Menu
winter 2023
Opinion: On AI Generated Art
1
I love my sister. It's a true fact. And we clash from time to time, but I think that we both enjoy it. A silly little fight can be fun. If we only talked about things we agreed on, I don’t think we would talk at all.
Recently, we have been going back and forth a bit on AI generated artwork. My sister thinks it is the future. The way she sees it, we are within five years of no one needing to paint or write or photograph anything. We'll all just be able to sit at home and describe the cool things we would have painted. And won't that be fun!
For her birthday, I thought that it would be a fun idea to make her a calendar of AI art. It seemed a clever way to needle her while also showing that I listen. (Sometimes I am also playing solitaire. But for the most part I am listening.)
Cocksure and a little spicy, I started by entering the phrase, "My sister is wrong about AI art and this calendar will prove why." In retrospect, that was probably a pretty bad first impression. I wouldn’t bring that energy to my local dentist or psychic. I guess with the cover provided by the anonymous internet, I became one of those cyberbullies I’m always hearing about. And maybe that hostile work environment is why all of the pictures were so awful. The generator spit out four options, but none seemed birthday-present-material. All had the idea of a calendar, but none got it right. Too many days. Too few. Some really skinny boxes next to some big ones. A picture of a robot in a box next to the number 21.
I love my sister. It's a true fact. And we clash from time to time, but I think that we both enjoy it. A silly little fight can be fun. If we only talked about things we agreed on, I don’t think we would talk at all.
Recently, we have been going back and forth a bit on AI generated artwork. My sister thinks it is the future. The way she sees it, we are within five years of no one needing to paint or write or photograph anything. We'll all just be able to sit at home and describe the cool things we would have painted. And won't that be fun!
For her birthday, I thought that it would be a fun idea to make her a calendar of AI art. It seemed a clever way to needle her while also showing that I listen. (Sometimes I am also playing solitaire. But for the most part I am listening.)
Cocksure and a little spicy, I started by entering the phrase, "My sister is wrong about AI art and this calendar will prove why." In retrospect, that was probably a pretty bad first impression. I wouldn’t bring that energy to my local dentist or psychic. I guess with the cover provided by the anonymous internet, I became one of those cyberbullies I’m always hearing about. And maybe that hostile work environment is why all of the pictures were so awful. The generator spit out four options, but none seemed birthday-present-material. All had the idea of a calendar, but none got it right. Too many days. Too few. Some really skinny boxes next to some big ones. A picture of a robot in a box next to the number 21.
2
There is one thing that I want to point out before I move on: the AI art generator I was using doesn't understand words yet. It recognizes where text might be in an image (like when I asked it to come up with a logo for a marxist burger restaurant) but only understands the letters as shapes. The gibberish is usually letters, but that norm only makes the strange symbols that sneak in all the more terrifying.
The one time that the generator got a word entirely correct was when I asked it to “show me something happy” and all of the images had a smiley face and the word “happy.” But that doesn’t count because I said happy first. Thief.
I imagine that this is a potentially fixable problem. Maybe someday in the distant future, this gibberish will be a silly novelty that kids see in a history book and laugh at. But in the present, the names of months this generator put at the top of the calendar were “AptrutAnt” and “Autticc Abllay.” I looked up both in case they were months in another language.
Nope. Gibberish.
I did see that AptrutAnt is close to the word appurtenant, an adjective that means belonging.
Not a measure of time.
3
Do we know what it would look like if the generator were asking for help?
1a
Still on my bullshit, the next category that I entered was "I'm not really sure what to say right now but I would really appreciate it if you showed me something incredibly cool that also helped me grow as a person." I think the point I was trying to make is pretty apparent. Even Kenneth Brannaugh with his gigantic Poirot cum broom is like, “You could be a little subtler.” And the response was no more creative.
First: the shadow of a flowering branch in front of a sunset
Second: a distant person standing in the street in the rain
Third: someone looking at the camera, confused
Fourth: someone looking away from the camera, sad
I did not find these all that cool.
There is one thing that I want to point out before I move on: the AI art generator I was using doesn't understand words yet. It recognizes where text might be in an image (like when I asked it to come up with a logo for a marxist burger restaurant) but only understands the letters as shapes. The gibberish is usually letters, but that norm only makes the strange symbols that sneak in all the more terrifying.
