This post is part of Lifehacker’s “Living with AI” series. We explore the current state of AI, what it can do (and what it can’t do), and assess where this revolutionary technology will go next. Read more here .

Art created by artificial intelligence is not a concept: it is already here. Thanks to numerous tools with simple, accessible interfaces, anyone can use their computer and start generating any image ideas that come to mind. However, as more people have begun to experiment with these tools, serious ethical and legal issues have arisen, and it seems that almost everyone online has an opinion about this divisive technology.

As part of our series on living with AI, we’ve put together this guide to clarify how AI artistic tools work, explain the controversy surrounding them, and show how they affect everyone from professional artists to curious casuals.

Where and how to create artificial intelligence

Before we dive into the technology and ethics of AI art, let’s take a quick look at the tools themselves.

There are many AI generators out there, but the main players will be Midjourney , Stable Diffusion, Copilot , DALL-E 3 and Craiyon . All of these tools are available via the web or desktop, and some also have mobile apps.

Midjourney is one of the most powerful options, but it requires a subscription starting at $10 per month. Midjourney also requires a Discord account as it runs entirely through a dedicated Discord chat server. ( Though this is changing .) This means you work together with other users, and all your images are published publicly in Midjourney’s web gallery, unless you pay $60 a month for the “hidden mode” feature included in the Pro plan.

DALL-E 3 is another powerful option that is easy to use as OpenAI now combines it with ChatGPT Plus. However, you don’t have to pay $20 a month to use it: Copilot has free access to DALL-E 3, so as long as you have a Microsoft account, you have DALL-E.

Stable Diffusion is also free and allows you to create as many images as you want, but creating images takes longer, especially if the servers are busy. Craiyon is also free, but requires longer generation times and lower image quality.

In terms of accessibility, DALL-E 3 via Copilot is by far the best option if you’re just interested in these tools. It’s free and you can access it from the Copilot web app, Microsoft Edge, or the Copilot mobile app.

However, despite differences in quality and interface, all of these tools work the same way: you enter a hint into a text field that describes the image you want to see, press Enter, then wait a few seconds for the AI ​​to generate the image. photo according to your description.

The quality of the final product will depend on what tool you use and how detailed your invitation is. Some tools, such as Midjourney and Stable Diffusion, provide tutorials on how to create more effective hints and even additional features that can help the AI ​​get closer to the desired outcome . But even with these extra steps, the process only takes a few minutes, and each tool is easy to get started with.

How do these tools learn to draw? And why are there too many fingers?

The images you get with these tools may be impressive, but that’s not because the program can actually draw.

As I noted earlier this year, calling these products “AI” is a misnomer. Unlike the popular concept of artificial intelligence presented in science fiction media, these tools are not living, sentient or aware, they do not reason or learn. This is true for both text-based chatbots and generative art tools. Simply put, they work like your phone’s predictive text, pulling your clue from a list of possible solutions. When it comes to generative art tools specifically, the tool simply searches for images that match keywords or descriptions in your invitation and then combines the elements together.

This is completely different from the actual drawing process – the AI ​​doesn’t actually “draw” anything at all, which is why these tools are notorious for “not being able to draw hands.” As video game designer Doc Burford explains: “If I tell a machine, ‘Show me Nic Cage dressed as Superman,’ the machine might have images tagged with ‘Nic Cage’ and also images tagged with ‘Superman,’ but where is the thinking of the mind of the present?” intelligence will put these ideas together and fill in the gaps with things it knows – like an artist who has also memorized human anatomy – the AI ​​will still give me an imperfect S-shield on Superman’s chest, it will be a mess up the fingers.”

Ethical and legal issues in the art of artificial intelligence

These tools are easy to use and can often produce compelling results (aside from the occasional extra numbers and wonky faces), but there are serious ethical issues surrounding the creation and distribution of AI-generated art that goes beyond quality and accuracy.

The main problem with generative AI art tools is that they are based on uncredited and unpaid artists whose work is used without consent. Every image you create exists only because of the artists from whom it is copied, even if those works are not protected by copyright. Some AI evangelists like to claim that these tools work “just like the human brain” and that “human artists are inspired by or reference other artists in the same way,” but this is not true for several reasons.

