From the standpoint of a painter, I wrote an article about my stance on generative AI for unattended learning, which is currently mainstream.
This article is a translation of that content into English.
I’m not good at English, so it may be difficult to read.

As a premise, the knowledge of generative AI, which is currently mainstream, is not mentioned here.
Also, please be aware that this article was written in the country where I live and in the conditions I can see.

First of all, I deny the current generative AI based on unauthorized learning.And I’m not against all AI technologies.
I’ve been in that position for a long time, but recently I’ve started to see stories that affirm the use of indirect generative AI from time to time.
For example, you can draw a picture with reference to the generated AI, or use the generated AI to make it easier to use as a material because you can obscure where the rights are.
For that reason, I wanted to clarify my stance on such indirect usage.
There are many things I want to say about generative AI, but this time I will write my opinion focusing on that point.

At present, I am in the position that I do not approve even indirect use.
The reason is as follows.

First, about drawing pictures with reference to things made with generation AI.

For example, when you try to change your own design by referring to a trendy picture, if the other person is a person like before, you will definitely come into contact with the existence of the people who refer to it.
There may be individual differences, but I think that there were cases where people who drew pictures were strongly conscious of someone’s name through such a process, and there were cases where they remembered it from there.
However, if it becomes commonplace to use the products of generative AI using data sets of unauthorized learning, which are now mainstream, for similar purposes, the chances of being conscious of such individual names will definitely decrease.
For the writers who were the learning sources of AI, this should be a loss in terms of increased name recognition and awareness of existence.
No matter how much I thought about it, I couldn’t think that it was the same as referencing someone else’s work.
Compared to direct use, it may seem logical at first glance.
However, when a large amount of such acts accumulate among people who are involved in creation as a job,
I cannot believe that it will have a positive impact on the future.

Next, about the idea that it will be easier to use things that have passed through generation AI as materials.

Considering that existing creations are the foundation of the premise, there is inevitably resistance from the viewpoint of protecting the value of works and creative places.
I believe that this concern would be diminished in an environment where the source of the learning is properly disclosed, where the learning is given back, where only those who wish to learn are trained, and where the use of generative AI is clearly stated, etc., but we are not at that stage yet.

Currently, it is very difficult to judge whether or not a generation AI is used, so it is difficult to continue to practice the stance that I have written.
Therefore, I can’t deny that it’s just a matter of whether or not I use generative AI in my production, but I hope that someone reading this article will be able to think about the problem of generative AI.
Hopefully, while various topics are flying around, I would like you to know what is originally regarded as a problem, what kind of process has been done, and where it is now.

The above is the English translation of what I am currently thinking.

I am not convinced that my own knowledge and thinking are correct.
But I find it very painful to see the situation.
I sincerely hope that someday this situation will improve.

Thank you for sticking with me through this long post.