Artists in the 🖼
Artists in the 🖼
Center humans when talking about "AI."
As someone who often listens to Computational Linguist Dr. Emily M. Bender on podcasts and on the Mystery AI Hype Theater 3000 podcast she hosts with Dr. Alex Hanna, I notice patterns. For example, when asked about an article hyping “AI” as a replacement for a profession (for example, this article about “AI” replacing teachers), Dr. Bender often asks, “Did they ask (insert members of a profession here) about it? She usually follows that with “Keep people in the frame.”1
It is important to keep people in the frame when discussing “AI.” Or, as Bender and Dr. Alvin Grissom II asked in Inclusive Linguistics (opens PDF),
“Who will the technology be used by/for/on, and who might be harmed, by being excluded -- or included?"2 - Dr. Emily M. Bender and Dr. Alvin Grissom II.
Artists in the Frame
This post focuses on artists. There is much consternation about the effects of generative “AI” on artists.
The CEO of Procreate emphatically declared the app will be free of “AI” features, receiving widespread praise from creatives. Content warning: profanity.
As Dr. Iris van Rooij, Professor of Computational Cognitive Science said about Procreate’s announcement,
“The future is companies assuring us that they will *not* incorporate AI in the products we buy / use.” - Dr. Iris van Rooij
But what if artists should not be concerned about generative “AI”? OpenAI CTO Mira Murati said about the effect of generative “AI” on artists,
“Some creative jobs maybe will go away, but maybe they shouldn’t have been there in the first place.” - Mira Murati.
Go to 29:29 of this video.
Sachin Dev Duggal, founder of builder.ai says that generative “AI” will democratize creativity. Murati also thinks generative “AI” will democratize creativity.
“I believe AI has the potential to democratize creativity on an unprecedented scale. A person’s creative potential should not be limited by their access to resources, education, or industry connections. AI tools could lower the barriers and allow anyone with an idea to create.” - Mira Murati.
Neither of these people are artists. So, let us channel Dr. Bender by placing stochastic parrots on our shoulders and asking, “What do artists think?” Let us put artists in the frame.
Here are twelve artists and what they say about generative “AI.” As with any list of people, this is entirely subjective. I aimed for a diverse range of lived experiences. In addition to drawing artists, there are a musician, an actor/director, a stand-up comedian, and a filmmaker/animator, among others.
I begin my “AI” professional development sessions by asking participants to scrutinize whose voices are elevated and ignored. Please do that with this post.
Much like the actual “AI” experts, these artists have made significant contributions. They are so cool they make Allen Iverson look like Drake.
With that, let us keep artists in the frame.
Karla Ortiz
Award-winning concept artist Karla Ortiz advocates for artists. Watching Ortiz’s US Senate testimony opening statement is a must for anyone learning about the connection between artists and generative “AI.”
Ortiz is one of the artists suing Stability AI, Midjourney, and other companies for violating their copyright. She posted a Twitter thread about the judge in the case allowing all copyright infringement claims to proceed.
When asked if “AI” could help her revise her work, she replied,
“No, not at all. They sell it that way, but ethics aside, even if there were an “ethical model,” the tech itself is flawed. AI has a hard time with revisions. For instance, an art director might ask for changes that the AI can't handle properly. It doesn’t understand the underlying logic of the image, so it’s terrible for things like armor or equipment, where the form follows function. I can do it faster myself. - Karla Ortiz.
Dolly Parton
In February, I posted some reservations about teachers using generative “AI” as a guest speaker. One proposed use case is interviewing deceased historical figures. Musician Dolly Parton addressed the idea of “AI” generating a replica of her after she dies:
“It’s like you can’t remake a person. I don’t want that. I want to just leave a body of work behind. I think all this stuff can be great, used in the right way. But not to replace voices and writings and not to replace a human being that belongs to God.” - Dolly Parton.3
Ironically, one of Parton’s most beloved songs is “9 to 5.” A lyric in the chorus is, “They just use your mind and they never give you credit.” That’s what Karla Ortiz is fighting against.
Hayao Miyazaki
Legendary filmmaker and animator Hayao Miyazaki has a strong opinion about generative “AI.”
“I am utterly disgusted. If you really want to make creepy stuff, you can go ahead and do it. I would never wish to incorporate this technology into my work at all. I strongly feel that this is an insult to life itself.” - Hayao Miyazaki.
Alyssa Wanders
Alyssa Wanders creates character and prop designs. Wanders created art conveying her feelings about generative “AI.”
Jordan Coffer
Jordan Coffer is a Studio and Media Digital artist. Coffer also created art conveying her feelings about generative “AI.” She used a reference from The Office (US version) to make her point.
