Why AI Models are not inspired like humans.
Collaged image of Karla Ortiz’s 2015 pencil drawing series “III. Thought & Choice” (Left) “ I.Nature” (middle) and “II.Nurture” (right).
This article is an adaption from my own personal twitter post from November 28th, 2022. Original twitter thread can be found here.
After following the AI conversation for so long there is one argument that is made over and over, by well meaning and not so well meaning folk.
“AI is inspired by artists the same way humans are”.
As a professional artist I can safely say that's nonsense. I wish to discuss why.
But first and foremost (and for those who may not know me) I am not a AI engineer, a neurologist, a scientist or a lawyer. I am however a professional artist with over 13 years of experience in film, games, etc, who teaches art via workshops all over the world. Creativity is certainly my wheelhouse!
And before we begin let's take a quick moment to address the technical aspect of this from a person who knows about this subject here.
Ok with all that said let's get started:
Let’s state the obvious. Humans are not AI/ML models. A human doesn’t just look at data (much less look at hundreds of thousands of data) to then immediately and perfectly archive it in their minds. A human is incapable of dissecting all this data and reassemble it via diffused dots generating hundreds finalized images in less than an hour.
Stating the obvious again, Machine learning (ML) models (known as "AI") are not human. AI/ML models can only generate what is instructed. It can only generate content based on instructions given.
So if the statement "Humans are not computers" and " AI/ML models are not human" why do we see the talking point of " AI models are inspired by artists just like you!" so often in these discussions?
I've seen this argument be used primarily from two groups:
A. Do not understand the process of art and how inspiration for art truly works
B. Do not fully get how exploitative and messy AI/ML models currently are. (to those in B please read this extensive explanatory thread I wrote on twitter)
Let's talk further about group A.
How do artist use inspiration to create artwork? Looking at imagery of others is a part of learning how to draw/paint, but unlike AL/ML models, looking at images of others isn't THE singular way we artists learn or create.
This is a stark difference to AI/ML models as they are completely dependent on the imagery of others to generate work.
Artists look at other artists to learn how to solve some visual problems and be inspired, but that's as far as looking at other artists will get you. Artists bring their own technical knowledge, problem solving, experience, thoughts and lives into each artwork. It's one of the reasons why you may be inspired by the works of another but it's VERY difficult to create works that looks exactly like your inspirations.
Because as a human you are unique, and no matter how many images of others you see, it all goes through your own "human filter" of knowledge, technique and life experiences. Each artistic decision, will be different from the artistic decisions of others. A machine cannot do this. AI/ML models can ONLY generate what it's been told to generate and can only use the data given, and in this case, the data given is the works, IP data and private data of artists and the public. It's messy, legally and ethically.
Made far worse as many users direct the machine to have their work LOOK like artists (by utilizing our full names as prompts) because our work TRULY makes all the difference. I mean look at how meh the generated results are without us.
Example from Stable Diffusion web UI found here.
One could argue "but there are people who intentionally paint like other artists" to that I say: Yes, but there is a fine line between inspiration and plagiarism/forgery. We already have legal frameworks that ensure creators aren't harmed by plagiarists/forgers.
Furthermore, even in our own artistic industries people are shunned when plagiarizing the work of others. Plagiarism/forgery is not a practice to celebrate or excuse, regardless of who or what, commits said acts.
To add even another layer to this, faithfully plagiarizing another artist by hand, is VERY difficult and very few people around the globe can do it, much less thrive doing so. This difficulty is not the case with machines who can plagiarize artists work in seconds.
In a "would be funny if it weren't true" situation, AI companies claimed to bring art to the masses, but the way I see it and as things currently are, they just gave potential art theft/plagiarism to the masses.
So no, AI/ML models are not inspired like human artists are. In the words of a friend, "humans interpret subjectively, AI computes objectively". Comparing Human Creativity to Machine Learning, in my opinion is incorrect. At best, it comes from an uninformed place, at worst done so to mislead and/or excuse potential harm or potential violation of laws.
Anyway for any more information on this subject once again, check out this very lengthy post.
With all that said hope you've all had a wonderful holiday, and welp back to making the work I love!