4
(OOC) On AI art
I've noticed images created by AI generators like Midjourney being used on NS factbooks a lot, and as a human artist, I'd like to share my opinion.If you're using AI to generate images, stop. AI art generators are known to use real artists' art as a base with neither their permission nor compensation. In the end, it's nothing more than theft against an already-struggling, exploited, and undervalued industry. If you need images for your factbooks, you're better off just finding photos on the internet (if you use artwork, be sure to credit the artist). Or, if you're particularly ambitious, learn to draw stuff yourself, but I understand not wanting to go down this path due to its steep learning curve. Visualizing your nation isn't worth contributing to the exploitation of artists in the process.
"But human artists take ideas from other art pieces too! AI art is just practicing inspiration!" Full stop. Human inspiration is nowhere near similar to the thievery involved in AI art. The difference is that human inspiration involves adding one's own flair and ideas to existing ones. AI art doesn't do that - it only mashes together existing pieces of art without adding anything new or original. The fact that many AI art pieces feature mangled signatures at their corners is a testament to this fact.
In addition, on a broader scale, AI art will put artists across the world out of work; we are already seeing many artists and workers in other similar fields losing their livelihoods to AI art. This wouldn't inherently be a problem if it weren't for the fact that the human touch gives art its beauty. Automating art is asking for a dystopian world without any true sense of creativity. Yes, many people already agree that human art wins over AI art in terms of creativity, but the issue is that companies and corporations - the ones truly in power - care not about creativity and emotion, but only profit. The most meaningful art piece won't mean anything to most rich CEOs if they can't make money off of it. This also wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for the poor welfare systems of many nations like the United States, which will likely see unemployed artists either fall into poverty and/or be forced into exploitative jobs and working environments. AI is supposed to eliminate the jobs no one wants to do, not the other way around!
Ultimately, the true problem here is not AI, but unregulated capitalism and corporatism. AI art owes a significant portion of its popularity to the fact that it benefits the richest and wealthiest in society. In addition to cutting costs by eliminating the need to hire or commission human artists, AI art would put human artists - a group of workers known to resist exploitation more than some other groups - out of a job and make them desperate for a new job even if it meant exploitation, with those refusing to be exploited failing to find a job and dyring in poverty. In other words, it would create the perfect exploitable workforce for corporations that care not about the health, safety, and lives of its workers and seek only to take advantage of them for profit, while also eliminating those who resist worker exploitation by having them die in poverty.
AI can either create a utopia where work is voluntary and people are free to pursue their passions, or transform society into a dystopian hellhole where the vast majority of the populace suffers in poverty and exploitation under a small, rich elite. The path humanity takes will depend on whether or not governments can impose sensible business regulations and foster a competent welfare program, corporations stop prioritizing money over human morals, and people realize the value of their work and the fact that they deserve more than exploitation under overseers that would happily replace them without a second thought.
Perhaps capitalism does breed innovation. But what's the use of such innovation if most people can't reap its benefits?