Artificial Intelligence, Copyrights and Digital Art: Navigating the Ethical Landscape of AI in Art

This is a post related to my post Roko's Basilisk. It's skippable and not so important if you're someone who is not interested in art or AI, or the societal implications of AI in the world of digital art. Low information density, very short post, relative to my other posts, and important ideas but again only if you are someone who is related to or is interested in AI and Art. New to this blog? Start here.

To understand the context, you can refer to that post, but this post is complete on its own, so prior knowledge is not necessary. This question occurred to me during my training sessions as a member of the AIYC, established by the WEF, and I am now a permanent member of the organization, just in case you happen to wonder who am I to be talking about such things, I believe that being a permanent member of the WEF makes me qualified to talk about AI governance stuff and my knowledge is at least more than the average layman who gets their knowledge from pop culture representation of AI which for your information is wildly inaccurate and harmful to the perception of AI for the general public. For similar topics check out the post I mentioned earlier- Roko's Basilisk. This is also an article I submitted as part of a new initiative started by one of my fellow WEF AIYC members for her blog. Let me know if you have any comments.

Artificial Intelligence and digital art are two fascinating fields that have recently intersected, creating a buzz in the art world. This fusion is changing the way we create, experience, and understand art. From generating unique images to interactive installations, AI has opened up new possibilities in digital art that were once unimaginable. In this article, we'll delve into the exciting world of AI and digital art and explore the implications and potential of this innovative collaboration. Get ready to be amazed by the stunning art pieces that AI has helped create and learn about the cutting-edge technology behind them.

Polish digital artist Greg Rutkowski's classical painting style has become one of the most frequently used prompts in open-source AI art generator, Stable Diffusion, allowing anyone to create impressive images based on text prompts. However, the use of images from the internet without permission and proper attribution has raised ethical and copyright questions. Rutkowski's name has been used as a prompt around 93,000 times, raising concerns that his work will be lost in the flood of AI art. Other artists, including Karla Ortiz, have also been affected, prompting calls for policies or regulation to address the issue.

The popularity of Rutkowski's style as a prompt in AI art generators highlights the ethical issues around copyright and attribution in the AI art world. The open-source programs are built by scraping images from the internet, often without permission and proper attribution to artists, which raises concerns for artists like Rutkowski who risk losing control over their work. As the use of AI-generated images based on copyrighted material for commercial purposes becomes more widespread, it could also raise data protection and privacy problems. This has led to a growing coalition within the artist industries to figure out how to tackle or mitigate these issues, potentially through new policies or regulation.

As a part of the WEF AI Youth Council’s training sessions, I proposed this problem in front of a policy expert. My question was:

He obtained all of his artwork online, and individuals employ AI generative art to create art utilizing his designs. Initially, he was pleased to see that he was gaining recognition and popularity, but now he is concerned that in the near future, he will no longer be acknowledged for his contributions, as technically the art is generated by AI and not by him. However, the AI still employs his datasets and artwork for training purposes. Thus, as we discussed the idea of UBI and automation compensating workers, does this extend to creative professionals and artists such as musicians and artists?

One solution that we came up with on the spot: Ask artists for their consent to let their artwork be used to train AI GAN. Create a policy that prohibits companies from using artwork of those who don’t consent, even if the art is publicly available on the internet as open source. For the artists who do consent, compensate them based on the number of times their artwork templates are used by people to generate their own art using AI GAN.

My thoughts and person opinion, keep in mind that this is an issue that needs to be solved urgently because narrow AI is already strong enough to take over the jobs of creatives, and there is consensus among certain groups of experts I’m aware of that says there’s going to be an unemployment problem soon, but we need more research on this, which is why I said “opinion” and not “belief” or even a “solution”, because I’m unsure if this is practical or feasible yet, and it’s more long-term oriented, unlike most people who think about the immediate short-term.

This also the reason that there is a lot of funding for ML as applicable to real world but not so much for these types of long-term societal issues that people won’t get immediate returns on but are equally, and in some sense even more, important because it concerns the whole human civilization and it would be too late if we don’t start working on it now.

In a society with universal basic income and AI automation, artists could create without worrying about money, and individuals could pursue their passions instead of working unfulfilling jobs. However, it is possible that only the top 1 or 5 percent of artists would survive in the market, while others whose work could be outperformed by AI systems would become obsolete. Once AI reaches a level of proficiency that rivals that of the top artists, no one will have a job, and we can create a utopia where everyone has enough resources and time to lead fulfilling lives.

Until then, we must take care of those who lose their jobs due to automation, as it is not their fault that they were born with traits that put them out of the job market. This necessary suffering for the greater good is worth the potential upside, even when considering the opportunity costs. As someone who strongly advocates for eradicating all suffering in other posts, I believe that automating everything as soon as possible and helping those who are put out of work is crucial.

To achieve this, we should only use artwork in AI training that artists have consented to and create policies that prohibit companies from using the artwork of those who do not consent, compensating artists based on the number of times their artwork templates are used by people generating their own AI art.

Imagine a world where you could pursue your passions and interests without worrying about earning a living. This is the world that could exist if we had a universal basic income and AI automation. Artists, for example, could create art without the burden of financial pressure. Instead, they could focus on perfecting their craft and expressing their creativity.

However, there is a risk that not all artists will be able to thrive in this new world. Just like in any profession, there are those who are more skilled and successful than others. In the case of AI, only the top 1 or 5 percent of artists may be able to compete with AI-generated art. Those whose work can be easily replicated or outperformed by AI may struggle to find a market for their creations.

This is similar to other fields where automation has already disrupted the job market. For example, consider the impact of self-checkout machines on retail workers. While these machines are convenient for consumers, they have resulted in many retail jobs becoming obsolete. However, there are still jobs that require human skills, such as customer service or managing the machines themselves.

Once AI reaches a level of proficiency that rivals that of the top artists, no one may have a job, but this could lead to a utopian world where everyone has the resources and time to pursue their interests and lead fulfilling lives. But until then, we need to ensure that those who lose their jobs due to automation are taken care of. It's not their fault that they were born with traits that put them at a disadvantage in the job market.

To help artists in this transition, we could create policies that only allow the use of artwork in AI training if the artists have given their consent. Additionally, compensation could be given to artists based on the number of times their artwork templates are used by people generating their own AI art.

In summary, the potential benefits of AI automation and universal basic income are vast, but we must also consider the impact on individuals and society as a whole. We need to find ways to support those who are displaced by automation, while also ensuring that artists are able to thrive in this new world.

This is the reason I’m also working on AI alignment research and community building to spread awareness in society about why this is a problem and why it needs to be solved urgently. If anyone is interested in any book recommendations, links, resources, communities or simply having a discussion about the topics I tried to explain in this article, feel free to get in touch