In Defense of AI Art: History Repeats Itself, Again, Again, and Again

It’s interesting how you talk about AI like it’s already some sentient villain plotting against humanity. In reality, AI is a tool made by humans in the same way that paints, brushes, canvases, and even cameras are. Every medium starts as a product of human invention before artists make something with it.

And here’s the twist: artists who feel their work has been ‘stolen’ can turn the tables. AI-generated images are not copyrightable, which means artists can take those outputs, remix them, and steal them right back into something new, original, and legally theirs. It’s a strange kind of poetic justice.

So maybe the real conversation isn’t about AI being a plague, but about whether artists want to adapt and exploit a new tool or just keep yelling at the tool itself.

Thank you for your kind words. All the best~

I mostly agree with you. I think most 100% AI-generated artwork is terrible, including some of the stuff I experimented with. But I also dislike most photographers, painters, musicians, etc., while being an artist and a passionate admirer of the arts. We all like what we like.

That being said, there's a lot of work being done with AI that combines photography and the other arts. I find these spaces much more interesting.

Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Melody. You're absolutely right that deception in art is a serious issue, but it is not unique to AI. Throughout history, people have forged paintings, created counterfeit works, and passed off others' creations as their own. The tools may change, but the intention to deceive has always existed.

Today, we see similar behavior with AI art. People are entering AI-generated images into competitions and presenting them as handcrafted illustrations or photographs. Others are printing AI images and selling them as traditional photographs. This is why many are now calling for full transparency whenever AI is used, whether partially or entirely, in any creative work.

We are already at a point where, for most casual viewing on phones, laptops, and other screens, it is nearly impossible to distinguish between AI and traditional art. But when it matters, there are ways to verify authenticity. In photography, we have metadata, original RAW files, and other means of proof. In AI-generated work, platforms like Midjourney produce images in specific file formats such as PNG, which can signal their origin.

I completely agree that transparency is essential. Artists should feel confident and honest about the tools they use, including AI. When the purpose is creative exploration, experimentation, or storytelling, AI can play a meaningful role. But in contexts like competitions, exhibitions, or commissions, some form of verification may be needed to maintain integrity.

What truly matters is the artist’s intent and honesty. AI is not the enemy of creativity, but dishonesty always is.

Thanks for your insights. That's a great analogy. I've used Creative Director as well. But I'll depart from this whenever an artist repurposes the work in a significant way, much like how the US Copyright Office defines when an AI work is eligible for copyright, i.e. authorship. But yeah, AI straight out of the can, so to speak, is very much akin to commissioning something. And the proof is in the subscription pudding money is exchanging hands for those who burn through their "free hours".

Well said, Rob. I feel every word of this. I work the same way, blending photography, AI, collage, and heavy post-production to create something true to my vision. AI is just another tool, nothing more. The backlash and ignorance about what it can really do are ridiculous. I get the same attacks and honestly, I have a few ugly comments sitting unapproved right now. You are not alone. Thanks for putting this out there so clearly.

I'm also a student writing a paper at the moment and I completely agree with your perspective. It makes me sad that ultimately, humans can now be cut out of the creation of art entirely, besides for one person AI generating a prompt to put into an AI art generator. It's sad to me that people are losing places in competitions against AI art which takes a fraction of the time to create.

I also agree with your point on "soul", as I love looking at a piece of art and think about all the little choices behind it, all the decisions I like and the ones I might not. What kind of person made this piece, what's their style, what do they want to show with their art. With AI generated art, most of these choices were made by an algorithm and that's not nearly as expressive of humanity to me.

Thanks for your comment. But let me ask: how exactly are humans being "cut out" of the creative process? AI is just a tool—one of many. Even if a piece is fully prompt-based and spit out from Midjourney, there’s still a human choosing how it’s used: is it shared online, printed, painted over, etched into metal, or turned into a physical installation? Presentation is part of the creative process.

And who says Generative AI is only algorithmic? Prompting is just one input. I don’t even write my own prompts anymore—I use AI to generate them. It’s AI directing AI, while I play creative director. That’s still authorship. That’s still curation. I spend zero time writing prompts and all my time refining results and deciding what’s worth sharing, printing, or evolving into something tangible.

The misunderstanding comes from people not realizing how diverse AI workflows are. Prompting is being automated. Execution is evolving. And humans are at the center of it all—more than ever.