The one time that the generator got a word entirely correct was when I asked it to “show me something happy” and all of the images had a smiley face and the word “happy.” But that doesn’t count because I said happy first. Thief.
I imagine that this is a potentially fixable problem. Maybe someday in the distant future, this gibberish will be a silly novelty that kids see in a history book and laugh at. But in the present, the names of months this generator put at the top of the calendar were “AptrutAnt” and “Autticc Abllay.” I looked up both in case they were months in another language.
Nope. Gibberish.
I did see that AptrutAnt is close to the word appurtenant, an adjective that means belonging.
Not a measure of time.
3
Do we know what it would look like if the generator were asking for help?
1a
Still on my bullshit, the next category that I entered was "I'm not really sure what to say right now but I would really appreciate it if you showed me something incredibly cool that also helped me grow as a person." I think the point I was trying to make is pretty apparent. Even Kenneth Brannaugh with his gigantic Poirot cum broom is like, “You could be a little subtler.” And the response was no more creative.
First: the shadow of a flowering branch in front of a sunset
Second: a distant person standing in the street in the rain
Third: someone looking at the camera, confused
Fourth: someone looking away from the camera, sad
I did not find these all that cool.
4
After a few tries, I started noticing the AI generator I was using was also offering me tips about what to include in a suggestion. I'm sure they do this for everyone, but I did read it as a reflection on my vague and insulting suggestions so far. The tips recommended including an artistic style, being specific about what I wanted to see, and building out the environment. So I tried, "A sexy priest hanging out with a robot by the swimming pool in a Rococo painting style."
This violated their content restrictions.
I'm not entirely sure what is banned in these content restrictions (I wasn't trying to find those boundaries) but I think the problem is that they won't show anything that is sexual. And while in general I do quite a bit of tut-tutting at the prudishness of much of big tech and our recent major motion pictures, it is not too hard to imagine why it could be a good idea for this system to over-correct rather than undercorrect. If I asked the generator to show me something happy and it responded with possum pornography, that might be a bigger problem than being denied my poolside scene.
5
Some of you might be thinking that I am too quick to assume a reason. Maybe you have your own idea of what policy this would violate. And here is my rebuttal:
While I was playing with this AI art, my friend came over and asked if she could try a couple of phrases. First, she tried "Steve Buscemi having an allergic reaction." Do-able. They weren't actual pictures of Steve, but the vibe added up. I mentioned the artist angle, so she tried "William H Macy painted by Willem de Kooning." These were actually the second best pictures I found. So I tried to piggyback on her success. I tried, "Steve Buscemi and Stanley Tucci as Donatello sculptures." Content restriction. No can do.
"Stanley Tucci eating super sour pasta?" Content restrictions. No can do.
"Stanley Tucci fully clothed." Content restrictions. No can do.
And what does Stanley Tucci have that William H Macy and Willem de Kooning can only dream of? A deep, elemental sexuality.
After a few tries, I started noticing the AI generator I was using was also offering me tips about what to include in a suggestion. I'm sure they do this for everyone, but I did read it as a reflection on my vague and insulting suggestions so far. The tips recommended including an artistic style, being specific about what I wanted to see, and building out the environment. So I tried, "A sexy priest hanging out with a robot by the swimming pool in a Rococo painting style."
This violated their content restrictions.
I'm not entirely sure what is banned in these content restrictions (I wasn't trying to find those boundaries) but I think the problem is that they won't show anything that is sexual. And while in general I do quite a bit of tut-tutting at the prudishness of much of big tech and our recent major motion pictures, it is not too hard to imagine why it could be a good idea for this system to over-correct rather than undercorrect. If I asked the generator to show me something happy and it responded with possum pornography, that might be a bigger problem than being denied my poolside scene.
5
Some of you might be thinking that I am too quick to assume a reason. Maybe you have your own idea of what policy this would violate. And here is my rebuttal:
While I was playing with this AI art, my friend came over and asked if she could try a couple of phrases. First, she tried "Steve Buscemi having an allergic reaction." Do-able. They weren't actual pictures of Steve, but the vibe added up. I mentioned the artist angle, so she tried "William H Macy painted by Willem de Kooning." These were actually the second best pictures I found. So I tried to piggyback on her success. I tried, "Steve Buscemi and Stanley Tucci as Donatello sculptures." Content restriction. No can do.
