AI Art is Theft: Labour, Extraction, and Exploitation, Or, On the Dangers of Stochastic Pollocks

Trystan S. Goetze

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3630106.3658898

2024-05-15

Abstract: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.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

This paper mainly discusses the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on creative labor when generating art images, as well as the ethical issues arising from it. With the rise of AI applications in text-to-image generation like Midjourney and Stable Diffusion, artists are concerned that these technologies may replace human creative work. The author analyzes the protests from the artist community who view AI image generation as a theft of creative labor, as these applications rely on large, unauthorized art datasets for training.

The paper points out that AI image generators work by learning from large datasets of images and text descriptions, and then generating images based on user-inputted text prompts. This technology may result in the unfair exploitation of artists' creative labor, as it can replicate or imitate the style of specific artists without proper authorization or compensation.

The author uses John Locke's theory of labor property rights to support this argument, suggesting that AI image generation involves unethical labor theft. They also discuss similar situations in the history of automation, such as the questioning of whether photography belongs to true art, but over time, societal perceptions have changed. The author warns that current AI technology may threaten the human creation of various forms of visual art and potentially lead to a decrease in job opportunities in the creative industry.

The paper concludes by proposing that although AI technology has the potential to bring innovation to art forms, we should be cautious of its potential harm to human values. Faced with this new technology, we need to pay attention to the voices of marginalized groups who are negatively affected and establish appropriate standards and policies to protect the value of creative labor.

Overall, the problem this paper attempts to address is whether AI-generated art images constitute an unethical violation of human artists' labor, and how to find a balance between technological innovation and protecting creative labor.