Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is surprising with its ability to produce creative content, whether it’s text, images, music or videos. This revolutionary technology has led to an explosion of new content on the Internet and is attracting huge investments. However, behind this technological potential is a serious question: wouldn’t next generation AIs be built on the theft of intellectual property? Some people question the true creativity of these AIs and the fair remuneration of the creators whose work was used to train them.
AIs are trained on large amounts of copyrighted content
The models ofGenerational AI are trained large databases composed of human works, such as novels, paintings or songs.
This training data is divided into “tokens”, digital representations of pieces of text, image or sound. The model then learns through trial and error how these signals are usually combined. Once trained, it can generate new creations from user stimuli.
Many AI companies have grown avoid the data used to train their models, including competitive privacy. But it is widely believed, at least in their early versions, that many of them removed copyrighted material.
Past publications ofOpen AI show for example that his model GPT-3 stores were trained including General broadcastingcrawling the open web which contains a lot of protected data.
Artists disclaim any use of their work without permission or compensation
In front of this situation, Artists sound the alarm. Many have found that their name is being used more and more as a term to enter image generators to create works in their style. This is an issue Kelly McKernanan artist whose portraits of women were imitated by thousands of portraits created on him Mid-travel. “I can see my vision in these creations, how my work has been studied and mixed with others to produce these images,” the artist laments.
For rights holders, generative AI is a real frustration, or even the opportunity to receive compensation for providing the fuel that powers AI creation. They deny that AI companies spend billions on hardware but refuse to invest in content.
Series of lawsuits launched against AI companies
In front of this situation, there is a flurry of litigation and negotiations going on. Kelly McKernan along with a class action lawsuit by two other artists against him Mid-travel, Constant release etc DreamUp. According to their lawyer Matthew Butterickthe harm comes down to the “three ‘C’s'”: the artists did not agree to include their copyrighted works in the training databases, they were not compensated even if the AI companies charge to use their tools, and their influence is not credited when AI images are produced using their tools. work.
Getty Images also at has filed a complaint against him Constant release for using his photos, calling it “a clear cut on an incredible scale.”
Even though their legal validity remains to be determined, these lawsuits raise ethical questions. AI generators could not work without human labor like Kelly McKernan which provides the source without their knowledge.
Artists fear that their creative work will be diminished
Beyond the legal aspects, there is the entire value chain of artistic creation threatened by the rise of generational AI. Kelly McKernan suspects that the level of work available in her field is already shrinking as AI tools become more accessible online. “There are publishers who use AI instead of hiring cover artists,” said the artist. “I can pay my rent with just a blanket, and we’re seeing that disappear.”
At least, artists lose their monopoly on being an artist. With generative AI, any user can become an author in some way. Kelly McKernan often find on online forums that AI users criticize artists who are reluctant to use this technology, believing that they are engaged in “gatekeeping” to prevent them from making the art they want to make.
Towards redefining what art is in the age of AI?
In the end, the fundamental question of the rise of AI generation is: what is art? Pour Kelly McKernan, “is art the process, the human part, the conversation? All that disappears once you just generate an image”. AI tools bring instant gratification to a unique image, separate from the complex connection with a live artist.
The question is not only who will benefit from these works. It is our entire relationship with art and creation that is being questioned. Generational AI promises a world where everyone can produce content in abundance. But in danger of losing what is in the true meaning of art: the feeling and the creative intention that people put into it, no matter how imperfect they are. Imitation versus true creativity has its limits.
My name is Ethan, I am 30 years old, and I am the founder of this magazine. After studying journalism, I quickly decided to go solo to be able to write the way I wanted and talk about my true interests. I aim to create an information center where French and international news are treated seriously and with insight. My aim is to illuminate the daily lives of my readers and promote a deep understanding of current issues.