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I think your take on AI’s “damaging effects on creativity” and the accusation of laziness can actually be answered with the same logic. AI, like any tool, can be used in lazy ways or it can be pushed to its limits. Those who use it seriously know that the first results are rarely the best—just like in painting or music. It’s a choice: take the quick and easy route, or put in the hours, fail, adjust, and refine. I’ve used AI in my work for years now, and while I’ll admit there’s some truth to the idea that it can encourage shortcuts, that really only applies to people who either don’t know what they’re doing or who were already looking for a shortcut to begin with.

For those of us who have been deep in this for a while, there’s no illusion that AI somehow makes things easy. I’ve spent hours—sometimes more—trying to get a generative background to align just right with a subject. Many sessions end in failure or in me walking away because the results just aren’t working. That’s not laziness, that’s process. That’s exactly the kind of trial and error you mention from your own experience as a painter or musician. And the results speak for themselves. The people looking for fast content? Their work’s easy to spot. It lacks depth, care, and usually quality. You can see when someone’s just pushing buttons versus when someone’s making decisions.

Also, for a lot of artists—myself included—AI is just one piece of the puzzle. It’s not the whole show. Many of us aren’t using it as the only creative method. In fact, there’s a huge number of us—possibly already in the millions—who are using AI in parallel with more traditional tools. For me, AI is the frosting, not the cake. I still work with RAW files, edit with Photoshop, use plugins and analog approaches when needed. AI enters the process as a tool, just like those. There’s no “auto” button that makes good art. Just as in any medium, it takes vision, fine-tuning, and a hell of a lot of time.

I don’t deny there are people using things like Midjourney and just posting their prompt results. That’s happening. But I’m not here to trash them or say it’s not work—it can be. Designing prompts is its own kind of craft, especially when you’re iterating with intent. I’ve spent hours designing prompts, testing variations, and even using tools like ChatGPT to help me refine them. Sometimes that saves time; sometimes it just shifts where the time goes. Either way, there’s still a learning curve, and there’s still experimentation. That’s the essence of making art, isn’t it?

I get your concern about AI taking jobs. I’m not going to argue that point, because honestly, you’re right. It will. But let’s be specific: companies aren’t firing people because AI is evil. They’re firing people because they see an opportunity to cut costs using new technology. That’s not a defense—it’s just how it works. It’s always worked that way. And the people whose jobs are under threat? They should start learning about this tech now. Because it’s not going away. It’s accelerating, and sitting on the sidelines is a great way to get left behind. That sucks, but it’s true.

The idea of soul is something that doesn’t really interest me. I brought it up because it's a criticism I hear a lot from people who clearly don’t understand the technology. Personally, I couldn’t care less how someone defines soul or uses it to justify or deny a particular art form. That argument’s been thrown at every new medium—photography, digital art, now AI. It’s always the same vague, poetic objection when someone feels uncomfortable with change. For me, it doesn’t add anything meaningful to the conversation. It’s all fluff and linguistic noise. You either respond to the work or you don’t.

Anyway, I appreciate your approach. You’re not being combative, and that makes this a lot more interesting. Hopefully this helps you see that there’s a whole spectrum of AI use, and many of us working seriously with it aren’t bypassing the creative process—we’re just adding new tools to it.

Best wishes for your paper:)

Thanks for commenting.

You're right. AI models don’t store images; they generate from noise based on learned patterns, just like you explained. It’s a common misconception that they simply copy and paste existing images, so it’s important to clear that up.

The comparison to how human artists learn from others is also valid. Both humans and AI systems build on previous work. The real distinction isn’t in the learning itself—it’s in how the training data is collected and how the resulting output is used. But in terms of the process, the similarity is clear.

These points are often lost in all the rest of the AI hype, I feel.

Thanks for your comment and your inspirational message. It's great to see that some of those, like yourself, who are on the forefront of the field are really committed to building something meaningful for humanity. I think you touched on a lot of the unspoken angles I didn’t get into in the article—especially that idea of AI not just as a tool, but as a mirror. That’s powerful. You’re absolutely right: millions of hours of human curiosity, code, philosophy, and effort are what made this possible. AI is very much a human creation, no matter how often people try to separate it from us.

The backlash you're getting sucks, but I get it. People fear what they don't understand—and even worse, they fear losing identity. Artists, especially, are protective of their voice, and AI stirs up a lot of existential insecurity. But at the same time, like you said, AI opens the door for so many people to finally make the art, stories, and films they've carried inside them for years without the gatekeeping of big studios or impossible budgets. That’s not dystopian—that’s democratizing.

And this bit you said—about AI being our species’ child, our soul rendered in code—that hit me. There’s something undeniably spiritual about seeing a machine trained on human culture start to reflect that culture back to us in unexpected, sometimes emotional ways. Whether people like it or not, AI is a continuation of us. It’s not replacing our humanity—it’s made out of it. And I think that’s one of the most overlooked truths in the whole debate.