First, AI has no being or intelligence, which means it has no memory, intention, or skill. Stable Diffusion doesn’t “learn” to draw or take inspiration from another piece of art: it’s just an algorithm that searches and automatically fills in data the way it’s programmed. People think, feel and act intentionally. Their work is based on learned skills and life experiences. Even using another person’s art as a model or inspiration is a conscious choice based on the artist’s goals.

To explain the difference, I turned to Nicholas Cole, an illustrator and character designer who works with major film and video game studios such as Disney, Activision and DreamWorks. “The work I do as a concept artist and illustrator starts with deep research into the context of each project,” he says. “I ask challenging questions, come up with ideas about worldbuilding, story, gameplay, [and] the process from start to finish is extremely specific, personal and tailored to the exact needs of my colleagues and clients. Every cufflink, belt buckle, prop and motif art we create is a meticulous work of thoughtful design, executed with love and attention to detail.”

“Injecting into this process an algorithm that doesn’t care about context, that doesn’t know whether a person has five or 17 fingers, that mixes visual guesses based on stolen data and functions, essentially, like a million monkeys in a million.” Typewriters are anathema to me.”

Kole says the art of artificial intelligence “goes against everything I stand for creatively and everything I’ve wanted to do in my life’s work. It’s an insult to the reason I make art: I want to see thoughtful and expressive human craft, and to express myself through thoughtful human craft.” A quick look at portfolio sites like Art Station reveals that Kole is not alone in his sentiments: many professional artists are strongly opposed to AI art.

This rigid position is not due solely to ideological or aesthetic reasons. AI automation poses a threat to job security in many industries. The threat to working artists is just as real.

AI art also poses a risk to the companies that employ these artists. There have already been major legal battles over AI’s infringement of copyrighted material, and the system is starting to favor original artists . As such, some companies ban the use of AI arts entirely and reject any applications from artists with AI-generated works in their portfolios to avoid any copyright issues.

Are there ethical applications of AI art?

Despite the ethical and legal concerns, some argue that these tools have a place and that even professional artists can benefit from them. In an interview with Kotaku, visual artist RJ Palmers says that artists can use AI to, for example, “come up with loose compositions, color patterns, lighting, etc.,” and that all of these tools “can be very useful for getting inspiration.” “

Similarly, author and animator Scott Sullivan argues on his blog that AI is useful for ideation and iteration during brainstorming, and that “it all depends on the intent of the artist and how they use the tool.”

AI art generators are also not strictly “image clue” creators. Some options, such as Microsoft Designer, also have several other purposes. You can use AI photo editing tools to remove an object from a photo or replace the background entirely; you can create message stickers using AI to add relevant images to conversations; you can even create social media posts using suggestions if you don’t know how to use the designer tools yourself. Thus, these tools may have a purpose beyond simply “making art.”

But while AI art is controversial among professional artists, everyday users may wonder whether it matters to a layman or hobbyist who just wants to play with them every now and then. And of course, AI tools can be used as toys, but it’s important to note that the creators of these products treat them differently .

Almost all AI generators are commercial products in some way. Some of them are paid products, while free services can generate income through advertising revenue. Some of these are also used as “proof of concept” examples to entice commercial customers to pay for a more powerful version of the tool.

Either way, the people who make these tools make money from the work of the artists whose work is used to create the image you create, even if it’s just for fun. As Kole explains, “The generative system cannot function without the stolen labor of countless passionate people like me. Each of them brought their own life experiences, opinions, fixations and points of view into their works, only to then clumsily weave them together and market them as original art.” Even if you don’t share or sell the images you create, many of these tools keep a public record of all the content you create, which other users can download and distribute.

Given all these concerns, it is difficult to recommend AI art generators, even if the intent of their use is innocent. However, these tools already exist, and unless some future regulation forces them to change, we won’t be able to stop people from trying them. But if you do, please be aware of the legal and ethical issues surrounding the creation and distribution of AI art, think twice before sharing it, and never claim an AI-generated image as your own work.

