Diotima: The Marist Undergraduate Philosophy Journal
between those who were told the images were created by AI artists… and human artists…. The other variables used in the scale showed non-significant results.” 22 Thus, at the least, traditionally-created art and artificial intelligence-created art are held to be equivalent in every category laid out by the authors of the paper. Additionally, if we take artificial intelligence to be merely the tool of the artist, as proposed in this paper, it is not AI-generated art that is facing objection but the inclusion of more artists into the field. These artists simply produce work like any others, and yet they are deemed anathemas because of the tools they decide to use. It also does not seem entirely clear that traditional artists will be undesirable in the future, excommunicated from their field. As Anne Ploin of the University of Oxford says, “They [AI] aren’t going to create new artistic movements on their own – those are PR stories. The real changes that we’re seeing are around the new skills that artists develop to ‘hack’ technical tools, such as machine learning, to make art on their own terms, and around the importance of curation in an increasingly data- driven world.” 23 Indeed, Ploin says that AI will not replace artists, maintaining that artificial intelligence will remain a tool for artists. “The main message is that human agency in the creative process is never going away. Parts of the creative process can be automated in interesting ways using AI (generating many versions of an image, for example), but the creative decision-making which results in artworks cannot be replicated by current AI technology.” 24 4.3. Legal complications? Now, here we come to the potential legal hurdles. As mentioned previously, there is a type of art called appropriation art. It is, essentially, artwork that aims to
22 Hong and Curran, “Artificial Intelligence, Artists, and Art.” 23 “Art for Our Sake: Artists Cannot Be Replaced by Machines – Study,” March 3, 2022, https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2022-03-03-art-our-sake-artists-cannot-be-replaced-machines-study. 24 “Art for Our Sake: Artists Cannot Be Replaced by Machines – Study.”
Volume VII (2024) 11
Made with FlippingBook Annual report maker