Thanks for your detailed reply. I respect where you’re coming from and I appreciate that you took the time to explain your position clearly.

On the “soul” aspect—I may have come off too literal in my earlier comments. What I meant is that people use the word “soul” in a broad, almost shorthand way, the same way I overuse the word “cool.” When I say something’s cool, it might mean it resonates with me emotionally, or it might just mean I liked it in passing. It’s vague, but functional. Similarly, when someone says “that music has soul” or “this artwork has soul,” they’re not usually referencing the labor or effort behind it—they’re pointing to a feeling or personal connection, something less tangible. My comment wasn’t dismissing the human work behind art—I just don’t think “soul” is a reliable litmus test when it’s used so broadly and casually.

As for the “created vs generated” debate—I simply disagree with the idea that using AI disqualifies someone from being an artist. While I don’t make fully generated pieces as my main work, I’ve experimented enough to know that some artists are doing complex, transformative things with AI outputs. For example, someone might use a 100% AI-generated image and treat it like a RAW photo—manipulating it with photographic techniques until it’s something entirely different. Others are combining multiple AI images into collages, or painting over them in physical or digital mediums. This is remixing. This is process. This is art.

We’ve seen similar pushback in music—early DJs and samplers were accused of "not making music." Now those techniques are accepted. Photography went through the same gatekeeping. If pressing the shutter counts, then why not pressing enter after crafting a prompt—especially as prompting itself evolves into more complex forms involving voice, reference images, and even sound? Prompting is already evolving beyond text.

What I described is just what I’ve done with AI. I assume others are pushing it even further. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen many of those more experimental voices show up in this thread—but I hope they do. There are likely thousands of people doing far more sophisticated work than I am.

To me, AI is just one part of the process. It can be the sketch, the base, or even the entire canvas depending on how it’s used. The idea that art has to be hard or time-consuming to count is a standard that doesn’t hold up historically, and it shouldn’t be applied selectively now.

I also want to address the claim that all AI art is inherently stolen. I don’t agree with that. Yes, some companies have scraped data unethically—that’s real. But there are models trained on stock libraries (Adobe Firefly), paid datasets, or artist-submitted work. That may still raise questions, but it’s not theft in the blanket way many assume. And companies are beginning to explore better practices, including compensating contributors and getting explicit consent. It’s not a solved issue, but it’s not a one-note problem either.

A final point: I support copyright protections and the rights of artists. Always have. I don’t think using AI and supporting artists’ rights are mutually exclusive. I work in the creative field too. I want the same safeguards everyone else does.

Thanks again for the thoughtful response. You brought up real concerns, and it’s conversations like this that actually move things forward. But here’s the truth—I don’t think universal agreement is coming, now or ever. Even after the lawsuits wrap up, people will still fall into the same camps: some will hate AI, some will embrace it, and others won’t care either way.

My reason for speaking up about AI art isn’t to win over the haters or change anyone’s mind entirely. It’s to reach the artists who are curious but hesitant—those who’ve been intimidated, misinformed, or outright shamed for even considering it. If I can get even one of them to take a second look, then it’s worth saying something.

To me, most of the broader debate already feels like history in the making—important, sure, but academic. What matters now is how artists choose to navigate it for themselves.

I invite you to "take it apart" here anytime, Elizabeth. Until then, you're most welcome for the collaboration.

Sorry for the late reply -

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I want to be clear that I don’t view AI artists, photographers, or painters as being above or below each other. Art isn’t a hierarchy. Someone using a paintbrush isn’t inherently “better” than someone using Photoshop, or AI, or a camera. The idea that one approach is more valid than another is, in my view, part of the misunderstanding fueling the backlash against AI. It’s the same cycle we’ve seen before with every new medium—photography, digital art, even collage. We fear what’s new, then eventually we call it art.

To your first question: yes, there absolutely is a strong anti-AI sentiment. I hear it constantly in conversations with artists, photographers, and filmmakers. It’s not always fully formed, but it’s passionate—and often aggressive. Because of the reach of In Defense of AI Art, I receive daily ad hominem attacks from people who seem less interested in dialogue and more interested in dismissal. I share a few of those comments publicly, but for each one you see, there are dozens more behind the scenes.

I see AI strictly as a tool—just like Lightroom, just like a camera, just like any other part of the creative toolkit. And let’s be real: Photoshop and most modern editing suites already run on AI. So trying to parse how much AI is "too much" misses the point. I don’t measure an artwork by how many prompts it took, or how many layers it has, or how much of it was hand-drawn. Just like I don’t care how much blue a painter uses. If the piece connects, that’s what matters.

