AI Artists Demand 'Respect'

On online comment forums, one post has sparked a wave of debate between proponents and detractors of artists who employ artificial intelligence (AI) to create illustrations. The controversy centers on the common criticism of so-called "AI artists," who use algorithms that learn from the styles of real artists to generate their own content.

However, an AI artist has expressed a controversial opinion by stating that human artists should also be considered "thieves." In his words, "As a consequence of the use of AI, we often see people and companies being slandered and harassed by anti-AIs. They say what they want from AI users, such as 'unauthorized learning' and 'thieves,' but human artists are unaware that they too are 'unauthorized learners' and 'thieves.'"

The AI artist argues that both human artists and AI algorithms learn from the work of other artists, and that under current legislation, both are treated similarly when it comes to unauthorized learning. "Under current law, both cartoonists and artificial intelligence are free to learn from other people's work that is available to the public. The artists themselves have benefited enormously from it," he says.

The post goes on to criticize the double standards of those who condemn the use of AI in artistic creation, while human artists have also used the works of others without permission. "Cartoonists can learn without permission, but artificial intelligences are yelled at 'stop unauthorized learning,' which is a bit of an exaggeration."

The AI artist challenges the community to reflect on their own practices and questions whether they are willing to give back the profits made from the work of other artists. "Cartoonists have long made money off of video game and manga characters, and they've also done it by altering other people's works and making doujinshis without permission. Are you willing to give back the profits to the works you have learned from and used? Are they really ready? Really? Really?" the message concludes.

This pronouncement has generated intense debate in art community circles, where some have questioned the ethical and legal implications of both the use of artificial intelligences and the traditional practices of human artists. The discussion of copyright, unauthorized learning, and creativity in the digital age continues to be a hot topic in the contemporary art world:

"I thought vaguely about the difference between copying and plagiarism, and wondered if it would be a similar story with 3D scanners and printers, or if things like copying tools would eventually progress, and my imagination got the better of me."
"It's funny because people confuse artists and makers by saying they're illustrators, and AI is just an AI no matter what, and the value of a retempered stamp drawing is the same for humans and AI, isn't it?"
"I think competent painters already know how to use artificial intelligence as they please, it's a powerful weapon, but they don't train for it and complain continuously."
"Legal and medical professionals, whose proportion of jobs eroded by AI is orders of magnitude different than the creative community, are not reckless like painters, but think about how to increase productivity as an auxiliary tool."
"I will use AI to my heart's content after extremists like you and me have stomped together, collapsed together, and disappeared."
"There's nothing to say about fan art if you ask me what's the difference between fan art and AI tools. It's just that the quality on the AI side hasn't reached a satisfactory line yet, and that's why it's so gross."
"Cartoonists are pissed off because they've hit the nail on the head."
"Bad temper! You should be humble enough to acknowledge the fact that AI artists are not artists. You're stubborn."
"I knew that AI would be used to come up en masse and create similar products as a form of harassment, something that has been around for a long time, because it's essentially about cutting costs, but I never thought it would be an excuse to attack the perpetrators."
"The biggest difference between AI generation and human production remains the thinking itself and the physical peculiarities of the computing machine. It learns outside of the learning objects, and the circuits themselves also have their own quirks."
"Otakus who laugh at the artist's drawings based on that? I'd like to hear some complaints about consumers, please."
"There are certain people who say that human learning is different from generative AI learning, but have they really researched what AI generative learning is? It sure is more like human learning than that person thinks, trial and error and training. The difference is the speed of learning."
"Under current law, whether it's an AI or a human, it's treated equally." No, it doesn't. We have long separated computational uses without limiting them to AI, and it is common in other laws to separate them based on differences in nature. You're on a loop with this theme."
"I don't know, I totally agree with the promotion of AI, but there are a lot of weird arguments from proponents. I also often see this in other topics, where the other party often criticizes the subject (in this case, humans and AI) who is being treated differently for different reasons, assuming that they are naturally the same."
"So AI is also a thief and that's the end of the story."