"Stanley Tucci eating super sour pasta?" Content restrictions. No can do.
"Stanley Tucci fully clothed." Content restrictions. No can do.
And what does Stanley Tucci have that William H Macy and Willem de Kooning can only dream of? A deep, elemental sexuality.
4a
So I switched the priest from sexy to sad and suddenly we were back in business. These images were pretty embarrassing. None were Rococo. None of the priests had eyes. It was pure nightmare fuel.
Another tip encouraged me to "combine interesting concepts" and then showed me an oil painting of someone dunking (with basketball and paints being the interesting concepts to combine, I guess).
After that, it suggested I explore “outlandish” ideas only to show an example of a chair designed to look like an avocado. But you know what? I don’t find that outlandish at all! I find it cute.
If I went to someone’s house and they had a chair shaped like an avocado, I would say, “Oh, that’s so cute. Where did you find it?” I would not say, “What is this outlandish thing that you have in your living room? I…I…I say thing because my human mind cannot conjure the language needed to describe it. Whatever created this majesty must be the next step in humankind’s artistic evolution.”
3a
As I kept fooling around, I started getting a better idea of what it could and couldn’t do. Sure, it can give you English Peasants eating pasta or dogs dunking that looks pretty realistic. But ask it for “a very big space lobster and he's friendly with very big claws” and you’re getting pretty boring clip art. Ask it “Do you believe that a belief in science is better than one based in religious faith?” and you will get images structured like memes, but with gibberish for words. (And a clip art microscope. It is an art generator after all!)
So I switched the priest from sexy to sad and suddenly we were back in business. These images were pretty embarrassing. None were Rococo. None of the priests had eyes. It was pure nightmare fuel.
Another tip encouraged me to "combine interesting concepts" and then showed me an oil painting of someone dunking (with basketball and paints being the interesting concepts to combine, I guess).
After that, it suggested I explore “outlandish” ideas only to show an example of a chair designed to look like an avocado. But you know what? I don’t find that outlandish at all! I find it cute.
If I went to someone’s house and they had a chair shaped like an avocado, I would say, “Oh, that’s so cute. Where did you find it?” I would not say, “What is this outlandish thing that you have in your living room? I…I…I say thing because my human mind cannot conjure the language needed to describe it. Whatever created this majesty must be the next step in humankind’s artistic evolution.”
3a
As I kept fooling around, I started getting a better idea of what it could and couldn’t do. Sure, it can give you English Peasants eating pasta or dogs dunking that looks pretty realistic. But ask it for “a very big space lobster and he's friendly with very big claws” and you’re getting pretty boring clip art. Ask it “Do you believe that a belief in science is better than one based in religious faith?” and you will get images structured like memes, but with gibberish for words. (And a clip art microscope. It is an art generator after all!)
1b
I was getting bored and was about ready to give up, when I had a realization. I wasn't getting the type of images I wanted, but maybe that was because I wasn’t putting enough trust in the AI. If I go to a new restaurant, I will try the chef’s specialty. So why not extend that same courtesy to a computer program? What if I sat back and let it take the reins? So I hit "surprise me." The suggested phrase was "Abstract pencil and watercolor art of a lonely robot holding a balloon."
This leads to my two biggest takeaways from this whole experience:
6
If you want to know my favorite, it was “An Agnes Martin painting of dogs playing poker.”
I kept trying different potential Agnes Martin paintings. About half were winners. The self portraits were quite boring, but the paintings of dancing broccoli got back to some of what I loved about her early work (and by her early work I mean fifteen minutes before when I typed “An Agnes Martin painting of dogs playing poker”).
That said, Agnes Martin is my favorite painter. It only makes sense that that would be the sort of thing to really set me off.
I was getting bored and was about ready to give up, when I had a realization. I wasn't getting the type of images I wanted, but maybe that was because I wasn’t putting enough trust in the AI. If I go to a new restaurant, I will try the chef’s specialty. So why not extend that same courtesy to a computer program? What if I sat back and let it take the reins? So I hit "surprise me." The suggested phrase was "Abstract pencil and watercolor art of a lonely robot holding a balloon."
This leads to my two biggest takeaways from this whole experience:
- I think this AI system might be sad
- This robot is corny as hell.
