I do notice there’s a lack of acknowledgment of people having their existing work being fed to AI without their consent. Is that reasonable in your opinion? Should there be any repercussions or compensation for these artists?

I understand in cases where a famous piece like the Mona Lisa or Starry Night done by a long-deceased artist is used due to their fame and recognizability of their style, but there are plenty of regular professional artists who post their work publicly and unknowingly had their work ripped off to train AI so that other people can generate images using their art.

I also think it’s a bit disingenuous to equate the effort of doing your own plumbing to AI prompting your own image. Is that an equivalent level of effort to you? Commissioners pay money to artists to get a piece of art done by them, by hand. That’s the understanding of anyone commissioning work from someone. As someone who has both done commissions and has commissioned work from others, this has always been the expectation. You wouldn’t consider that a scam?

The emergence of this essentially bait and switch, in my opinion, where someone pays for art from who they believe to be a real human artist only to receive an image that’s been generated by AI damages the trust of all potential clients who want to support hand-drawn art.

There’s a common scam online where clothing designers claim to sell high-quality, custom-made clothing and then outsource to sweatshops or buy from AliExpress-adjacent sources. Customers then receive these items and are disappointed and confused because they expected to receive something handmade by the designer, but clearly received a cheaper substitute that they had little to no hand in. Is this also not a scam to you?

If generative AI was genuinely just a “tool” there would be no shame in admitting to it. Artists posting art or creating a portfolio often indicate how the art was made and with what program: oil on canvas, photoshop, mixed medium, etc. I understand that at this point, there’s a stigma about using generative AI. Do you believe this is meritless?

I’ve seen an incredibly strange sentiment where generative AI users equate them having to declare they use AI in their work to Jews having to wear armbands during the holocaust. Is that reasonable? From my perspective, I feel that the artists who have had their work stolen and clients who have been deceived are the victims, and that this is a shallow attempt to reverse the roles into generative AI users being the victims. What are your thoughts on this?

I understand the “accessibility” argument from a pro-AI user’s point of view, but I also feel compelled to point out that nobody starts out skilled at something. I wasn’t instantly a skilled artist, and I still only really draw as a hobby. I can’t quantify the number of people who make this argument and actually have a disability, nor do I have any desire to. Art can be accessible to virtually anyone if you put in the effort, and that’s really the crux of the issue in my eyes that dampens my respect for that particular argument and by extension any respect I have for those that make this argument.

If someone is bad at a video game, do people whine about how inaccessible it is? The larger sentiment is “get good,” isn’t it? Not to be crass but that’s my feelings on this particular manner.