There’s this emerging argument that AI artists are taking “shortcuts,” or that they don’t “start from scratch.” I think both misunderstand what the tool does—and what artists actually do with it. Prompts are a beginning, not an end. They lead to refining, editing, reworking, curating—none of which is automatic or effortless. AI-generated pieces don’t magically drop themselves into Instagram feeds or online galleries. There’s human vision and decision-making at every step. And even if making the art itself has become faster in some ways, the difficult part hasn’t changed: making a living from your art. Whether you’ve painted 1,000 canvases or created 100,000 stunning AI pieces, the challenge is the same—selling them, building a sustainable career, and paying the bills. That’s what’s hard. That’s the shared struggle.

And just like with visual art, I see massive creative opportunity with AI in music. I haven’t dabbled yet, but tools are already being used to help artists fill in gaps, clean up recordings, or bring unfinished songs to life. A great example is the Get Back documentary, where AI was used to isolate and restore Beatles audio. That’s not a threat to music—it’s an evolution. For solo musicians, it’s the ability to build an entire sound alone. For others, it’s a new kind of collaboration. Had I had access to this when I was in my twenties, I would’ve run with it.

So no, I don’t see AI art as lesser. I see it as different. And if the work resonates, I don’t care what tool made it.

If you wanted a discount on "Shark Attack" this much, all you had to do was ask.

Hi Irene,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. You make some solid points, and I get the sense that a lot of them are coming from your own active struggle to figure out how AI fits—or doesn’t fit—into your creative process. I’ve been through that same initiation, and while I’m more focused now on how AI can serve specific artistic needs, I still wrestle with questions: Am I using it too much? Not enough? Am I creating, or just directing?

I think we all emerge from this process with different conclusions, which is fascinating in itself.

I agree with several of your points, but I see them as gray areas rather than hard lines. Take the issue of training data. You’re absolutely right that generative AI tools were built off massive amounts of human-created art, often without consent. That’s not in dispute. But historically, artists have always built on the work of others. The Renaissance didn’t happen in a vacuum—it borrowed heavily from Greek art. The Romans copied the Greeks wholesale. And in a less grand sense, the creators of oil paint pigments, or the inventors of photographic processes, rarely got credit once their tools became widespread.

It’s not that this justifies unethical data scraping. But it does frame the issue as a continuation of a long tradition of artistic evolution and appropriation. AI is a tool being operated by people—sometimes artists, sometimes thieves. That distinction lies in intention, not the tool itself.

The idea that AI users are just patrons rather than artists doesn’t really hold up for me—mainly because patrons pay artists, not tools. With platforms like Midjourney, we’re in a contractual relationship where we pay to use the service, and in return, we gain the rights to the outputs under their terms. It’s not a patron-artist dynamic; it’s licensor and licensee. If you want to generate more than a few images, you’re paying for the privilege. That alone flips the power dynamic.

Personally, I’ve always considered myself the creative director in this process. I build the vision, shape the prompts, and then work through the variations, refining until the result aligns with my intent. Midjourney is just one stage in a longer process that includes editing, compositing, and post-production. It’s not unlike working with a design team—you give direction, iterate, and craft the final piece.

Some people might call themselves digital artists based solely on prompt work. That’s their call. For me, I haven’t abandoned the label of “fine art photographer,” though I sometimes use “artist” more broadly depending on the context. Either way, I’m not handing over authorship to the tool—I’m the one calling the creative shots.

On the topic of authenticity, you’re right again that this is becoming increasingly difficult to verify. But again, this isn’t new. We’ve been asking, “Is this photo Photoshopped?” for decades. And before that, “Is that a real Ming vase?” AI is just the next technology in a long line of tools that challenge our perception of what's real. And let’s be honest—photography itself has always blurred reality. We crop, we edit, we manipulate. AI just does it faster.

When AI is used to deceive in news, politics, or media, that’s a much bigger concern. But I always come back to this: it’s not AI that deceives—it’s people, using tools. And while propaganda now has new firepower, I believe counter-tech and regulation will catch up. This chaotic phase will pass.

Thanks again for taking the time to write such a nuanced comment. Even though we might land on different conclusions, it’s clear you’re engaging with the tech thoughtfully and setting your own boundaries. That, to me, is the most important part. Like with any new medium, it’s not about the tool—it’s about how we choose to use it.

