Details
Nothing to say, yet
Comment
Nothing to say, yet
Listen to AI and the Art Debate by ZIHAN CHEN MP3 song. AI and the Art Debate song from ZIHAN CHEN is available on Audio.com. The duration of song is 09:28. This high-quality MP3 track has 1536 kbps bitrate and was uploaded on 11 Feb 2025. Stream and download AI and the Art Debate by ZIHAN CHEN for free on Audio.com – your ultimate destination for MP3 music.
AI-generated art is becoming popular, but it raises ethical questions. Artists' work can be copied without permission, and it's hard to tell if art is made by AI or a human artist. Copyright laws don't grant rights to AI-generated works. Artists want credit and compensation. Some argue AI art lacks human intention, but it can help artists explore new ideas. Companies are using AI instead of hiring artists, which affects jobs. Transparency is important, and people should know if art is AI-generated. AI saves money, but risks losing the unique perspective of human artists. Public trust and perception are affected. Some value the story behind art, while others don't care who created it. Transparency and labeling AI-generated art is important. AI's integration into creative industries will be shaped by these debates. Hey everyone, welcome to ART Project. I'm Sam Kim, and today we are diving into a fascinating topic, AI-generated art. You've probably seen those viral AI-generated photos, digital paintings, and manga panels. Artificial intelligence art is shaking up the creative world, but it also raises some important ethical questions. Who owns the art? Is it fair to human artists? Should viewers be aware of the existence of AI? I'm delighted to have Mark on board to help us unpack those questions. Mark is a college student who is very interested in both AI and art, and has used AI tools as well. Thanks for stopping by, Mark. Hey everyone, thanks for having me. I'm excited to talk about this. Alright Mark, can you break down, has AI actually marked art? Sure. AI programs like Mid-Journey and Zellein use deep learning. They are trained on millions of images, paintings, photos, sketches. They learn the patterns and styles, and when you give them the text prompt, they generate an image based on what they have learned. That's pretty cool, but also sounds risky. If the training data includes copyrighted works, that's where the ethical issues kick in, right? Exactly. The AI isn't pulling ideas out of this thing here. It's releasing existing data. If that data includes works by real artists who didn't get permission, that's a problem. I've heard of some artists getting arrested over this. Do you have any real examples? Yes. A big one is George Rutkovisky, a well-known fantastic artist. His name was used as a prompt in AI art so much that his style became overrun by AI-generated copies. He didn't agree to any of it. Now, people are struggling to tell whether certain artworks are his or AI-made. It's hurting his career. Wow, that's tough. His style being copied without permission. It's like technography on a massive scale. Exactly. And it's not a sin. Many artists are experiencing the same thing. So, who owns AI-generated art in these cases? The person who types the prompt, the company that made the AI, or the artist whose work was used to train it? That's still being the question. Right now, most copyright laws, like in the US, don't grant rights to AI-generated works because there's no human author. AI-AI companies argue they should own the rights since they developed a tech. But artists say, hey, you're using my work. Where's the credit or compensation? It sure sounds messy. Do you think copyright laws should change? Definitely. We need a system that lets artists opt in or out of having their work used for AI training. Otherwise, this will just keep happening. Some people argue AI art isn't real art because it lacks human intention. What's your take on that? I get where they're coming from. But it's not that simple. AI isn't creative in the way humans are. It doesn't have ideas or emotions, but it can produce impressive visuals. I see it more as a tool to help artists, like digital assistants. Kind of like photographers use Photoshop. Exactly. Artists can use AI to explore new ideas or styles they wouldn't have considered on their own. But it's companies that are using AI to replace artists. That's where things get problematic. Speaking of that, have you seen AI replacing artists in creative industries? Unfortunately, yes. Some companies in game design and advertising are using AI for concept art instead of hiring freelancers. Why pay an artist when AI can generate dozens of design instances? That's rough. What do you think companies should do to support artists? Be transparent. If AI is involved, let us know. And if AI was trained on specific artists' work, maybe those artists should be compensated. It's all about balancing innovation and fairness. Do you think most people care if an artwork is AI generated? Some do, some don't. A lot of people just care about the final product. But personally, I think people have a right to know. Historically, there is trust. And that's important. Yeah, honesty is the key. Let's take a moment to zoom out and think about what's at stake here. I recently read about a large game development company using AI to generate hundreds of concept designs for a project. They only needed one person to manage the output of the AI, other than hiring an artist to produce them. This one division saves them thousands of dollars, but at the expense of jobs for real artists. It's a tough balance. On the one hand, companies need efficiency. But on the other hand, if we were not careful, we risk losing the unique perspective and mystery that human artists bring to the table. After all, art isn't just about speed. It's also about vision, collaboration, and connection, which leads to an important question. What happens to the job market when AI is seen as a replacement rather than a tool? Alright, I want to take a moment to reflect on something we've touched on today. How AI generated art affects public trust and perception. Some of you listening might wonder, why does it matter whether AI or humans created a piece of art? If it looks good, isn't that enough? Well, that depends on what you value in art. For some people, art isn't just about the final product. It's about the story behind it. The artist's inspiration, struggles, and emotional draining. The AI lacks all those human experiences, which can make it skew, and are no less meaningful to a certain audience. But what do you think on the other side? Image by what you think is an original painting, and when you take it home later, you discover it was AI generated. Would you feel disappointed? This ties into a broader ethical concept, transparency. In industries like food and fashion, there's a push for more transparency about sourcing and production methods. Maybe we need to do the same thing for AI generated content. Label it clearly, so people can design for themselves. On the flip side, some argue that the average consumer might not care at all. If the art world reasoned notes with them emotionally. Does it matter who or what created? It's an ongoing debate that will likely shape how AI is integrated into creative industries. Mark, thanks for sharing your insights today. We've covered a lot, copyright, creativity, transparency, and jobs. AI is exciting, but comes with serious ethical challenges. Thanks, Lehan. It's been great talking about this. That's it for today's content of AI Uncovered. Thanks for tuning in. Hopefully this gave you some new ideas of the ethical problems around AI generated art. Until next time, keep questioning and exploring. Thank you very much. Transcription by ESO. Translation by —
