The Future of AI in Art
These days, Artists vs Midjourney has basically become clickbait or even worse, a collection of hot takes for folks trying to get action on their social media brands. Here, I humbly offer my opinion on the matter based on my 25 years of professional experience (and not my feelings).
First, I am going to put the idea of morality aside. So far, I have not seen morality affect commercial outcomes in any big way. Think about fair trade coffee, it's still just a consumer choice we have to make every time we buy some beans. Maybe we will see games with “Artists Fairly Compensated” label in the future, who knows? Also, I don't want to touch the idea of right vs. wrong with a 10-foot-pole thankyouverymuch.
Second, we need to address the fact that digital artists have been fighting the battle for fair compensation well before AI got involved. Think: Fiverr. My wife and many of my friends are graphic designers, and if I bring up the topic of clients wanting cheap logos, I won't get less than an hour's worth of stories.
On the same note, how was it that AI could get access to millions of pieces of artwork to train its models? Social media of course! The unsettling truth is, the never ending hustle for artists to get a paying gig involves them posting tons of hours of work for free. Social media companies have been silently benefiting from this for years. There’s a reason that a post with an image does 10x better than a post without.
Third, let's talk about our media appetite. Humans like art. It's the reason we even have the word “media”. The problem is the more we have access to it (directly associated with cost) the less we appreciate it (also directly related to cost). Our attention is a finite resource and it is a function of time. Our cognition is also a finite resource and it is a complex function with uniqueness being a prime factor. All of that adds up to: the more we get, the exponentially more we want. It’s an innate human quality with which we’re all born. I remember watching the first Iron Man movie on the big screen and it blew me away. Now, I watch something of a higher caliber every week at home and can't tell you a thing about it.
Our brains are pattern-seeking machines. When we see something new, it sticks, but after seeing it a few times, it becomes boring. On the other side of this spectrum, if we see a lot of new things we overload our cognition and our brain groups this as noise. Saturation. See: Insta scrolling at 3 AM.
Lastly, let's take a look at technology in the art space. Technology has always enabled artists to work faster. Technology has also simultaneously killed many artforms on that path. The printing press killed the scribe. Sign writing used to be a sought-after craft. Professional photography is now almost a hobby. Print in advertising is now an afterthought. The net outcome, however, is that more art is being created now than ever before in human history, even professionally.
We can’t forget that “technology” is not an external force. Technology is just the name we give to the force of humans getting better at getting what they want.
All that being said, I look at AI image generation and it doesn’t look to me like a new fight. It's certainly a huge escalation, but it's still the fight of humans wanting more cool stuff faster, versus humans wanting to get paid for making cool stuff. When I look at my own motives — and especially my fears — of this new technology, some things become clearer for me. I really love making new cool stuff. My life would be so much less without it. On the other hand, I’m old; will all the hard work I put into gaining my skills soon be for nothing?
So what are our options? Tell me the future, Mr Wizard.
Here are some of the scenarios running through my head;
• Fight the Fight
We fight! Artists cause enough of a stink that someone notices. Maybe we can get some lawyers. Maybe Disney pitches in with their legal juggernaut. Let's say the artists win, what would the outcome be? Will AI image generation be stopped? Not likely.
If we look at history, technology is extremely hard to stop. Think record companies vs Napster. Napster was stopped, but digital music flourished. You can bet your bottom dollar Adobe is looking into this, or an entity like ShutterStock. The question is: how much the artist will get paid.
• A Repeating History
When we train an AI model, we train that model on, essentially, the past. Think about it — even when it comes up with new stuff it still only has the past to draw upon. Let's say AI replaces most of the human art creation. Now, there is a lot less new data going into the model. The system is caught in a degrading loop. No new data. Everything becomes more homogenized. At this point, humans get tired of the AI. Marketing campaigns fail. Maybe this will start a fresh cycle of appreciation for human created art? Maybe this is the start of equilibrium? Remember when Photoshop introduced bevel emboss? First there was rampant abuse, and then it all settled down.
• Boom and Bust
With all of this chaos, I have to remind myself who the main actors are: startups trying to make the next investment round. This tech has been in the works for decades. New disruptive technology follows a pretty standard curve, and we are in the boom curve. Outrageous claims are made, money gets thrown around, and self appointed experts pour out of the woodwork. Next, we should expect the bubble to pop. Usually this happens when the limits of the technology are shown. This is what we should be waiting for before we all throw in the towel. It might just be that we get a great tool out of all of this.
• AI Takes All the Jobs
AI makes content on a level that perfectly matches our neural pathways, and humans can't compete with that. It makes movies, writes books, produces beats and programs games. Art has become a human hobby for mental health. It's kind of like when we pretend to be professional photographers only using our iPhones. What then? Well I would have to assume that if the content is being made by AI, then there is a lot of it, and that means saturation. Maybe we just get tired of it. Maybe it becomes like the race for realism in painting; once we obtained it, we didn't want it any more.
One thing is for sure, if it becomes so plentiful, we will not value it. If we don't value it, it will have to evolve. I have a suspicion that if this were to happen, humanity would end up in a crisis of sorts. What I do know is what humans find valuable is tied to other humans. The ring that my daughter made for me with a pipe cleaner and a plastic bead is more valuable than any manufactured masterpiece I could buy.
So to wrap this all up, I think that:
The technology is in its infancy and we will see its limitations soon.
We should fight for the rights of artists now, because we only have the chance now.
The technology is not going away, but will most likely settle into a tool that will replace some jobs, but make other jobs easier. Maybe being a designer also means knowing the right words to plug into MidJourney.
Why the heck did they have to start with the fun stuff for AI to take over? Why isn't AI cleaning my toilet, ironing my shirts and doing my taxes?!
Fun fact: Have you noticed there’s no AI in PNTRLY?
Roger Miller
Co-Founder | Chief Technology Officer
With 25 years in the software industry, 15 in the game/AR/VR industry, on 4 continents, Roger comes with a breadth of knowledge. Roger Miller has been on the leading edge of both server and client side technologies from factory automation to data cataloging to award winning games and XR applications. He has worked with leading advertising agencies such as Ogilvy One, been a vendor for entertainment companies such as Unity, Amazon, Disney and HBO, created solutions for BMW and Deloitte and been nominated for awards such as the IMGA. He has spoken at Unity Unite, a once frequent speaker at the Unity User Group in Los Angeles and founded the Unity User Group in Bend, OR.