you should use your own artistic skill and vision to refine and improve it.

KamikazePotato posted...

Honestly every argument I've ever read in favor of AI art has always come across as some weird attempt at a 'gotcha'. Like people cannot seriously believe that inputting commands into a prompt counts as making art. There cannot be this complete fundamental divide on a facet of human culture and the intent behind meaningful works. Either they haven't thought about it very hard or they just don't appreciate art in the same way other people do.

You're right, everyone who disagrees with you must either be stupid or inhuman, that's a solid position.

AI for idea creation and inspiration is great. Almost all art is in some ways taking ideas from previous art forms

Using AI to create the art for you is something else entirely though. I think it's arguably ok if you're just doing it for your own personal use, but if you're profiting off of it or using it to build reputation as an artist, I'd lean against it 95% of the time

AriaOfBolo posted...

how else could AI possibly work

Well you've cut out the part of my post which I was actually trying to say something with. You can train an AI using things that aren't stolen or misappropriated for that purpose.

I could see there being ethical use cases but is this all GOOD for art? Hell no

These questions always boil down to me as fundamentally should we put harnesses on the potential of the universe to preserve human dignity? Which is tough to answer.

As someone with no dignity myself, I chose option 4

I'm going to explore five examples of one-minute plays generated by ChatGPT, just so we have some more concrete lines to explore here. I'll put my prompts in spoiler blocks.

Example #1 out of 5: my fastest and most fuckboi-example of someone writing a play with AI assistance.

Prompt: Write a one-minute play with two characters.

Title: The Lost Phone
Characters:
Ava: A young woman in her mid-20s.
Leo: A middle-aged man in his early 40s.
Setting:
A busy street in the city.
(As the play begins, Ava is frantically searching through her purse. Leo notices her and approaches.)
Leo: Excuse me, miss. Is everything alright?
Ava: (frustrated) No, I can't find my phone anywhere. I must have dropped it somewhere on this street.
Leo: Well, let's try calling it. Maybe someone found it and can return it to you.
(Ava dials her number and they wait anxiously. Suddenly, they hear a faint ringing sound coming from a nearby trash can.)
Ava: (disgusted) Oh no, my phone is in the garbage! What am I going to do?
Leo: Don't worry, I'll help you. Let me grab some gloves and we'll dig it out.
(Leo rummages through the trash and eventually retrieves Ava's phone.)
Ava: (grateful) Thank you so much! I don't know what I would have done without your help.
Leo: (smiling) It's no problem. Sometimes we all need a little help finding what we've lost.
(They exchange a friendly nod before going their separate ways.)

I know for me, I would not consider me the writer of this. I would also not consider this to be particularly good, especially not as a stand-alone work...maybe better if it was the start of a larger work, but we're working with one-minute plays here so it's gonna have to get with the program and step up.

I keep seeing these discussions in relation to art, but not other topics, even though artists aren't arguably even the most directly affected.

Is it ethical to use a customer service AI chatbot based on ChatGPT/Bard/etc that replaced a bunch of human operators? What about using a law office that replaced most of their paralegals/legal assistants with AI? What about using a website that makes money by using AI (trained on potentially non-open source/copyrighted material) to give targeted ads to its users?

Is it specifically art that people have ethical concerns about or do some people think AI (or AI trained on non-open source material) in general is unethical?

I think there's validity in some of the creations. The AI voice videos are great examples. Sure they're pretty old news at this point, but some of them are genuinely funny and is a creative use of the medium.

As far as the rights of the artists goes, I'm sure someone will eventually make an AI film based on Disney movies. Then it's just a matter of time before they sue and legal precedent is established

squexa posted...

I keep seeing these discussions in relation to art, but not other topics, even though artists aren't arguably even the most directly affected.

Is it ethical to use a customer service AI chatbot based on ChatGPT/Bard/etc that replaced a bunch of human operators? What about using a law office that replaced most of their paralegals/legal assistants with AI? What about using a website that makes money by using AI (trained on potentially non-open source/copyrighted material) to give targeted ads to its users?

Is it specifically art that people have ethical concerns about or do some people think AI (or AI trained on non-open source material) in general is unethical?

Art was the first conversation with the launch of so many applications like midjourney or novelAI but there are absolutely those same conversations in other fields

another big one is voice acting, as some companies have started asking VAs to allow their voice for training modules (to which many have said a resounding Fuck No). because a what then? the actor is no longer needed when you own their voice and can just make them say what you want

I can't see the argument that these implementations will create more opportunities when there are blatant cases like these where you're fundamentally getting rid of the need for actors. You can say oh they still have to manipulate the AI's voice just right but that's already a thing directors do guiding talents so what's actually added? and AI can certainly refine that to require less and less work

GuessMyUserName posted...

another big one is voice acting, as some companies have started asking VAs to allow their voice for training modules (to which many have said a resounding Fuck No). because a what then? the actor is no longer needed when you own their voice and can just make them say what you want

this feels dangerously close to the miley cyrus black mirror episode

Example #2 out of 5: inching toward more user control of it being all generated content.

Prompt #1: What is a great idea for a one-minute play with two characters?
[plot was generated]

Prompt #2: Write this story in the form of a one-minute play with a particular emphasis on the missed connection between Jane and Mark.
[first draft was generated]

Prompt #3: Change the title back to The Lost Keys -- you switched it to Lost and Found. Also, this scene needs a dog. Rewrite and try again.

