There are various reasons why AI art has lately come under fire. For starters, artists have criticized the way through which these AI systems are taught. Millions of publicly accessible photos from the internet are used in the AI models that power these generators. In many circumstances, the produced AI pictures are commercially profitable.
Second, the quality of these AI models may be deficient in a number of areas. If you’ve spent any time with them, you’re probably aware that the majority of these models aren’t especially good at sketching faces and hands. Not only do the hands look horrible (many human artists struggle to draw them), but the AI models make decisions that no human artist would ever make, resulting in an eerie fusion of flesh and fingers.
AI image producers may fail to understand ambiguous verbal inputs. For instance, should the term “kiwi” refer to the fruit or the bird? Should the term “salmon” conjure up ideas of live fish or prepared food? These uncertainties may occasionally have unexpected effects.
Another issue is that, although these image generators have a basic idea of what, say, a telephone should look like, they lack the ability to recognize what a telephone truly is. As a consequence, many (non)-objects in AI photos seem weird and dreamy.
Third, as with many complex AI algorithms, it is possible to exploit AI-generated visuals. As the precision and quality of AI art increases, the capacity to produce realistic-looking representations of actual people may open the door to future harassment, abuse, and deception.
Finally, there are presently publications and social media postings arguing whether AI art is, in fact, art at all. Some claim that AI is discounting and de-skilling the process of generating art in order to maximize business, while others say that these technologies allow a broader spectrum of people to explore with art.