Artificial Intelligence (AI) is ever changing with new technology allowing people to process information at rapid rates. The use of AI brings about anxiety among artists, both traditional and digital, but simultaneously serves its purpose as a tool. 

In honor of National Art Month in February, Symone Cox, National Art Honors Society president and senior, said she is mainly concerned with AI’s reliance on man-made work where artist’s pieces are used to generate images without their consent.

“While AI fundamentally can be used as a good tool most of the time, at the end of the day, when people are taking other people’s art without their permission, without their consent, without even their knowledge, and using it to make literally anything especially when they put that thing they make behind a paywall, it is profiting off of people who didn’t consent to any of this process,” Cox said. 

Terri Xie, president of Artist’s Association and senior, said, while AI can be a tool, the value and style of AI art lacks artistic depth.

“AI itself could be really useful, but right now it’s not,” Xie said. “In my opinion companies are using generative AI to cut labor to create lackluster promotional posters, which to the average person there’s nothing wrong with, but when you really look at these things, it’s not worth it. AI has to copy other styles because it can’t make its own because making your own style takes years so companies just take popular art from the internet and give zero credit which completely disregards all the years of work that goes into a style of art.”

Cox said she feels as though AI art takes away from creativity when used poorly and agrees that it lacks value.

“I think it’s very telling as you’ll see a bunch of art that has that specific AI style, and it’s like it doesn’t have any novelty to it most of the time,” Cox said. “I can tell you just looked up anime girl faces and dumped all this stuff into a bank of images. It’s just, it’s uncreative, it’s uninspired and to be human is to be able to make art. You have the opportunity to make the art yourself and to actually enjoy the process, but instead you refuse to put in the effort and skill and just click a button and that’s where I think it’s unacceptable.”

As AI continues its spread, schools must learn how to incorporate it ethically. Visual art teacher, Andrew Murray, said he has accepted the use of AI as he has no option.

“I feel like I don’t have a choice. AI to me feels like what happened when digital music became a thing, like there was no stopping it,” Murray said. “People who were upset that they didn’t get to use their CDs anymore didn’t really have a choice. However, it’s not really how I feel about it, but more of how am I going to make use of this that I think is probably more important.”

Murray said he has begun to incorporate AI into his classes, but the use of it comes with standards that must be set.

“I already have a couple students in my AP and IB art classes that when they are coming up with thumbnails ideas of what they want to do, they’ll make use of AI technology and be like ‘Here’s what I think I want, here’s the colors that I think I want,’ and ‘What could it look like?’” Murray said. “You know how everybody sees the multiple hands that come out of weird AI art? They take that flawed version of what AI produces and use it as a reference to build their own piece that follows the traditional method. So only in that standard do I think AI can be helpful.”

Xie said art classes attempt certain forms of AI usage, but students must add their own creative elements.

“At this point, you can’t submit an AI-produced image or, if you would, you still have to add your own touch so you might come up with a base form and then on top of that I’m going to embroider into it or I could apply it to some three dimensional sculpture,” Xie said. “Ideas like that are fine; it’s no different from taking from a magazine or newspaper clippings, but you can’t just type in what you want, click and submit.”

On the other hand, Cox said she still feels as though artists should be given some form of reimbursement for their art being taken into AI databases.

“Honest to goodness, you have to accept whether or not you like it, AI is going to stay,” Cox said. “It could get better or get worse in its respective way. If they just asked artists for their consent, for their permission and reimbursement for giving them their own work, it could be better. If I don’t have Pinterest, I can still make art, but if an AI program doesn’t have images to draw from, it literally cannot create anything, so other people’s art is fundamental for it to work.”

But while AI has its many flaws, Murray said he does not feel as though AI art infringes on singular artists enough to compensate them.

“As I understand it, AI art pulls from a near infinite pool of things; how is that any different from a single individual’s experiences that they’ve pulled organically in their head?” Murray said. “I would say if you were doing something that was a direct representation or a very obvious copy of a preexisting thing then maybe we have an issue, but if the AI technology is pulling from everybody to the point where everybody is being sampled just a little bit, I don’t know if that can be construed as kind of a copyright kind of thing.”