In recent years, AI has emerged as a popular tool in many fields and its use has been a polarizing topic of discourse. In particular, generative AI has caused a stir in the online art sphere. These AI models utilize machine learning to generate images that imitate artwork, and the method by which the machines learn is extremely harmful to real artists: harvesting images from across the web and social media without artists’ consent. While there are apparently ways to opt out, creators are automatically opted in, often without their knowledge. The AI generates images by mashing together all this information to match a user’s prompt. Users can then use this technology to mimic real artists, undermining the entire point of making art. 

Still today, many people devote hours of effort and love into creating things with their own hands, a product of their personality, experiences, and techniques. AI does none of this and holds no reverence for the planes of the face or the folds of a flower, or anything else an artist has learned to see and depict. The internet is flooded with these empty AI images that are totally detached from the human experience, incredibly hurtful to artists, and mockeries of creativity.

Some might argue that AI “art” allows for a wider range of people to create and display art, people who are unable to create such work because of their skill level. This argument is harmful in the sense that it supports the idea of art being exclusive to highly-skilled professionals or people who are already passionate about art. Although some do choose to pour hours into their craft, making and viewing art is a part of the human experience that can be fun for anyone. On the other hand, someone typing a prompt into an image generator is not making art. If they take credit for the image, they are stealing art that was made by people who spent hours creating it, only for it to be entered into a database and meaninglessly combined into a soulless conglomerate of despair.

This practice takes away job opportunities for real artists and designers who would ultimately create a better and more impactful piece because companies would rather spend less money by using an AI as opposed to hiring a real person. It’s saddening that companies would rather produce a lackluster result using AI, rather than commission an actual artist, simply to maximise profits. It seems like AI “art” has been popularized partly because society has been viewing art through a shallower lens, not recognizing the process that goes into it and instead focusing on the result, and eventually, the profit. Additionally, AI is often advertised using phrases along the lines of “the magic of AI,” such as Canva’s Magic Write. It’s disheartening that AI is considered magical while humanity’s centuries of art history and ongoing artistic achievements are brushed under the rug.

AI supporters also contend that an AI harvesting and combining material is the same thing as a human taking inspiration. After all, the phrase “steal like an artist” seems to suggest that artists do the exact same thing, right? Well, no. Human artists intentionally look at art they like and, in doing so, absorb artistic elements that they can incorporate into their pre-existing style. Even if an artist incorporates some elements into a piece that clearly reference another, they are filtered through the artist’s own lens of creativity. Everyone’s interpretation of art, and, as a result, use of others’ artistic elements will be slightly different because of how complex and unique people are. On the other hand, AI has no creative lens because it is an algorithm. AI does not have life experiences that are special to it like humans do, so when AI takes parts of an art piece, it is literally stealing. 

AI-generated images should not be considered art, but representative solely of human scientific achievement. While there are museums where AI images are hung up, they are deemed technological advancements, not art. There could be a place for this technology somewhere, but as it stands, there are a myriad of ethical and environmental problems associated with it, and its unregulated presence in the artistic sphere is unacceptable.