More…

This post is part of Lifehacker’s “Living with AI” series. We explore the current state of AI, what it can do (and what it can’t do), and assess where this revolutionary technology will go next. Read more here .

Art created by artificial intelligence is not a concept: it is already here. Thanks to numerous tools with simple, accessible interfaces, anyone can use their computer and start generating any image ideas that come to mind. However, as more people have begun to experiment with these tools, serious ethical and legal issues have arisen, and it seems that almost everyone online has an opinion about this divisive technology.

As part of our series on living with AI, we’ve put together this guide to clarify how AI artistic tools work, explain the controversy surrounding them, and show how they affect everyone from professional artists to curious casuals.

Where and how to create artificial intelligence

Before we dive into the technology and ethics of AI art, let’s take a quick look at the tools themselves.

There are many AI generators out there, but the main players will be Midjourney , Stable Diffusion, Copilot , DALL-E 3 and Craiyon . All of these tools are available via the web or desktop, and some also have mobile apps.

Midjourney is one of the most powerful options, but it requires a subscription starting at $10 per month. Midjourney also requires a Discord account as it runs entirely through a dedicated Discord chat server. ( Though this is changing .) This means you work together with other users, and all your images are published publicly in Midjourney’s web gallery, unless you pay $60 a month for the “hidden mode” feature included in the Pro plan.

DALL-E 3 is another powerful option that is easy to use as OpenAI now combines it with ChatGPT Plus. However, you don’t have to pay $20 a month to use it: Copilot has free access to DALL-E 3, so as long as you have a Microsoft account, you have DALL-E.

Stable Diffusion is also free and allows you to create as many images as you want, but creating images takes longer, especially if the servers are busy. Craiyon is also free, but requires longer generation times and lower image quality.

In terms of accessibility, DALL-E 3 via Copilot is by far the best option if you’re just interested in these tools. It’s free and you can access it from the Copilot web app, Microsoft Edge, or the Copilot mobile app.

However, despite differences in quality and interface, all of these tools work the same way: you enter a hint into a text field that describes the image you want to see, press Enter, then wait a few seconds for the AI ​​to generate the image. photo according to your description.

The quality of the final product will depend on what tool you use and how detailed your invitation is. Some tools, such as Midjourney and Stable Diffusion, provide guidance on how to create better hints and even additional features that can help the AI ​​get closer to its intended outcome . But even with these extra steps, the process only takes a few minutes, and each tool is easy to get started with.

How do these tools learn to draw? And why are there too many fingers?

The images you get with these tools may be impressive, but that’s not because the program can actually draw.

As I noted earlier this year, calling these products “AI” is a misnomer. Unlike the popular concept of artificial intelligence presented in science fiction media, these instruments are not living, sentient or aware, they do not reason or learn. This is true for both text-based chatbots and generative art tools. Simply put, they work like your phone’s predictive text, pulling your clue from a list of possible solutions. When it comes to generative art tools, the tool simply searches for images that match keywords or descriptions in your invitation and then combines the elements together.

This is completely different from the actual drawing process – the AI ​​doesn’t actually “draw” anything at all, which is why these tools are notorious for “not being able to draw hands.” As video game designer Doc Burford explains: “If I tell a machine, ‘Show me Nic Cage dressed as Superman,’ the machine might have images tagged with ‘Nic Cage’ and also images tagged with ‘Superman,’ but where is the thinking of the mind of the present?” intelligence will put these ideas together and fill in the gaps with things it knows – like an artist who has also memorized human anatomy – the AI ​​will still give me an imperfect S-shield on Superman’s chest, it will be a mess up the fingers.”

Ethical and legal issues in the art of artificial intelligence

These tools are easy to use and can often produce compelling results (aside from the occasional extra numbers and wonky faces), but there are serious ethical issues surrounding the creation and distribution of AI-generated art that goes beyond quality and accuracy.

The main problem with generative AI art tools is that they are based on uncredited and unpaid artists whose work is used without consent. Every image you create exists only because of the artists from whom it is copied, even if those works are not protected by copyright. Some AI evangelists like to claim that these tools work “just like the human brain” and that “human artists are inspired by or reference other artists in the same way,” but this is not true for several reasons.