6
If you want to know my favorite, it was “An Agnes Martin painting of dogs playing poker.”
I kept trying different potential Agnes Martin paintings. About half were winners. The self portraits were quite boring, but the paintings of dancing broccoli got back to some of what I loved about her early work (and by her early work I mean fifteen minutes before when I typed “An Agnes Martin painting of dogs playing poker”).
That said, Agnes Martin is my favorite painter. It only makes sense that that would be the sort of thing to really set me off.
7
I’m worried it won’t be a very interesting conclusion if I said that even in AI art, the quality is still going to come down to the abilities of the person using it. I know that there are artists using their experience with AI to make much more interesting images than I came up with. And I know that there are artists using AI in countless ways outside of these generators. And while I am skeptical of the abilities and ethics of these generators, I know not to paint all AI art with the same brush.
But my friend told me that “if [my] big take-away is that AI is just a tool, not the beginning and ending of a creative process, people will think [I’m] ‘as boring and predictable as Kenneth Brannaugh’s cum broom covered performance in Death on the Nile.’
And we can’t have that.
3b
I guess that’s why I was thinking about that.
7a
Instead I have been trying to think about where I would want to see AI art generation used in my daily life. Here is my best case scenario:
Imagine a small store with painted pottery and wine nights. On the second Tuesday of the month, they even let you bring your dog in. And to make sure that folks know about that special event, they put a flier in their window with the details.
Now, if this small studio cannot afford to pay an illustrator to make an image of a dog sipping wine while sitting at a pottery wheel, I am all for that small business owner spending fifteen minutes after closing for the day to get that image for free from their chosen AI generator.
But we know that other folks will use it, too.
Not only will it hurt the bottom lines of illustrators and artists and graphic designers, it will do so in part by processing their images through its system. These AI generators are not taking painting classes. They are drawing from the infinite pictures on the internet, whether or not that picture’s creator consents.
I’m worried it won’t be a very interesting conclusion if I said that even in AI art, the quality is still going to come down to the abilities of the person using it. I know that there are artists using their experience with AI to make much more interesting images than I came up with. And I know that there are artists using AI in countless ways outside of these generators. And while I am skeptical of the abilities and ethics of these generators, I know not to paint all AI art with the same brush.
But my friend told me that “if [my] big take-away is that AI is just a tool, not the beginning and ending of a creative process, people will think [I’m] ‘as boring and predictable as Kenneth Brannaugh’s cum broom covered performance in Death on the Nile.’
And we can’t have that.
3b
I guess that’s why I was thinking about that.
7a
Instead I have been trying to think about where I would want to see AI art generation used in my daily life. Here is my best case scenario:
Imagine a small store with painted pottery and wine nights. On the second Tuesday of the month, they even let you bring your dog in. And to make sure that folks know about that special event, they put a flier in their window with the details.
Now, if this small studio cannot afford to pay an illustrator to make an image of a dog sipping wine while sitting at a pottery wheel, I am all for that small business owner spending fifteen minutes after closing for the day to get that image for free from their chosen AI generator.
But we know that other folks will use it, too.
Not only will it hurt the bottom lines of illustrators and artists and graphic designers, it will do so in part by processing their images through its system. These AI generators are not taking painting classes. They are drawing from the infinite pictures on the internet, whether or not that picture’s creator consents.
8
People often misuse Kant’s categorical imperative. I think that it is often boiled down to something like, “If everyone acted this way, would you be happy?” (For example: Don’t lie. If everyone lied, wouldn’t that be awful?) But that misses the extent to which Kant cared a lot more about the idea of reason than about actual people. I’m not entirely sure he cared about whether lying makes people sad. Frankly, he seems like a weird guy.
His categorical imperative asked whether all people could choose a course of action without eliminating that action as a choice. (For example: If everyone lied, no one would believe your lie in the first place and so lying would not be effective.) While I’m not a big Kant guy, I think he’s relevant here. If it weren’t for the artists and photographers creating works for these AIs to synthesize, these computer systems wouldn’t be able to create anything in the first place.
So, ironically, this *bold new future* for art is dependent on the old future of art (specifically artists) creating new works for these generators to steal like a bunch of sneaky thieves.
