AI-based art is the new trend, but the internet wonders if it’s harmful or not / World of digital information

As AI-based art grows in popularity these days, the question arises: will AI defeat artists and endanger our artistic sensibilities?

To that, my answer is: Has anyone seen the AI-based art memes floating around the internet? I really don’t think putting artists out of work seems to be the main concern of the internet these days. Of course, there’s the deep false argument: that AI-art can mimic people getting into incriminating scenarios. To that, I respond by saying that such technology has been accessible for over half a decade now, how is the art of AI the reason people are scared now? Maybe I sound unnecessarily strident in my defense of new technology (which isn’t even new technology, it’s just more accessible and fashionable these days).

The reason for this is that any new technology is immediately labeled as harmful and dangerous, as is the likely reaction of cavemen to the discovery of fire. The difference between us and cavemen, however, is that the former are supposed to have enough intuition and know-how to separate mass online hysteria from technology. Art-based AI might have issues, especially with NFT tampering becoming popular (who would have guessed?), but many of the issues people seem to be aiming for won’t necessarily be them; at least not anytime soon.

Let’s take a look at the benefits that AI art could bring to the general population. First, it turns creating art into a more accessible hobby and allows individuals to express themselves more. A Tidio survey found that 25% of respondents rated the easy conceptualization of ideas as a major asset to technology. 17% even rated AI art as a good way to enable self-expression in individuals. Naturally, people refute the arguments by stating that by allowing AI art, the actual artists are undermined and the value of knowing how to draw or paint is diminished. I myself have a few rebuttals to such arguments: first, similar arguments were made when digital art was popularized, and I don’t see anyone complaining now; second, the AI ​​can only attempt to emulate, not perfectly encapsulate, user input, which only a human mind can best adapt to; finally, AI art would still need to be printed on canvas, giving real-life painters and artists pause since their work still has merit.

The DALL-E2 and Crayon AI models were used to measure Tidio respondents’ ability to distinguish between AI and human art. The results were relatively mixed, with the sample population more or less correctly identifying human artists, but having controversial results on AI art. Crayon was immediately discovered to be non-human, with 85% of respondents identifying him as an AI. DALL-E2, however, was identified by more participants as human than the two actual human performers who were part of the study. Of course, with such a limited pool of art and non-peer-reviewed study, more work needs to be done.

Read next: Climate tech finance at a glance: What role do big tech play in sustaining a greener future?

About Frances White

Check Also

Who is Saint Javelin and why is she all over the internet?

Before there was Saint Javelot, there were Eastern Orthodox icons of many saints, including, of …