First, AI has no being or intelligence, which means it has no memory, intention, or skill. Stable Diffusion doesn’t “learn” to draw or take inspiration from another piece of art: it’s just an algorithm that searches and automatically fills in data the way it’s programmed. People think, feel and act intentionally. Their work is based on learned skills and life experiences. Even using another person’s art as a model or inspiration is a conscious choice based on the artist’s goals.

To explain the difference, I turned to Nicholas Cole, an illustrator and character designer who works with major film and video game studios such as Disney, Activision and DreamWorks. “The work I do as a concept artist and illustrator starts with deep research into the context of each project,” he says. “I ask challenging questions, come up with ideas about worldbuilding, story, gameplay, [and] the process from start to finish is extremely specific, personal and tailored to the exact needs of my colleagues and clients. Every cufflink, belt buckle, prop and motif art we create is a meticulous work of thoughtful design, executed with love and attention to detail.”

“Injecting into this process an algorithm that doesn’t care about context, that doesn’t know whether a person has five or 17 fingers, that mixes visual guesses based on stolen data and functions, essentially, like a million monkeys in a million.” Typewriters are anathema to me.”

Kole says the art of artificial intelligence “goes against everything I stand for creatively and everything I’ve wanted to do in my life’s work. It’s an insult to the reason I make art: I want to see thoughtful and expressive human craft and express myself through thoughtful human craft.” A quick look at portfolio sites like Art Station reveals that Kole is not alone in his sentiments: many professional artists are strongly opposed to AI art.

This rigid position is not due solely to ideological or aesthetic reasons. AI automation poses a threat to job security in many industries. The threat to working artists is just as real.

AI art also poses a risk to the companies that employ these artists. There have already been major legal battles over AI’s infringement of copyrighted material, and the system is starting to favor original artists . As such, some companies ban the use of AI arts entirely and reject any applications from artists with AI-generated works in their portfolios to avoid any copyright issues.

Are there ethical applications of AI art?

Despite the ethical and legal concerns, some argue that these tools have a place and that even professional artists can benefit from them. In an interview with Kotaku, visual artist RJ Palmers says that artists can use AI to, for example, “come up with loose compositions, color patterns, lighting, etc.,” and that all of these tools “can be very useful for getting inspiration.” “

Similarly, author and animator Scott Sullivan argues on his blog that AI is useful for ideation and iteration during brainstorming, and that “it all depends on the intent of the artist and how they use the tool.”

AI art generators are also not strictly “image clue” creators. Some options, such as Microsoft Designer, also have several other purposes. You can use AI photo editing tools to remove an object from a photo or replace the background entirely; you can create message stickers using AI to add relevant images to conversations; you can even create social media posts using suggestions if you don’t know how to use the designer tools yourself. Thus, these tools may have a purpose beyond simply “making art.”

But while AI art is controversial among professional artists, everyday users may wonder whether it matters to a layman or hobbyist who just wants to play with them every now and then. And of course, AI tools can be used as toys, but it’s important to note that the creators of these products treat them differently .

Almost all AI generators are commercial products in some way. Some of them are paid products, while free services can generate income through advertising revenue. Some of these are also used as “proof of concept” examples to entice commercial customers to pay for a more powerful version of the tool.

Either way, the people who make these tools make money from the work of the artists whose work is used to create the image you create, even if it’s just for fun. As Kole explains, “The generative system cannot function without the stolen labor of countless passionate people like me. Each of them brought their own life experiences, opinions, fixations and points of view into their works, only to then clumsily weave them together and market them as original art.” Even if you don’t share or sell the images you create, many of these tools keep a public record of all the content you create, which other users can download and distribute.

Given all these concerns, it is difficult to recommend AI art generators, even if the intent of their use is innocent. However, these tools already exist, and unless some future regulation forces them to change, we won’t be able to stop people from trying them. But if you do, please be aware of the legal and ethical issues surrounding the creation and distribution of AI art, think twice before sharing it, and never claim an AI-generated image as your own work.

More…