Art Should Be By Artists Not "Artificial Intelligence"

Introduction

This has been fired off by the statement included in the lead-in image. Many will accuse me of being an absolute hypocrite because I use AI-generated Art for most of my Vocal pictures. I already receive a lot of criticism and spiteful threatening mail because of this and maybe that's why I have lost a lot of readers over the past six months. I still have a lot of subscribers but fewer and fewer people actually communicate with me, put there is nothing I can do about that, and the people who still talk with me are wonderful and really make me feel appreciated.

Lead article taken from here

So on to the actual point of this post.

AI?

The lead in article defines "artificial intelligence" as "plagiarism software" and I know certain art programs have taken images and put them in their generators without even crediting the source. That is pure theft and should not be happening.

I see AI Art Generators as a tool I can use to generate an image where I am not infringing copyright. I sometimes use my own photographs, sketches, or writing, or like in this article a web find (I am not sure where this came from).

I have seen people say that AI should be being used for mundane tasks like hoovering, laundry, and mowing the lawn. You know, the stuff that would give us some time back so we can do things that we want.

This is my piece on AI Art:

Though this video for "Destination Eschaton" contains some amazing computer-generated art, but it is directed by human ideas. That is the same with CGI in films, it is computer-generated by humans who are in control.

The tree that appears two minutes into the video for "Destination Eschaton" by The Shaman below is a great example of this, but I think a lot of work must have gone into it. Remember that all the great cartoons and science fiction that came before CGI was an option were all done by artists working mostly by hand, so was CGI wrong? That is a moot point because it is here now and without it many TV programs and films could not have been made. But CGI is just a tool, no more.

"Artificial Intelligence" is now encroaching on creative writing and people are defending its use because they thought of the prompt. On Vocal we see "creators" posting tens of posts a day which seem to be AI-generated. Real Vocal Creators are watching these but they could be flooded out by the generated stories.

In the time that it has taken me to write this, I could probably have generated twenty chunks of text for publication, without telling anyone how they were generated, and maybe even get a couple of Top Story bonuses along the way.

While I can see that AI might be useful for documentation, it will still have to be checked by a human, but I see lots of ads for people who "make a daily fortune" by autogenerating puzzle books that they sell on Amazon and wherever. There are people who apply the same concept to Vocal and Medium creations, because they then, in theory, receive money for reads.

A friend sends me some AI-generated poetry and caught me out with the first one which I published as a Vocal story, but I then made sure people knew where it came from. This is the one.

Conclusion

I fully agree with the statement that "Artificial Intelligence" is just an aggrandizement of "Plagiarism Software" and should not be allowed or encouraged on a platform like Vocal.

With the Art I create, people know where it comes from, and if Vocal decided to ban AI Art then I would be fine with that.

I hope this has made you think about the potential threat to platforms like Vocal and Medium that "plagiarism software" poses.

I included "No One Driving" by John Foxx because I feel that is a good analogy for this encroachment