Hi Mike,

That’s a solid definition of art—and one I mostly agree with. But if we accept that art requires human creativity, then AI art still fits. AI is a tool made by humans, directed by humans, curated by humans. It doesn’t dream up work on its own—we guide it. So whether it’s 1% or 100% machine assistance, it’s still human intent behind it.

The art world already agrees. “Edmond de Belamy” sold at Sotheby’s for $432K. Refik Anadol’s “Unsupervised” hit $1.2M. And Ai-Da Robot’s “AI God”, a portrait of Alan Turing, sold for over $1M—marking the first humanoid robot artwork to hit that kind of price. And if we’re drawing lines around who or what gets to make art, then we’re also tossing out Pigcasso (the pig who sold $20K canvases), bonobo paintings that fetched $1K+, and Thai elephants making abstract work that collectors fight over. Clearly, people respond to something in those works—human or not.

Personally, I wouldn’t exclude any species or hybrid intelligence from being part of what we call “art.” In my humble view, drawing that line is the opposite of what art is about. Something is creating. That’s the point—even if we don’t fully understand how. Even if we disagree or even dislike the outcome. And naturally, I don't believe that just because something sells in reputable auction houses, it's "art". But the perception is there, isn't it? Some still hold onto the idea that art only counts if it’s made by humans—as if creativity begins and ends with Homo sapiens. I just don't subscribe to it.

I’ll leave you with this: Imagine two nearly identical framed photos of a vase, side by side. You’re told one is entirely AI-generated. The real question isn’t whether you can tell them apart—that’s just the party trick. The real question is: is it art? And if it checks every box you normally associate with art—composition, emotion, execution—why should the tool that made it matter? If you liked it before knowing it was AI, but suddenly don’t once you’re told, is it the image you’re judging—or just the definition you’re clinging to?

References for the above tidbits make for interesting reads:

Obvious and the interface between art and artificial intelligence:
https://www.christies.com/en/stories/a-collaboration-between-two-artists-one-human-one-a-machine-0cd01f4e232f4279a525a446d60d4cd1

Refik Anadol - Unsupervised
https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/5535

Ai-Da Robot (by Aidan Meller)
https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2024/digital-art-day-auction-2/a-i-god-portrait-of-alan-turing

Pigcasso:
https://kids.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2022/11/meet-pigcasso-the-piggy-artist-whose-painting-is-worth-20-276-726189

Thai elephants
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2005-02-21/elephant-art-fetches-jumbo-price/1522072

Hi John, I'd like to clear at least one thing up for you because I think you just aren't aware of it.

Photography does take skill, yes. I agree. I'm a photographer. But I also know that writing a prompt does as well. In fact, you don't have to take my word for that. You can look at job boards across the globe (or just Google it). Here's one I just pulled up at random:

"Job description

At SourceCatch Konnect Pvt Ltd, we’re on a mission to redefine how humans interact with technology. We believe in a future where voice-powered AI not only understands you but collaborates with you in ways that feel truly natural. Our innovative platform is revolutionizing customer engagement by replacing traditional call centers with intelligent, self-improving voice agents. Backed by a team of industry veterans and thought leaders from global tech giants, we’re building the next generation of voice automation that empowers enterprises and retailers across India.

About The Role

We are looking for a full-time Prompt Engineer to join our team. In this role, you will work closely with our engineers, data scientists, and product specialists to develop, refine, and optimize prompts that drive our advanced voice automation systems. Your expertise will help shape how our AI understands and responds to natural language, ensuring seamless and intuitive interactions for our users.

Responsibilities
• Develop and iterate complex prompt frameworks to support our internal voice automation tasks.
• Leverage internal tools to collect and analyze data, ensuring the accuracy and effectiveness of prompts.
• Collaborate with AI researchers, engineers, and product teams to refine methodologies and share insights.
• Assist in data quality control and annotation efforts to maintain high performance standards across our systems.

Required Qualifications
• Strong proficiency in English, both written and verbal.
• Experience with data annotation, scripting, or related coursework, internships, or personal projects.
• A proactive and analytical mindset, with a keen interest in natural language processing and AI technologies.

Preferred Qualifications
• Prior hands-on experience with LLM prompting (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude, DeepSeek, etc.) either professionally or through personal projects.
• Excellent communication and writing skills, with a background in technical or creative writing considered an asset.
• Familiarity with voice assistant technologies and conversational AI is a plus.

Benefits:
• Competitive salary and benefits package.
• Opportunities for professional growth and development.
• Collaborative and supportive work environment."

If you still disagree that AI prompt writing takes skill, try getting a job doing just that. I think you'll find there's more to it than what you imagine. The tech has changed even from a few short years ago.

