Foregrounding Artist Opinions: A Survey Study on Transparency, Ownership, and Fairness in AI Generative Art
0
🤖
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Generative AI tools are used to create art-like outputs and aid the creative process
- These tools have potential benefits for artists, but also potential harms to the art workforce and issues around artistic and intellectual property rights
- The study surveyed 459 artists to understand their views on the utility and threats of Generative AI art models
Plain English Explanation
Generative AI tools are computer programs that can create art-like images, sounds, or other media. These tools have some potential advantages for artists, as they can help with the creative process. However, they also raise concerns about the impact on artists' jobs and the rights to the art that is produced.
The study here looked at what a group of 459 artists think about these Generative AI tools. The key issues the study explored were:
- Whether Generative AI creators should have to disclose what existing art they used to train their models
- Who should own the rights to the art-like outputs generated by AI
- How Generative AI might affect artists' ability to earn a living
Overall, the study found that most artists believe Generative AI creators should be transparent about the art used in training, that the AI-generated outputs should not belong to the model creators, and that there are concerns about the impact on the art workforce and who profits from their art.
The researchers hope these findings will help Generative AI developers and the art community work together better in the future.
Technical Explanation
The researchers surveyed 459 artists to investigate their opinions on the potential utility and threats of Generative AI art models. The survey covered several key areas:
- Artists' views on the need for disclosure of the artistic works used to train Generative AI models, as described in the related work
- Perspectives on who should own the rights to art produced by Generative AI, discussed in the proposed solutions
- Concerns about the impact of Generative AI on the art workforce and compensation, as examined in the prior research
The results showed that a majority of artists believe creators of Generative AI models should disclose what existing art was used in the training process. Additionally, most artists expressed that the AI-generated outputs should not belong to the model creators, but rather the artists whose work was used.
Importantly, the survey uncovered significant concerns from artists about the potential negative impact of Generative AI on the art workforce and who profits from their artistic work, as described in the prior literature.
Critical Analysis
The study provides valuable insight into artists' perspectives on the emergence of Generative AI tools and their potential implications. However, the researchers acknowledge some limitations in their approach.
For example, the survey sample may not be fully representative of the diverse art community. Additionally, the study did not delve deeply into the nuances of different Generative AI techniques and their varying impacts on artists.
Further research could explore how artists' views may differ based on factors like their medium, career stage, or engagement with technology. Investigating potential solutions or frameworks for ethical collaboration between artists and Generative AI developers would also be a valuable next step.
Overall, this study highlights the need for ongoing dialogue and cooperation between the art community and Generative AI researchers and practitioners to ensure these powerful tools are developed and used in a way that respects artists' rights and livelihoods.
Conclusion
This study sheds light on the tension between the potential utility of Generative AI tools for artists and the concerns about their potential harms to the art workforce and artistic rights. The survey of 459 artists reveals that most believe Generative AI creators should disclose the art used in training, that the AI-generated outputs should not belong to the model creators, and that there are significant worries about the technology's impact on artists' ability to earn a living.
The researchers hope these findings can help facilitate meaningful collaboration and alignment between the art community and Generative AI developers. Continuing to understand and address artists' perspectives will be crucial as these powerful technologies continue to evolve and become more prevalent in the creative landscape.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🤖
0
Foregrounding Artist Opinions: A Survey Study on Transparency, Ownership, and Fairness in AI Generative Art
Juniper Lovato, Julia Zimmerman, Isabelle Smith, Peter Dodds, Jennifer Karson
Generative AI tools are used to create art-like outputs and sometimes aid in the creative process. These tools have potential benefits for artists, but they also have the potential to harm the art workforce and infringe upon artistic and intellectual property rights. Without explicit consent from artists, Generative AI creators scrape artists' digital work to train Generative AI models and produce art-like outputs at scale. These outputs are now being used to compete with human artists in the marketplace as well as being used by some artists in their generative processes to create art. We surveyed 459 artists to investigate the tension between artists' opinions on Generative AI art's potential utility and harm. This study surveys artists' opinions on the utility and threat of Generative AI art models, fair practices in the disclosure of artistic works in AI art training models, ownership and rights of AI art derivatives, and fair compensation. Results show that a majority of artists believe creators should disclose what art is being used in AI training, that AI outputs should not belong to model creators, and express concerns about AI's impact on the art workforce and who profits from their art. We hope the results of this work will further meaningful collaboration and alignment between the art community and Generative AI researchers and developers.
Read more5/16/2024
0
Laypeople's Egocentric Perceptions of Copyright for AI-Generated Art
Gabriel Lima, Nina Grgi'c-Hlav{c}a, Elissa Redmiles
Recent breakthroughs in generative AI (GenAI) have fueled debates concerning the status of AI-generated creations under copyright law. This research investigates laypeople's perceptions ($N$ = 424) of AI-generated art concerning factors associated with copyright protection. Inspired by prior work suggesting that people show egocentric biases when evaluating their own creative outputs, we also test if the same holds for AI-generated art. Namely, we study the differences between the perceptions of those who have something to gain from copyright protection -- creators of AI-generated art -- and uninvested third parties. To answer our research questions, we held an incentivized AI art competition, in which some participants used a GenAI model to generate images for consideration while others evaluated these submissions. We find that participants are most likely to attribute authorship and copyright over AI-generated images to the users who prompted the AI system to generate the image and the artists whose creations were used for training the AI model. We also find that participants egocentrically favored their own art over other participants' art and rated their own creations higher than other people evaluated them. Moreover, our results suggest that people judge their own AI-generated art more favorably with respect to some factors (creativity and effort) but not others (skills). Our findings have implications for future debates concerning the potential copyright protection of AI-generated outputs.
Read more7/16/2024
🤖
0
Exploring Use and Perceptions of Generative AI Art Tools by Blind Artists
Gayatri Raman, Erin Brady
The paper explores the intersection of AI art and blindness, as existing AI research has primarily focused on AI art's reception and impact, on sighted artists and consumers. To address this gap, the researcher interviewed six blind artists from various visual art mediums and levels of blindness about the generative AI image platform Midjourney. The participants shared text prompts and discussed their reactions to the generated images with the sighted researcher. The findings highlight blind artists' interest in AI images as a collaborative tool but express concerns about cultural perceptions and labeling of AI-generated art. They also underscore unique challenges, such as potential misunderstandings and stereotypes about blindness leading to exclusion. The study advocates for greater inclusion of blind individuals in AI art, emphasizing the need to address their specific needs and experiences in developing AI art technologies.
Read more9/14/2024
🤖
0
AI Art is Theft: Labour, Extraction, and Exploitation, Or, On the Dangers of Stochastic Pollocks
Trystan S. Goetze
Since the launch of applications such as DALL-E, Midjourney, and Stable Diffusion, generative artificial intelligence has been controversial as a tool for creating artwork. While some have presented longtermist worries about these technologies as harbingers of fully automated futures to come, more pressing is the impact of generative AI on creative labour in the present. Already, business leaders have begun replacing human artistic labour with AI-generated images. In response, the artistic community has launched a protest movement, which argues that AI image generation is a kind of theft. This paper analyzes, substantiates, and critiques these arguments, concluding that AI image generators involve an unethical kind of labour theft. If correct, many other AI applications also rely upon theft.
Read more5/16/2024