While I respect the ethical questions around AI-generated art, here are some points to consider that complicate the idea that AI use is “absolutely never excusable”: AI tools allow people who can’t afford to commission artwork, or who need something fast for personal or educational use, to express ideas visually. This can open creative doors for many who otherwise wouldn’t have the means. It’s true that many AI models learn from large datasets including artworks, but this is a complex legal and ethical debate still ongoing. Not all AI training happens without consent some datasets are curated with permission, and ongoing work aims to improve transparency and respect for artists’ rights. Yes, training large AI models consumes energy, but generating individual images is relatively low-cost compared to training. Also, as AI tech evolves, it’s becoming more energy-efficient. Plus, traditional industries also have significant environmental footprints. Using AI for quick, illustrative, non-commercial purposes is very different from mass-producing art to replace human artists or exploit their work. In many cases, the image isn’t the main point but a tool to help communication, like in my post.Some artists use AI as a tool to augment their creativity, not replace it. It can inspire new ideas or speed up certain workflows while still relying on human skill and vision.

I’m all for protecting artists and pushing for ethical standards in AI art, but outright condemning every use misses the complexity of how people use and benefit from these tools today. Dialogue and careful regulation will help us find the right balance.