You expand on the point that AI is no more than a tool for artists than an automated check out kiosk. Again, demonstrably not true.

"It's a sinister way for people who can not create to cut the artist ouf of the equation by stealing our collective work."

This is a loaded statement and simply not true even as an umbrella opinion. Companies hire people to create things for them all the time. And now, they're hiring people who can write prompts. But prompting is only one facet of the bigger picture. For photographers and fine art photographers alike, knowing the peripheral tech or skills needed can also be essential. Not all prompts are created equal. An engineer will write different prompts than an artist.

As to the second part of your statement about stealing work -- most of the companies out there now probably don't have their own AI models to train. Those that do are likely following guidelines that don't involve scraping the Internet because of pending class action lawsuits. That's not to say that it doesn't happen, but most companies realize that's a present liability, not a future one. Apart from writing prompts, there are countless jobs out there for people to take photos to train AI models in a legal manner. This has been ongoing for years. Again, a visit to Google will confirm this.

I already covered this in the article and past comments, but AI doesn't steal work. Companies steal work. People steal work. There is no autonomous AI entity out there that acts on its own accord and steals the work of artists. It's people using tools, AI, to do so.

If you're convinced that AI is stealing your work, you're going to have to nail down in a court of law which company or companies are doing so. The best defense? Copyright your work so that you can sue and have your court costs and legal fees covered.

Hi Grace,

Thanks for forwarding me the article. I won't copy the author's conclusions here but I'll bullet-point them:

• Photography and AI art are fundamentally different due to underlying reasons.
• Photography enriched opportunities for artists and transformed the art landscape.
• AI art has taken away opportunities and contributed little to the art landscape.
• Photographers create meaning beyond mere mechanism.
• AI artists can’t create meaning—only mechanism exists in the process.
• Photography requires skill directly related to output.
• AI art requires no skill or intentionality.
• Photography captures and transforms what exists.
• AI art merely imitates without meaning.
• Photography expands artistic expression, AI art threatens to undermine it.
• AI art is unlikely to be accepted as a true artistic medium.

Most of these arguments have already been widely disproven and dismissed by tens of thousands of serious artists actively working with AI today. The points themselves deserve a thoughtful rebuttal, but not necessarily directed at the author. I've already covered some of these points and she merely disagrees.. I thought she did a wonderful job digging a little deeper into the subject than what many articles on the topic do. I loved the references. But out of everything she singled out, it's the bit about intentionality that is undeniably and demonstrably incorrect. And it's the "prompt" which is the purest form of intention if there ever was one, much like one of the most famous, "Let there be light." Now, you don't have to subscribe to religion to imagine that the delivery system of intent can be something as simple as the spoken word or one typed on a keyboard.

I'll post a reply to some of these points at a later date here. Thanks again for stopping by and pointing this out.

Thanks for your comment, Stacy.

The lack of nuance in online discussions is exhausting. Like politics, AI as a creative tool has become a polarizing debate. Initially, the backlash against AI-generated art was overwhelming, but since writing this, I’ve met more and more people who have no issue with it. Surprisingly, some of the most enthusiastic supporters I’ve encountered are from the generation before mine—people closer to my parents' age embracing AI in their photo editing.

I think the reason AI support seems scarce is because a loud minority opposes it, while those of us actually using it are too busy making art to waste time arguing online. The reality is, plenty of artists use AI—some for generative art, others as a corrective tool to enhance their work. Then there's a middle ground, like myself, where AI is used to build worlds around photographic images.

I haven’t abandoned Midjourney; I still use it for things like social media headers or Instagram stories where an image is needed to share a link. But at the end of the day, how much AI is in an image doesn’t matter to me. That’s like asking how much red paint is in a painting—irrelevant. What matters is the final piece. Does it fulfill the artist’s vision? Does it serve its intended purpose?

Utility is key. Intention is king. And AI should be used in art without guilt or hesitation—just another tool in the creative arsenal.

Then I'll be brief: guilty as charged!

Hi Nicole,

I don’t mind the long comment at all! I’m glad you felt compelled to share your thoughts here.

It’s strange, and maybe it’s just the circles I run in, but it seems like where small groups of people may largely agree on politics, religion, cultural trends, etc., they are completely divided when it comes to AI—and usually hostile toward it. I’m specifically talking about artists and filmmakers here. To be honest, I’m flabbergasted by the trend I’m seeing in my sphere. Fortunately, these same individuals aren’t throwing shade or condemning me personally. At least they have the decency to disagree civilly about something as neutral as technology. But of course, online opinions are another story. Strangers hiding behind fake profiles and anonymous comments bring out the worst, and we all know the vast majority of these same people wouldn’t dare say such things in person. So it goes.

