Do you think AI image-generation is scary?
Do you believe AI image-generation is art-theft?

Well, let's talk about that!

I got the brilliant idea for this post when Kat-the-Hylian on DeviantArt made this brilliant comment:

Or using a microwave dinner and calling yourself a "chef."

This inspired me to create an article that compares AI, AI-generated images, and the ethics thereov to food, in some way.

What is AI?

Let's take a second to quickly recap what AI is.

You may be familiar with terms such as "AI images", "AI-generated", et cetera, but do you know what "AI" means?
Well, "AI" stands for "artificial intelligence".

What is (an) artificial intelligence?
(A program with) Artificial intelligence is a program that is capable ov replicating some facet ov human intelligence, such as learning or providing the most acclaimed information.

In the sense ov image creation, we can assume an artificial intelligence is any program which seeks to replicate the part ov the human brain which allows us to draw (well), including the motions our hands do.

How does an AI make new images?

An image-generation program that uses artificial intelligence is typically trained on images that are paired with captions or visual descriptions so it can make a connection between the descriptors and the, abstract, figures in the image.

These images (and their paired captions) are called "training-data".

Those who maintain the AI can get training-data in a number ov ways, including making their own training-data, or purchasing training-data from others.

Think about it like this:  it's like someone taking store-bought food (which is already assembled/prepared) and trying to make a new [food / meal] out ov it.

Are AI-generated images stolen?

Not inherently.

Maybe you've heard a scandal about AI stealing your images and such.

Is it true that some who maintain an AI can, and may, steal art?
Yes – it is certainly a possibility.

Does this mean everyone who maintains an AI will steal art?
No – those who maintain an AI have the option not to steal.

Let's think about this using grocery stores.

There isn't The Grocery Store™ that you go to once a week — likely, instead, you find yourself at one or more stores, such as Target, Walmart, or Cub Foods.
In the same way, there is no one artificial intelligence — you have DALL·E 2 by Open AI, Midjourney by... Midjourney Inc, et cetera et cetera.

If Walmart was found to be stealing stuff, Target wouldn't get the blame.
We must understand AI-technology (and its branding) the same way — we should view each AI in isolation from eachother (except ones with the same maintainer(s)).

Are AI-generated images art?

As Oxford English Dictionary defines "art", art is “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power”.

By this definition, AI-generated images do not meet the qualifications to be "art".
However, they can still be the basis for (new) art.

[NOTE:  Just because you enter a prompt and upload the best looking result does not mean you are an artist.]

Are AI-generated images original?

In the context for this post's inspiration, Kat-the-Hylian insinuates that taking an AI-generated image, uploading it, and calling yourself an artist is equivalent to buying a microwave dinner, heating it up, and calling yourself a chef — I believe this is an amazing comparison.

Could you modify the microwave dinner?
Ov course, but this still does not necessarily make you a chef.

Now, if you get a microwave dinner with some mashed potatoes and some steak strips and turn that into cheesy mashed potatoes with bacon and seasoned steak strips with gravy, then maybe we can start discussing your chef status.

The line between not being modified enough and being modified adequately is blurry, and mileage may vary.
(I believe this is in part because what is adequate is subjective.)

Who owns the copyright to AI-generated images?

It depends – and there is currently no legal standard in place.    [24/05/06]

If the AI's training-data is entirely open-source or royalty-free, then the copyright should belong to no one.
If the AI's training-data is comprised entirely ov proprietary or licensed images, then copyright should belong to the person(s) that made the image (as appropriate).

Copyright only gets more complicated as we consider the possible modifications that could be made to the generated image.

Will artificial intelligence take my job?

No.
AI will not take your job.

Let's say AIs are restaurants (or microwave dinners) and artists are home-cooks who like to make homemade meals for their family.

Will the family want to go out to eat every now and then at their favorite restaurant?
Ov course, but fast-food probably won't outright replace your homecooking.

A Safe(r) AI

It may not be perfect, but I think I know a decent AI.

If AIs were restaurants, Leonardo AI would be a buffet.

Why?
Because Leonardo lays out all the food for you, and you get to pick what you eat.

Trained on LAION-5B, Leonardo allows you to compile your own training-data and generate your own images using that.

Over all, I think while AIs can do harm,  and come with a lot ov confusing implications ethically and legally,  but I believe this technology is the future, and that it can be a helpful tool to aid in the creation process (when used correctly and in good faith).

[Hell, even this post's cover-image is a modified AI-generated image saved as a low-quality JPEG.]