On online comment forums, a post has sparked a wave of debate between defenders and detractors of artists who employ artificial intelligence (AI) to create illustrations. The controversy centers on common criticism of so-called “AI artists,” who use algorithms that learn from the styles of real artists to generate their own content.
However, one AI artist has expressed a controversial opinion by stating that human artists should also be considered “thieves.” In his words, “As a consequence of the use of AI, we often see people and companies being slandered and harassed by anti-AI. They say what they want about AI users, like ‘unauthorized learning’ and ‘thieves’, but human artists are not aware that they are also ‘unauthorized learners’ and ‘thieves’».
The AI artist argues that both human artists and AI algorithms learn from the work of other artists, and that under current legislation, both are treated similarly when it comes to unauthorized learning. «Under current law, both cartoonists and artificial intelligence are free to learn from other people’s work that is available to the public. The artists themselves have benefited greatly from it“, it states.
The message goes on to criticize the double standards of those who condemn the use of AI in artistic creation, while human artists have also used works of others without permission. «Cartoonists can learn without permission, but AIs are yelled at ‘stop unauthorized learning’, which is a bit of an exaggeration.».
The IA Artist challenges the community to reflect on their own practices and questions whether they are willing to return profits made from the work of other artists. «Cartoonists have been making money off of video game and manga characters for a long time, and they have also done so by altering other people’s works and making doujinshis without permission. Are you willing to return the benefits to the works that you have learned and used? Are you really ready? Really? Really?», concludes the message.
This statement has generated intense debate in the circles of the artistic community, where some have questioned the ethical and legal implications of both the use of artificial intelligence and the traditional practices of human artists. The discussion about copyright, unauthorized learning and creativity in the digital age continues to be a hot topic in the contemporary art world:
- «I vaguely thought about the difference between copying and plagiarizing, and wondered if it would be a similar story with 3D scanners and printers, or if things like copying tools would eventually progress, and my imagination got the better of me.».
- «It’s funny because people confuse artists and manufacturers by saying they are illustrators, and AI is just an AI no matter what, and the value of a drawing of a retempered stamp is the same for humans and AI, right?».
- «I think that competent painters already know how to use artificial intelligence as they wish, it is a powerful weapon, but they do not train for it and they continually complain».
- «Legal and medical professionals, whose share of jobs eroded by AI is orders of magnitude different from the creative community, are not reckless like painters, but rather think about how to increase productivity as an auxiliary tool».
- «I will use AI as I wish after extremists like you and I have zapped each other, collapsed together, and disappeared.».
- «There is nothing to say about fan art if you ask me what is the difference between fan art and AI tools. It’s just that the quality on the AI side hasn’t reached a satisfactory line yet, and that’s why it’s so disgusting.».
- «The cartoonists are pissed because they hit the nail on the head».
- «Bad character! You should be humble enough to acknowledge the fact that AI artists are not artists. you are a bighead».
- «I knew that AI would be used to mass upload and create similar products as a form of harassment, something that has been around for a long time, because it is essentially about cutting costs, but I never thought it would be an excuse to attack the authors».
- «The biggest difference between AI generation and human production remains the thinking itself and the physical peculiarities of the computing machine. Learn outside of learning objects, and the circuits themselves also have their own quirks».
- «Otakus who laugh at the artist’s drawings based on that? I would like to hear some complaints about consumers please».
- «There are certain people who say that human learning is different from AI generative learning, but have they really investigated what AI generative learning is? Surely it is more similar to human learning than that person thinks, trial and error and training. The difference is the speed of learning».
- «“Under current law, whether it is an AI or a human, it is treated the same.” No, it’s not like that. We have been separating computational uses for a long time without limiting it to AI, and it is common in other laws to separate them based on differences in nature. You are in a loop with this topic».
- «I don’t know, I totally agree with promoting AI, but there are a lot of weird arguments from proponents. I often see this in other topics as well, where the other side often criticizes the subject (in this case, humans and AI) who is being treated differently for different reasons, assuming that they are naturally equal.».
- «So the AI is also a thief and the story is over».
Fountain: Yaraon!