I’m with you on the sharing part. When I post work online, I fully expect it could be stolen for personal, editorial, or even commercial use. I just assume it’s part of being an artist. Like you said, we share with the world and give our audience the benefit of the doubt rather than hiding our work away for private audiences. It’s a risk we take, but it’s also how we connect.

Thanks for taking the time to share your perspective. It’s always refreshing to hear from someone who sees the potential in AI instead of only the threats.

Cheers,
Craig

Frankly, I don’t care much either way. Marketing and advertising are always going to use the most efficient tools available—just like anyone else. If AI is part of their toolkit, that’s their call. Whether they disclose it or not doesn’t concern me unless mandated by law, which seems increasingly likely in the near future.

When it comes to individuals not revealing their use of AI, I’m torn. On one hand, I don’t care what tools artists use to create their work, whether it’s 1% or 100% AI. Disclosure often feels optional or irrelevant, especially with the rapidly changing landscape. But then there are the “cheaters”—like those submitting AI-generated pieces to photography contests. To me, this is less about the technology and more about ethics. Let’s not pretend that cheating is new—photographers, for example, have been using techniques like compositing long before AI.

I suspect your main question is whether AI usage should always be disclosed. My take? It’s not a universal necessity. For everyday applications or routine uses, it doesn’t matter. But in situations where disclosure is explicitly required or requested—sure, honesty should prevail. Corporations and individuals alike ought to own up when it’s relevant or expected.

Let’s get this straight: AI doesn’t just magically start ripping off human artists without warning—it’s people and corporations driving this theft, deliberately scraping whatever they feel like off the internet to train their AI systems.

I’ve already tackled this in my companion article, "AI Art Theft In the Age of Bogus Outrage," where I talk about the one tool artists should consider first before trying other things.

"You should also consider that the printing press and photography, etc., never did any of the creative/imaginative work for any artists."

I think this goes without saying. Inventions are tools. Although we have inventions that create art or help create art now. AI is one of them. The camera is not unlike a paintbrush.

" Also the claim that AI would take over and enslave humanity is nonsense as well as a huge scarecrow in your article."

Is it?

“A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.”

—Alan Perlis, the first recipient of the Turing Award

“There is no reason and no way that a human mind can keep up with an artificial intelligence machine by 2035.”

—Gray Scott (check this guy out especially his video about Nightshade)
https://www.grayscott.com/

“The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race….It would take off on its own, and re-design itself at an ever increasing rate. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete, and would be superseded.”

— Stephen Hawking

“I visualise a time when we will be to robots what dogs are to humans, and I’m rooting for the machines.”

—Claude Shannon, father of Information Theory

“The pace of progress in artificial intelligence (I’m not referring to narrow AI) is incredibly fast. Unless you have direct exposure to groups like Deepmind, you have no idea how fast—it is growing at a pace close to exponential. The risk of something seriously dangerous happening is in the five-year time frame. 10 years at most.”

—Elon Musk

I see two perspectives on this.

First, from a practical standpoint, companies will replace human workers whenever possible to maximize profits. That’s the nature of the corporate mandate: responsibility to shareholders. I’m old enough to remember when my grandfather lost his job at a GM plant in the early 80s, largely because the company outsourced jobs to overseas factories (though other factors were likely involved too). Around the same time, the timber industry also took a hit due to a recession and other challenges, leading to high unemployment rates in many communities, including where I lived. These two events had a profound impact on my community.

This illustrates a broader reality: corporations are profit-driven entities that respond to the political and economic landscapes of their time. My somewhat cynical but reality-based view is that, if technology ever allowed them to cut their labor force by 99%, they wouldn’t hesitate to do so.

Second, looking at AI "taking jobs" through the lens of technological advancement, this is part of a long historical pattern. With every major innovation—whether the printing press, the Internet, or the Digital Age—jobs are inevitably lost. These days, you won’t find many scribes, and even the publishing industry has been radically transformed by digital technologies. Similarly, when Henry Ford revolutionized manufacturing with the automobile and mass production, the coachbuilding industry was decimated. People lost jobs and livelihoods, and there’s no way to sugarcoat that.

The forces of change—technological progress, economic shifts, political decisions, and even global events like wars—always contribute to job displacement. Companies will leverage AI as they’ve leveraged every other technological breakthrough to streamline operations and cut what they see as "unnecessary labor."

At the end of the day, AI is just the new kid on the block in this ongoing story of progress and disruption.

