From a technological standpoint, Artificial Intelligence (AI) imaging has been a grand accomplishment. Still, like Nobel’s dynamite, which was meant to innovate mining but was used for murderous warfare, the abuse of AI “art” strays far from innovation. Newly emerged, self-proclaimed “AI artists” have made it disturbingly clear that they will ruin art, rather than “democratize art,” as they claim. To respect the art community and the efforts they’ve taken to become artists, these “AI artists” will be referred to as AI users as they do not create art, they only commission AI to do the work and take the credit for what they do not create.
Art as a community has been open to all and allows all to learn it if they are willing. It is the aspect of willingness to learn the art that AI users argue for why AI imaging is essential to be a part of art. They speculate that because AI imaging would lower the “barrier” for potential artists, it allows for art to become “democratized” to everyone. Most speculations are vague as to what this “barrier” is defined as, but on the assumption that it means access to availability, pencils and paper are much more available to the public than a computer and wifi-router. If “barrier” is defined as efforts needed for entry, then the arguer neglects the fact that if AI imaging causes “democratized” art for anyone with zero artistic backgrounds in a manner, which the effort level is lowered to match the value of those lesser artistic skill, then AI imaging itself must be of little effort and of no skill.
In the argument that artists “hoard” art to only themselves due to statements of how “art can be done by anyone,” it is deliberately ignorant of the intended use of “anyone” implying that anyone who does not want to put time and effort in order to achieve results of a master of the arts. Even then, regardless of “barriers,” there are much better ways to encourage the arts through parades, publications, videos, galleries, etc. without the need of generative programs devaluing the hard efforts artists take in order to hone their skills.
Both parties of this AI argument generally concur that art requires creativity. Creativity has been widely researched to complement critical thinking, with them being described as having a cornerstone relationship, having a “significantly positive correlation,” and both being found in the same brain region, the prefrontal cortex. However, findings from Chunpeng Zhai et al. indicate that AI can lead to a problematic over-reliance that affects a student’s critical cognitive capabilities including critical thinking—and if their correlation is significant, then the falter of critical thinking would thus drag down creativity with it. And if AI “art” deteriorates creativity when creativity has been said to be required for art, then AI “art” is not art.
As is true that these studies solely observed the effects of generative writing, the inputs for generating AI have lateral outputs for art (including writing, imaging, animating, music composing, etc.), therefore it can be deemed that this use of AI impedes the human voice as writing and drawing in generative AI are the same just in different forms.
The findings additionally note that “over-reliance stemming from ethical issues of AI impacts cognitive abilities, as individuals increasingly favor fast and optimal solutions over slow ones constrained by practicality.” Supported by research from Ahmed et al., it notes how “AI limits and replaces the human role in decision-making. Human mental capabilities like intuitive analysis, critical thinking, and creative problem-solving are getting out of decision-making.” This also proves the argument that AI users are confined by impatience and are uninterested in making art, rather interested in having the end product of art without the effort needed to be put into it. Their end product is instant gratification likely wrought from how this day and age glorifies being popular and needing to be number one.
According to AddictionCenter, “social media facilitates an environment in which people are comparing their realistic offline selves to the flawless, filtered, and edited online versions of others, which can be detrimental to mental well-being and perception of self. Others, however, may see these pictures and feel jealous, depressed, or even suicidal due to the fact that their own life is not as ‘perfect.'”
The online activity of AI users seems to develop this idea. In comment sections of artists, it is not surprising to see at least one AI user bash the artist for being unable to produce the same thing as AI; they speak of how artists should deal with higher unemployment as they are replaced by AI and they depict the artist as a part of an idiotic hive mind. And if not intruding the comments of an artist (via forums), they deploy a common tactic where the AI user undersells the capabilities of AI. They do this in hopes of overcompensating their skill issue through further pushing the ideology that the AI “artist” is an oppressed group of victims of a judgmental art hierarchy, thus forcing their audiences to feel uncomfortable to be against the AI “artist” agenda. “Being an AI artist is hard nowadays,” “AI artists are people,” and “people who are anti AI are jealous” are amongst the deceitful phrases scattered to “expose” the artist as a prejudiced bully.
It is true that there has been discouraging behavior by artists against AI users, harsh and hateful, but it doesn’t stipulate that artists oversell the capabilities of AI with a lack of thought. These are from the criticism of artists who do not wish to be lumped with those who do not have interest in effortful learning the craft of art but yearn to reap the end results of art. While incandescent, artists have the right to be upset, to be angered by the disingenuous assertions regarding how their efforts are blinded by their hard earned progress. The cheap schemes employed by AI “artists” infringe on the essence of art that artists aim to preserve is what makes this claim nonreciprocal.
Fortunately, there are AI users who have recognized the issue of AI imaging and acknowledge that they use it for their own casual entertainment, not posing any harm against art. However, the group self-proclaiming themselves as artists is a threat to human expression. The mere incorporation of such a group which relies on an oligarchy of minds to voice them will make it a societal norm that is okay with people who cannot lead themselves to self-expression. As is, there are countries such as America that fell ten places down in the global RSF (Reporters Without Borders) Index due to the high concentration of media controlled by large corporations and agencies.
In America, the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), owner of X and founder of OpenAI and xAI Elon Musk openly attacks journalists for challenging the White House’s ban against Associated Press reporters. With DOGE being AI driven and Trump’s rescission of Biden’s executive order which regulated commercial use of AI and other restrictions, it has especially become important for artists (especially in America) to make sure that the human voice is represented by the human voice and not conveyed by the emotionless and apathetic AI. Art was the essence of human expression once inseparable, but now endangered by artificial, non-human intelligence which repels the dignified process of expression.
AI is no bridge to expression but a false, improper hope obsessed over the lack of essential skills needed that solidifies an image as art. Without this backing skill wrought from thought and supportive experience, art collapses to no longer represent the human experience. An AI user may claim to have expressive skill in their writing, then why not write a story if it’s a skill instead, lest it is a deficit of excuse and they are inexpressive in both writing and art.
As author George Orwell once said, “If a person cannot write well, they cannot think well, and if a person cannot think well, others will do their thinking for them.”
And so, I urge that we as artists continue to further separate ourselves from AI as their inclusion beckons the deterioration of human culture and society. I urge that AI “artists” recognize their blunder so not only will artistic innovation thrive, but so they themselves may contribute to it in their own pursuit for creativity. While the march of AI is unstoppable, the combined aversion of many will shield what is core to humanity through thought, innovation, and expression.
