AI in Art and Writing

While I have been taking a break from writing and social media this past week, a number of interesting discussion topics have made their way to my various feeds. I wanted to take a moment and offer my perspective on some of these, starting with arguably the most controversial one of all: artificial intelligence. I could talk endlessly about how artificial intelligence can improve our daily lives and help us build a better world, or how it could lead to a cyberpunk dystopia - but today I want to focus in on a more precise topic: artificial intelligence in creative industries and that AI will replace humans in this endeavor.

Most people feel very strongly one way or the other about this. Some will tell you AI has no place in the creative world, while others will say it is the next obvious step for the creative industry. For me, as with all things, I think the answer lies not in the extremes but somewhere in the middle.

There are a few different ways I have noticed people incorporate AI into their creative work. 

One method is to allow whatever AI model you are using to create an “artistic” work, and then post it online for others to view. These people refer to themselves as generative artists or AI artists, from what I have seen. I do take issue with someone claiming to be an artist this way - it requires little to no effort or creative input and thus has no substance. Calling this “art” is a stretch. That is to say nothing about the ethical considerations on the data these models are trained on - that is an entirely different subject and one that requires a more deft approach than I think I can manage at the moment (I am out of coffee, you see.)

Take for example the recent controversy on Amazon, where several AI “authors” have diluted the library of books with poorly written work spit out by ChatGPT with little to no edits, and then attributed those works to actual published authors who had nothing to do with the project. It was only after severe outcry that any action was taken to enforce rules against this behavior, and I think we can all agree that this is not a morally acceptable use of artificial intelligence in a creative industry.

The nuance comes in when a writer makes substantial edits, to the point that the generated content is nearly unrecognizable. At what point is it considered fair to attribute the work to the artist, and not the AI used to generate the foundation? It’s difficult to say and no one seems to have found the right answer.

Another trend I have seen specifically in the self-publishing industry is authors using Midjourney artwork and trying to pass it off as original content, specifically for cover images. This strikes a nerve with me. If you’re going to use an AI image for a cover for any reason - be it budget, style, etc. - you should absolutely not lie to your audience about what they are purchasing. Be straightforward and honest - and if you feel like being honest will hurt your book, maybe it’s because you are making the wrong decision? Just a thought.

I understand cover art can be expensive but at the same time, if you are not willing to put any effort or money into your own book, why should a reader?

So what about AI as a tool for creatives? This is where I think it shines and is the most morally acceptable. For myself and others, sometimes using generative AI to create images or text that we may then reference in our own, completely original work - written or drawn - is an invaluable tool. These products of AI are meant only as a tool or frame of reference for the creative, they are not listed for sale under the guise of original work. Most of the time they are not even shared with the public and if they are, they are strictly labeled as AI generated content. I myself am currently using AI images as placeholders here on my website as I feel they suit the aesthetic I was going for moreso than generic stock photos, but I do plan on replacing them with actual commissioned work at some point. In these scenarios, AI does not replace hired artists or try to deceive a consumer by labeling the work as original content, which is why I deem it morally acceptable. I am not profiting off of the use of Midjourney images here.

AI as a tool for artists undoubtedly has benefits. It also takes many forms other than generative AI. Many spell-checkers use some form of artificial intelligence, and were undoubtedly trained on the near endless supply of published materials on proper grammar. Yet I don’t see anyone calling for a boycott of spell-check. I wonder why that is?

As you can tell, I find both extremes to be equally reductive and unrealistic. Calling for AI to replace humans in creative fields is extreme and dystopian, while boycotting AI entirely is unrealistic and negates the benefits of technological advancement for creatives. Going against the tide of emerging technology has never worked out in the favor of, well, anyone. Technology always wins in the end. Best to embrace its strengths and move forward.

TL;DR Artificial Intelligence is a tool. Like any industry, creatives are allowed to use it as one. It is when you start passing of entirely AI generated content as original work or profiting off of it deceptively, that I take issue with it.  But as a tool to enhance the creative process, be your editing or brainstorming partner, help you visualize something you are struggling with, etc. It’s completely fine.

What about you? What are your thoughts on artificial intelligence and its use as a tool for creatives? Do you find yourself to be of a more lenient position than myself, or are you more strict on what you deem acceptable use of AI? Let me know on TikTok or Instagram, I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Now I have some writing to get back to. Until next time.

~Brandon