Yes, Gen AI is bad.
For the environment, the craftsmanship of the creators involved, the integrity of art itself, and the development of the frontal cortex for future generations. Gen AI feels like the epitome of everything wrong with the massive corporate, capitalistic tech complex that’s plagued society since the term ‘social media brainrot’ became less of a derogatory slang and more of an acceptable way of life. It is not the omen that it should have been, the moment people decided to sell their human dignity, their respect for others and themselves-- for imaginary online validation, and money, of course. None of this is new. Just some of the many things that have been said and that people will continue to say within the grander scheme of all “Internet discourse” as of now and in the foreseeable future. And yet, amidst the doom and gloom and ongoing raging online debacles, one thing has left me wondering. AI is everywhere, operating in the background without us thinking about it much, if at all. However, the system under which it operates is different compared to the one that just cobbles up jumbled crap of misshapen extra limbs and plastic faces from whatever corner of the Internet it scours to steal from;
Hence, the clear distinction between Gen AI and the algorithm AIs used to feed you content instead of the other way around, which is what the former does. But forget the technology for just a moment. Let’s think about the context behind Gen AI - that is, its controversial purpose. It’s meant to create original content. Content, in this case, can span from something as relatively simple as sentences forming paragraphs to potentially entire catalogues of books that Amazon will peddle to its consumer base, because why not?. Except, there is an inherent contradiction, a paradox you can say, in its intended purpose versus the actual methods in achieving said purpose. Gen AI, after all, is still AI - artificial intelligence. It is a machine-based program that a human had to code, to input strings of numbers to produce results that feel too sterile, too detached in a way. It lacks the emotional depth that characterizes the physical and emotional process of learning and mastering a craft present in the final creation. It doesn’t understand any of this. think how we think, feel what we feel. It is just a fabricated, copied existence built on false pretenses, devoid of the self only humans are self-aware to actualize. Yet, in an act of great irony perhaps, one may only wonder where this chase for the supposed ultimate perfection, to create an ‘artificial life’ built to resemble and mimic our capabilities with minimal to little ‘human input’, had led the path they took.
However, I must return to my original point.
What has caught my attention is the emphasis that so many Gen AI users insist upon, the desire to create ‘original’ content that competes or at least levels the playing field enough for them to feel comfortable in participating with the chosen community. This is a sentiment commonly associated with those illiterate degenerates, of whom everyone else hates to hear because it is a pitiful excuse at best. It feels especially disrespectful because even now, there’s definitely a place for fun, meme-y, silly art not meant to be taken seriously (and yes, I consider writing as a form of art too)! There are a variety of styles and levels meant for anyone at any stage in their life to explore and take an interest in. And well, sure, there’s always the classic imposter syndrome, comparing yourself to well-established creators that are both “gifted” or “naturally talented” and popular. However, they still had to work on developing their skills, understanding the fundamentals through hours of practice and learning from the greats, teachers, and peers alike to reach the point they’re at.
This intuitive creative sense, for lack of a better term, is something only the individual can learn for themselves. What do I mean by this? Art is a pretty universal concept, if not a little basic, so to speak, but how it is interpreted is dependent on the individual perspective. Just because there is a classroom of artists, for example, doesn’t mean everyone will create the same work, let alone use the same medium. Their art styles, preferences, philosophies, those things are solely theirs to define their creative processes. The classroom can be given the exact same prompt, yet every single finished result will turn out quite different. You can say that that is ‘original’ content if you mean by how people interpret a concept; if we were to take the literal definition, it would be nigh impossible to create something truly 100% original. You can take upon a concept or idea and innovate, while also acknowledging the inspirations that influenced the final result, because everything is and has been influenced by something. The problem is that Gen AI does not acknowledge the works it steals from. We all know that.
However, as I continue writing out this piece, it occurred to me. The larger conversations surrounding the latest controversial topic of AI use have largely focused on two major arguments— its detrimental effects on the environment (i.e. increased water usage) and the emphasis on the genuine authenticity of human artists.
For instance, according to the United Nations Environment Assembly, every aspect of this technology, from where it’s generated down to the resources necessary to create and maintain AI, is quite demanding on the health of the planet. These massive data centers, for one, house tons of electronics that, on average, require 800 kg of raw materials for a 2 kg computer. Included in these raw materials are rare earth elements, whose mining operations contribute to the release of harmful chemicals into nearby soil, water, and air. Water, especially drinkable water, is scarce, yet they estimate that “globally, AI-related infrastructure may soon consume six times more water than Denmark, a country of 6 million…a problem when a quarter of humanity already lacks access to clean water and sanitation” (UNEA). They also reported that “a request made through ChatGPT, an AI-based virtual assistant, consumes 10 times the electricity of a Google Search” (UNEA), which is crazy considering the blatant misinformation AI spits out. Though then again humans are especially prone to confirmation bias long before this iteration of AI existed, so what would I know.
