^^^
I think AI is still too new to have an ethical consensus by philosophers but my own take:
Personal use? Go for it cowboy
Commercial use? Hire a real artist
This is the base rule, and I stick to it. Would you have hired an artist before? Hire an artist still. (You should not trust AI with your brand or anything anyway).
You having fun at home or making a meme or something? Go for it
I personally believe there could be a place in a person’s creative workflow for the use of AI as a tool to enhance their own creative work…with caveats…
As for the ethics of using AI to copy and art style? It’s theft. End of.
These models are trained on stolen data. The artists/musicians/writers/intellectuals, or their estates, never gave permission for their works to be used to train these models. They never receive royalties, or payment of any kind, for the use of their works. And as we’re finding out, at the very least, Meta took that data…those creative works… illegally. People’s lives have been destroyed by laws put in place to protect IP. I personally feel those laws are fucked and should be fully scrapped in favour of something that actually protects the people creating these works. That doesn’t change the fact that when Joe Shmoe shares a torrent he could be hit with fines and possibly jail. Fines alone could essentially make a person’s life literal hell for however long they have left. The companies who have trained these models are likely going to get a “cost of doing business” slap on the wrist.
It’s ethically ambiguous if you look at it from the standpoint of “IP law shouldn’t exist” while totally ignoring that even if these companies get away with it common people nearly never will.
A lot of people claim that this was done illegally, but artists really shouldn’t be using websites like Instagram where they grant a royalty-free license to Meta where they are allowed to sell your images to anyone they want.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190101050325/https://help.instagram.com/581066165581870
when you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights (like photos or videos) on or in connection with our Service, you hereby grant to us a non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings).
Sure, cool…coolcoolcool…
And that’s literally only for people who posted on FB or Instagram or whatever other garbage data mines Meta are operating. The above is what I was talking about. The highly public trial that relates specifically to torrenting data illegally to train an LLM. That’s what I was talking about. Whoever got fucked by Meta’s T&C’s to train their AI are SoL, which is why I didn’t mention any training they were doing on their platforms specifically.
Bad policies don’t make it OK, and blaming the victims also doesn’t make it OK.
It’s perfectly ok of course.
That this is even a question is absurd.
The ethics of using AI to imitate art styles depend on several factors, including consent, attribution, and the impact on artists. Here are some key ethical considerations:
- Copyright and Intellectual Property
If an artist’s style is closely tied to their brand, AI-generated works that mimic their style could be seen as an infringement on their intellectual property.
Some jurisdictions recognize an artist’s style as protected under copyright or trademark law, though enforcement is complex.
- Consent and Fair Compensation
Ethical AI use should involve obtaining consent from living artists before training AI models on their work.
Some artists argue they should be compensated if their work contributes to an AI model that generates profitable art.
- Attribution and Transparency
If an AI-generated work is heavily inspired by a particular artist, should that artist be credited?
Transparency about AI-generated content helps prevent deception, ensuring audiences understand the origins of the work.
- Impact on Artists and the Art Market
AI-generated imitations could devalue original works by flooding the market with cheap alternatives.
Artists might lose commissions or struggle to compete with AI-driven automation.
- Cultural and Ethical Implications
Some styles have deep cultural or historical significance, and AI replication could risk cultural appropriation.
AI-generated art raises questions about authenticity and artistic intent—what makes art meaningful if it can be mechanically reproduced?
While AI can be a valuable tool for creativity, ethical use should prioritize respect for artists, transparency in creation, and consideration of the broader impact on the art world. What’s your take on this issue?
/ChatGPT
Hi ChatttGPT,
what’s the ethics of commenting a wall of text with your signature only at the very bottom ?We live in a post-joke world, you insensitive clod.
Maybe not a post joke world, but certainly one where Onion articles are more believable than real ones…
What are the ethics of using AI to imitate art styles?
I don’t understand the question.
AI has no ethics, AI doesn’t copy or steal, no more than a photocopy is stealing the pages of the books it copies. AI is not a person.
The persons writing the code of the AI to make it able to ‘learn’ (aka remix) from existing art and artists are the one stealing art and artists. As well as the user asking that AI to ‘create’ new art hoping to make some money out of it while knowing 100% that it’s pure copying from other artists.