The next three artists came to my attention because of their response to this tweet from Jess Miers, the Legal Advocacy Counsel at Chamber of Progress, a group that applauded the defeat of unionization at Amazon’s Bessemer, Alabama warehouse. Content warning: profanity:
Remember: Keep people in the frame. What did artists with disabilities think about Miers’ idea that “AI” brings barriers down for artists with disabilities?
Abi AKA Bibi
Artist Abi who goes by Bibi designs enamel pins, stickers, 3D printed plant pots, jewelry trays, horns, compression items, and more. Her quote tweet of Miers’ tweet was:
“I'm a Black disabled artist. Do NOT use disabled people as an excuse to support AI which steals from our work and threatens our livelihoods.” - Abi AKA Bibi.
DJ Kirkland
Comic book artist and writer DJ Kirkland reacted to Miers’ tweet:
Danielle Ryan
Entertainment critic and essayist Danielle Ryan quote tweeted Miers:
“I'm a disabled writer and artist and generative AI is basically the worst thing to ever happen to art. If you TRULY want to make art, you find a way. If you want to democratize art there are a million other ways besides straight-up theft.” - Danielle Ryan.
Which is more compelling, Miers’ tweet, or Bibi’s, Kirkland’s, and Ryan’s responses to it?
Del Walker
Artist Del Walker said about the impact of using generative “AI” on a brand:
“You know what I realized about Ai images in your marketing? It sends out the message that you've got no budget. It's the digital equivalent of wearing an obviously fake Chanel bag. Your whole brand immediately appears feeble and impoverished.” - Del Walker.
Justine Bateman
Justine Bateman played Mallory Keaton on Family Ties. She is now a filmmaker, author, and fierce advocate for creatives. Seriously, she makes Stone Cold Steve Austin look timid.
When asked about OpenAI’s Sora,4 Bateman replied,
“It’s beyond fake. That is an amalgamation of a bunch of images and footage that they stole for artists. Plain and simple generative AI is complete and utter theft.” - Justine Bateman.
Beth Spencer
Beth Spencer is the artist behind the “Created by Human Intelligence” badge I use at the end of my posts. As she said in her post about the badge, it’s “not anti-tech. It’s pro-human.” Learn about the badge in her Introvert Drawing Club post.
Anesti Danielis
I quoted comedian Anesti Danelis in my Humans Created This post to support my assertion that “AI” generates low-quality text.
When interviewed by BBC Scotland, Danielis said something demonstrating how ill-suited generative “AI” is for creating insightful content.
“It was funny to see how it [generative “AI] took such a complex experience of…an immigrant family…and it was like, ‘You like souvlaki and that’s all.”
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
Continue The Conversation
What do you think? Do you empathize with Murati, Duggal, and Miers or these artists? Does “AI” democratize creativity or is that a hollow talking point? How will you keep people in the frame when discussing “AI”? Comment below or Tweet me at @TomEMullaney.
Does your school or conference need a tech-forward educator who critically examines “AI,” pedagogy, and creativity? Reach out on Twitter, email mistermullaney@gmail.com, or check out my professional development offerings.
Blog Post Image: The blog post image is by Jessica Ruscello on Unsplash.
AI Disclosure:
I wrote this post without the use of any generative AI. That means:
I developed the idea for the post without using generative AI.
I wrote an outline for this post without the assistance of generative AI.
I wrote the post using the outline without the use of generative AI.
I edited this post without the assistance of any generative AI. I used Grammarly to assist in editing the post. I have Grammarly GO turned off.
There are no generative AI-generated images in this post.
See slide 15 of the linked PDF.
All bolded text in this post was a stylistic decision by the post author.
When you credibly cite Dolly Parton to support your argument, you have won the argument.
Still not released to the public. The author suspects the app behind the curtain is not very good.
Humans? Don't you mean content-creating machines? This week I've been grieving the loss of my work that Routledge sold to AI so it can be chopped into bits and regurgitated with a mash-up of other writers' stolen words. Routledge saw no need to even inform writers, let alone ask for permission or offer an opt-out.
I wrote more here: https://salmons.blog/2024/08/05/routledge-sells-out-authors-to-ai/
These books contain years of work - research, testing, refining, developing the ideas. And its not only the words I've lost, also the images. For a chapter in an edited book, discussing the value of art journaling for social researchers, I created all the art by hand, pen and ink drawings. Now they'll be corrupted too.
Someone posted about the Routledge deal on Linked In, wondering about the "revenue stream." Huh? Doubtful we'll see any of that $10 million!
Unlike Hollywood writers, we have no union, and no protection.