Meanwhile, “Humans versus AI: whether and why we prefer human-created compared to AI-created artwork”, a research journal by Bellaiche, Lucas et al. suggests that, based on a study by Newman and Bloom, “humans are sensitive to an authentic process of creative production as determined simply by a label. In other words, people consider non-sensory aspects of art, like context and background, in their judgments and evaluations of art (Blank et al., 1984; Chatterjee & Vartanian, 2016; Winner, 1982)” (Bellaiche, Lucas et al.). Much in the same way communities demand healthy organic food free of pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, and other factors that contribute to the detriment of the earth, the growing pushback against “AI generated art” stems from a similar sentiment. That is, there are people who value the time and effort that goes into every aspect of the creative process, which that authenticity is undermined in yet another cold-cut corporate means that everyone hates because it’s another example of corporations doing something no one asked them to do. In a sense, it’s not just fighting back against corporate greed—it’s fighting back to hold said people in positions of power and authority accountable while uplifting the communities that are directly affected by said actions. These ongoing conversations help spotlight human artists either through word of mouth amongst casuals or fellow artists supporting each other in a networking process that’s like “I scratch your back, you scratch mine” kind of deal. How close-knitted these systems are largely depends on the type and size of the community, since there are so many niches artists can occupy in this general art space. However, in general, supporting small art accounts generally does good especially since most people understand the challenging logistics of creating art, and especially for making art to sell.
All of these are valid concerns, mind you. Yet, I feel like this sort of debate has plagued the art community (feel free to correct me on this), specifically because I believe the difference in skill level can not only be visibly evident but can be substantial, which can breed insecurity and envy, often attributing the artists’ craft solely to ‘born talent.’ Even comments that mean to praise often end up backhanded, guilt-trippy even, unintentional they may be. I’m sure for any artist out there, you may have heard someone say at some point, “Oh, I wish I could draw like you. I can’t even draw stick figures,” or “I can never hope to be as good as you at making pottery,” or something of the sort. I know I have, I’ve been on both sides. And I feel like that attitude is the bigger issue in terms of how the non-artists and even many other fellow artists interact with the art community as a whole. People simply can’t enjoy making art that’s silly, fun, and unserious (memes are the exception). No, the overall skill level has risen, and so has expectations for what makes art “good” or “bad”. There’s a huge difference between constructive criticism and flat out bullying—and unfortunately the Internet doesn’t give a shit. No one is safe from the Internet mob hating for the love of the game, and it’s made worse with AI. People are being accused of using AI left and right and now have to prove they’re the ones creating the art, possibly opening them up further to scrutiny and/or plagiarism down the line. Sigh.
In addition, governments such as the Trump administration has done a lot of damage to the social humanities by actively defunding entire programs dedicated to funding the arts (the National Endowment for the arts grants), while the nature of corporations inherently breed hostile work cultures dissuading creative freedom on the basis of profit-driven margins on a ticking deadline. Not to mention sports taking bigger precedence just because winning culture is louder in every single aspect—think of American football, for example, and the many more available pathways to succeed, such as collegiate football teams (I personally believe that sport is an abomination and should be permanently deleted from the collective consciousness, whoever created that should rot in hell). Creating art, on the other hand, that competes in art shows is solely based on the whims of whomever is judging, which is a lot more subjective and prone to bouts of frustration. What do you mean that person won over me? How did my piece not win when it clearly followed what the prompt asked for? Why do I bother when people can just draw anime girls and still win? Those kinds of sentiments are hard to shake off because there’s no clear consensus with art juried competitions, which is made worse by the fees that artists sometimes have to pay in order to compete in the first place. And when art is not made for immediate consumption, made just for the fun of it? Well, because it’s not quantifiable, somehow there are people who will often dismiss it as a hobby that contributes, in some ways, to the negative perception that making art doesn’t make you money.
So what is the big takeaway from all of this?
I’m not sure. I’m sure everyone is probably sick of hearing about AI, and to read another one explaining why it’s bad is tiresome. I get that. However, I believe there’s a neglected aspect to this whole debacle that isn’t really acknowledged amongst the general community. The whole thing about wanting to use AI to create art is absurd, admittedly, and yet, I do pity them in a sense. Putting aside not knowing better because they’re born without a functional brain, it’s hard to create art. And yes, I know there’s a plethora of Youtube tutorials out there but I also think that’s also a problem, in my opinion. There’s simply far too many things on the Internet demanding your attention, so it would be quite difficult to pinpoint exactly what someone starting out should even need to begin to know. What kind of art do I want to create? How do I go about creating that? What are the best supplies I should get or can afford to get? Is this the correct way to learn? Having to navigate all of that and more can tax out anyone’s brain before they can start to enjoy the fun aspects of art. And that’s not including actually learning the skill, which can be a humiliating process for those not used to not being immediately gratified with good results. Information overload is a thing, and social media is built to overstimulate its user base with loads of whatever crap the algorithm recommends them with. Not to mention the decreasing attention span, though that’s a separate issue altogether.
That’s not to say I’m trying to justify/excuse these AI bros. I must emphasize that so people won’t misconstrue my words. At the end of the day, I feel AI art is, in some ways, a more evolved form of problems that already exist within the art community manifested into yet another greedy corporate philosophy every rational human being hates. Seriously, fuck corporations.
Works Cited:
Bellaiche, Lucas et al. “Humans versus AI: whether and why we prefer human-created compared to AI-created artwork.” Cognitive research: principles and implications vol. 8,1 42. 4 Jul. 2023, doi:10.1186/s41235-023-00499-6
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10319694/
Edited by Sonal Butley and Lilli Eve
 | A guest post by
|