Artists sign open letter saying generative AI is good, actually

Artists will be among the many groups affected by AI in the coming years, but not everyone. A group of artists wrote an open letter to Congress arguing that generative AI isn’t bad and that the creative community should be involved in regulating and defining the technology.

The full letter and list of signatories are here. AI, machine learning, and algorithmic or automated tools have been used in music, art, and other media for decades; this is just another tool.

Thus, software engineers and painters should be involved in tool development and regulation.

An edited letter excerpt:

Just like previous innovations, these tools lower barriers in creating art — a career that has been traditionally limited to those with considerable financial means, abled bodies, and the right social connections.

Unfortunately, this diverse, pioneering work of individual human artists is being misrepresented. Some say it is about merely typing in prompts or regurgitating existing works. Others deride our methods and our art as based on ‘stealing’ and ‘data theft.’ …many individual artists are afraid of backlash if they so much as touch these important new tools.

Sen. Schumer and Members of Congress, we appreciate the ongoing hearings, ‘Insight Forums,’ and other initiatives focused on regulating generative AI systems and that your goal is to be inclusive, pulling from a range of ‘scientists, advocates, and community leaders’ who are actively engaged with the field. Ultimately, that must mean including artists like us.

We see a unique opportunity in this moment to shape generative AI’s development responsibly. The broad concerns around human artistic labor being voiced today cannot be ignored. All too often, major corporations and other powerful entities use technology in ways that exploit artists’ labor and undermine our ability to make a living. If you seek to ensure generative AI’s revolutionary trajectory benefits humanity as a whole, it would be a gross oversight to exclude those in our society who are working within its potential and its limitations.

These words are wise, and the government ignores the creator community at its peril if it wants a diverse and representative AI advisory group.

Despite being published under Creative Commons, the letter mischaracterizes the most serious criticism of AI systems artists object to: that they were created through wholesale IP theft that still leverages artists’ work for commercial gain without their consent or payment. It’s odd for a company that handles digital copyright and licensing.

Some may view AI-assisted art as prompt engineering, but many object because the companies that created these tools exploited artists. Whether derivative or original, art from such systems is the fruit of a poisoned tree.

Just as authors decry some large language models as obviously trained on their own work, artists can and likely will complain to Congress that companies unethically and possibly illegally ingest copyrighted work against their wishes and welfare.

The AI-influenced era of art and industry is just beginning, so there is room for disagreement and collaboration. This open letter is only one perspective, but it is valuable and likely to be met with resistance from other artists who feel their work or positions are being misrepresented. As today’s models and methods are abandoned next year, the world and its conflicts will have moved on again. It will be discussed for a long time.