Title: The Lost Keys
Characters:

• Jane: A harried, middle-aged woman
• Mark: A laid-back, young man
• Dog: A friendly golden retriever

Setting:
A busy street corner in a city
[The scene opens with Jane frantically searching through her purse, muttering to herself.]
Jane: [frustrated] No, no, no, where are they?
[A friendly golden retriever approaches Jane, wagging its tail.]
Mark: [calling out from a distance] Hey, Charlie! Sorry, he's friendly. Do you need any help?
Jane: [surprised] Oh, no, I'm fine. Just lost my car keys, that's all.
Mark: [smiling] Well, two heads are better than one. Let me help you find them.
[Charlie starts sniffing around, as Jane and Mark search together.]
Mark: [making conversation] So, where are you headed?
Jane: [sighs] I have an important job interview in ten minutes, and now I'm going to be late.
Mark: [sympathetically] That's tough. What kind of job is it?
Jane: [softening] It's a marketing position at a big company.
[Charlie suddenly starts barking, alerting them to the keys lying on the ground near a sewer grate.]
Mark: [excitedly] Hey, Charlie found them!
[Jane rushes over and grabs her keys, relieved and grateful.]
Jane: [thankful] Oh my god, thank you so much. And thank you, Charlie.
Mark: [smiling] No problem, happy to help.
[They share a moment of gratitude before parting ways, Jane heading towards her interview and Mark walking in the opposite direction with Charlie by his side.]
[As Jane disappears into the crowd, Charlie turns back to bark at Mark, trying to get his attention. Mark turns around, but Jane is already gone.]
[The scene ends with Mark patting Charlie on the head, as the sounds of the city fade into the background.]
[End of play.]

I started with plot-approval first before going forward, though I just went with the first idea again (ChatGPT thinks losing things makes for good quick theatre!). I also crafted this to go in a certain direction that wasn't explicitly stated in the original plot (not posting every single generated answer for space). After seeing the script, I made one broad change of needing a dog which reshaped parts through-out this short play.

The idea of a plot, I've got almost no qualms with. I have been tempted before to right a play with the same premise written by a different playwright, but with significant differences in tone and focus of its central conflict to fix its biggest issues I found with the existing work...but I chose not to because that seemed to be crossing a line since I had worked on that show twice before. That felt wrong. That said, if you're just seeking a prompt for you to write your own story? This doesn't really offend me.

The creation and recreation of the story without much of any human input feels more egregious. Just broadstrokes-requesting things doesn't feel like I should have my name on this, nor do I think a theatre should consider this story my own.

While I'm working on this next example, I'm listening to Super Eyepatch Wolf and he just said "I don't want to sound like a dick here, but if you need an AI to tell you what video to make next, I think you really need to consider if you should be making videos at all."

Seemed topical.

GuessMyUserName posted...

another big one is voice acting, as some companies have started asking VAs to allow their voice for training modules (to which many have said a resounding f*** No). because a what then? the actor is no longer needed when you own their voice and can just make them say what you want

Again, you are using another artistic discipline and VA is an especially interesting example, since that's a very high profile job but also doesn't really employ that many people.

When I think of the front line of AI disruption, it's jobs like paralegals, data entry professionals, customer service, etc. Jobs that are low profile and aren't very artistic but will suffer greatly from AI. Going a bit further and most white collar jobs from accountant to programmers will be at risk. Is it ethical in the future for a gaming company save money on VAs by using an AI software. What about if the same company saves money on filing taxes by using an AI software instead of hiring an accountant?

Are people outraged by AI disruption in general or just the artistic disciplines, specifically the high profile ones?

oh man imagine that some company screws you over for $30

you can't get a lawyer to pick up the phone for $30

but if an ai is able to write a watertight legal argument then you can present it to a judge and say "gib pls"

heck maybe the judge can be an ai in small legal disputes

Generally some people upset about all of the above. My specific opinion is that disruption of any and all markets is a totally normal and reasonable thing for new technologies to do. Some relevant governing body should ensure that it's done in a way that minimizes impact on the lives of people working in those markets, but that doesn't have anything to do with the ethics of the AI itself. The specific problems with art aren't that AI-created art is problematic; it's that creating said AI programs often involves theft of existing artistic work.

NeatoAnAccount posted...

oh man imagine that some company screws you over for $30

you can't get a lawyer to pick up the phone for $30

but if an ai is able to write a watertight legal argument then you can present it to a judge and say "gib pls"

heck maybe the judge can be an ai in small legal disputes

The problem with using an LLM like ChatGPT for something like this is that it will often lie to you

UshiromiyaEva posted...

It's fine to play around with AI to make pictures (it's not art) as long as you aren't making money off of it.

The term AI Artist is an oxymoron, it can't actually exist.

No, thats wrong. An AI artist can absolutely exist. The catch is that AI doesnt actually exist (yet).

Metal_DK posted...

the 2nd wave of the casual revolution is shaping up to be scary as hell

Isnt this the third wave?

squexa posted...

Again, you are using another artistic discipline and VA is an especially interesting example, since that's a very high profile job but also doesn't really employ that many people.

When I think of the front line of AI disruption, it's jobs like paralegals, data entry professionals, customer service, etc. Jobs that are low profile and aren't very artistic but will suffer greatly from AI. Going a bit further and most white collar jobs from accountant to programmers will be at risk. Is it ethical in the future for a gaming company save money on VAs by using an AI software. What about if the same company saves money on filing taxes by using an AI software instead of hiring an accountant?

Are people outraged by AI disruption in general or just the artistic disciplines, specifically the high profile ones?

discussions on the impact of AI affecting white collar jobs is absolutely massive, yes, with plenty of arguments on whether or not jobs will be lost or simply change to integrate along side AI solutions

LordoftheMorons posted...

The problem with using an LLM like ChatGPT for something like this is that it will often lie to you

Well obviously I'm talking about an LLM that's trained on case law and statutes and court filings and stuff. Like how Github Copilot is trained on codebases.