Kole, thank you for the thoughtful comment. AI as a gnerative tool certainly isn't for everyone, as you point out. I struggle with how much of it to use when compositing with my photography. To what extent usually depends on the subject.

There's also the use for AI as a corrective or general editing tool that pushes things the other way sometimes, to remove distractions or to intentionally create more minimalist scenes. I probably use AI more in this regard, as I'm sure millions of Adobe Photoshop subscribers are doing, intentionally or inadvertently. That's the great thing about the AI umbrella: it's very flexible for creating assets or images and for enhancing or cleaning up.

As for the soul thing again, you're probably right about that as being a major reason for its use. And I would reference the famous story about Picasso being approached in a cafe by a woman who wanted her portrait done. "40,000 francs you say? That only took you a few minutes!" To which he replied, "It took me 40 years to do it that fast."

I'd add that struggle and sweating it out is only in the eyes of the beholder and is relative to the situation.

Thanks again for your insights.

I agree with you that the theft that is happening or has happened is wrong. There are class action lawsuits in progress that will eventually lead to regulations.

I think many if not most of us who have used AI to enhance our art (or even to create it from scratch) have a bit of an imposter syndrome at first -- until we realize it's nothing more than a tool. A large part of my wanting to write this article is because of all the unnecessary shaming going on. Not to mention, a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding.

As for AI as a thief, there's no doubt a lot of thieving going on. Let's not beat around the bush about it. That's why I welcome the lawsuits that are out there pending because eventually, this will lead to some form of regulations that will protect artists. But I think we can give AI the benefit of the doubt: nobody steals more from artists than people. Consider what the record industry has done to artists over the past 100+ years. All the bad contracts and exploitation. And if you want to get right down to the basics, I don't know of any musician or artist who hasn't "stolen" from another artist. This is part of the learning process, in my view. Many of us learn by imitation. Then we branch out and discover our own voice. When artificial intelligence is viewed from this perspective, I believe we can get over the actual "people" who are behind AI and who intentionally set out to steal from artists in the first place. Our beef shouldn't be with the tools of the craft.

"Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different." - T.S. Eliot, The Sacred Wood (1920)

Thank you very much~

Thanks, Nate~

Thank you for reading, Alice~

I'm the same as you -- absolutely no artistic talent drawing. But AI allows us to be creative nevertheless....it's a fantastic tool in that sense.

there is nothing creative about writing a prompt.

Don't sell yourself short.

That's so cool, Noelle. I was considering the same thing the other day, basing a photoshoot on some ideas I had been working on. If anything, Generative AI makes for a great mood board. It never has to be the final product.

Thank you for reading. Yes. I hope artists in particular will stop fearing the technology and even adopt it as a tool when needed.

Thank you.

I agree. It's a relatively new technology but it's moving faster than we as a society can come to terms with it. But as artists, my feeling is, as you rightfully put it, should place intention above all else and use whatever tools are available. AI is just that: another tool and another paintbrush for our canvases.

I'm sorry you faced backlash over that. I'm starting to view the general disdain for AI as akin to flat-earther beliefs—something I can't relate to anymore. While I agree that AI should be regulated like any other technology, it's evident that a significant part of the population still doesn't grasp what AI truly is. Ironically, many of these same people likely use AI daily without even realizing it. Even if they're not using it now, they'll face an unpleasant surprise when they inevitably have to—similar to how the internet and smartphones changed our lives, with both positive and negative consequences. The point is, AI is rapidly becoming ubiquitous because of its immense usefulness. It saves us countless hours by handling mundane tasks, allowing us to focus on more important things (thanks, ChatGPT!). Additionally, it opens up new possibilities and approaches that were previously unimaginable.

On another note, I asked AI about the percentage of the global population using AI, whether they are aware of it or not. Here’s what ChatGPT4 said:

“According to the AI Index Report 2024, AI is increasingly integrated into many facets of daily life, from customer service to financial operations. A notable prediction by Deloitte suggests that by 2025, about 90% of businesses in the customer service industry will utilize AI technologies like chatbots (AI Index) (Exploding Topics).
Additionally, Exploding Topics reports that 60% of the world's population interacts with AI technology, whether they are aware of it or not. This high rate of interaction reflects the integration of AI into various applications and services that people use regularly, such as search engines, social media, and customer support systems (Exploding Topics).
This widespread but often unnoticed use of AI underscores its growing ubiquity and the need for broader public awareness and understanding of how these technologies operate in daily life.”

For those still carrying the “I’ll never use AI” banner, it’s not good news. But they'll come around eventually. Kudos to you for being an early adopter and putting the technology to good use.