7b
This is a great time to have a quick little rant about how we need a universal basic income before automation replaces half of the jobs in America. But that same friend has insisted that I already talk about that too much and that I’m preaching to the choir. So I’ll move on.
9
If you go into most restaurants or coffee shops or stores in America, there will be music playing. And most of the time, there will not be any musicians there. Now, for those bigger stores, there is a burden to pay for the music they use. This is part of why larger stores can have strict playlists that are outside of the control of anyone working there. They know the songs they are playing and they know how much money to send to who. And if some cashier or regional manager really wants to hear The All American Rejects on a random Thursday, it will fuck that up.
But for your local coffee shop, that’s not true. Frankly, it’s too big a burden to ask that small business to track every time they play “Gives You Hell” and then send a check. So instead, they will pay a flat fee to play anything they want and then that money is broken down into tiny itsy bitsy fractions to be spread around amongst the many musicians they might have played. It is an imperfect system that most benefits artists with a legal support system and leaves a shocking amount of money in unclaimed royalties left in a legal gray area. But it is at least a modest attempt to compensate artists in a situation where we can’t track exactly how much they are owed.
Now, this is not a 1:1 comparison. A store plays one song at a time while AI generators are drawing on infinite images at once. But I think that the broader truth is that AI generators are using the hard work of artists without paying, and until we can find a way to incorporate some amount of compensation into this system, it will be inherently unethical.
And yes, recorded music has changed the business of making music in a way that no one could have imagined 100 years ago, but it didn’t mean the end of music or live music or musicians. I can’t imagine what it will look like to be an illustrator in 100 years, but frankly I don’t know what anything will look like in 100 years. I guess we’ll see.
10
But also, we need a universal basic income. Like, yesterday.
Please!
People often misuse Kant’s categorical imperative. I think that it is often boiled down to something like, “If everyone acted this way, would you be happy?” (For example: Don’t lie. If everyone lied, wouldn’t that be awful?) But that misses the extent to which Kant cared a lot more about the idea of reason than about actual people. I’m not entirely sure he cared about whether lying makes people sad. Frankly, he seems like a weird guy.
His categorical imperative asked whether all people could choose a course of action without eliminating that action as a choice. (For example: If everyone lied, no one would believe your lie in the first place and so lying would not be effective.) While I’m not a big Kant guy, I think he’s relevant here. If it weren’t for the artists and photographers creating works for these AIs to synthesize, these computer systems wouldn’t be able to create anything in the first place.
So, ironically, this *bold new future* for art is dependent on the old future of art (specifically artists) creating new works for these generators to steal like a bunch of sneaky thieves.
7b
This is a great time to have a quick little rant about how we need a universal basic income before automation replaces half of the jobs in America. But that same friend has insisted that I already talk about that too much and that I’m preaching to the choir. So I’ll move on.
9
If you go into most restaurants or coffee shops or stores in America, there will be music playing. And most of the time, there will not be any musicians there. Now, for those bigger stores, there is a burden to pay for the music they use. This is part of why larger stores can have strict playlists that are outside of the control of anyone working there. They know the songs they are playing and they know how much money to send to who. And if some cashier or regional manager really wants to hear The All American Rejects on a random Thursday, it will fuck that up.
But for your local coffee shop, that’s not true. Frankly, it’s too big a burden to ask that small business to track every time they play “Gives You Hell” and then send a check. So instead, they will pay a flat fee to play anything they want and then that money is broken down into tiny itsy bitsy fractions to be spread around amongst the many musicians they might have played. It is an imperfect system that most benefits artists with a legal support system and leaves a shocking amount of money in unclaimed royalties left in a legal gray area. But it is at least a modest attempt to compensate artists in a situation where we can’t track exactly how much they are owed.
Now, this is not a 1:1 comparison. A store plays one song at a time while AI generators are drawing on infinite images at once. But I think that the broader truth is that AI generators are using the hard work of artists without paying, and until we can find a way to incorporate some amount of compensation into this system, it will be inherently unethical.
And yes, recorded music has changed the business of making music in a way that no one could have imagined 100 years ago, but it didn’t mean the end of music or live music or musicians. I can’t imagine what it will look like to be an illustrator in 100 years, but frankly I don’t know what anything will look like in 100 years. I guess we’ll see.
10
But also, we need a universal basic income. Like, yesterday.
Please!
Copyright © 2015