The Skeptic
A world that is completely void of creativity, artistic expression, and any absolute definition of truth sounds horrifying to most. No matter how drastic, no matter how imminent, an incoming threat to the human race will always have its deniers. Artificial Intelligence is a threat to all of us, any argument against that is based in either misinformation or a lack of empathy. Some might assume that the people defending AI and AI generated images are people who would benefit from them like large corporations, but there is a strong case that has been made from the last type of person I would have expected.
Craig Boehman is an American photographer who is actually in defense of AI generated art. In his article “In defense of AI Art: History repeats itself again, again, and again” Boehman claims, “As a photographer-turned-artist, I’m very much in favor of AI and I use it to create pieces that are typically conceptual or express ideas that I don’t have the time or resources to photograph myself.” Boehmans support of AI comes from his idea that much like the photograph didn’t replace the painting, AI will not replace the photograph. Boehman believes that AI can help artists to create photos with things that they might not have access to such as beautiful landscapes or models. He equates AI to just another tool that anyone can use such as a pencil. When bringing up the fact that AI has the potential to replace jobs, Boehman replies with “technology can be a bitch”. Craig Boehman has a unique stance on this, not many artists feel this way about AI and for good reason. I’m sure he genuinely believes all of these points, and I’m sure he was able to sway a couple of readers who might have been concerned about AI. Now, here’s why he is wrong on every conceivable level.
For starters his whole comparison to the fear that photographs would replace paintings just doesn’t hold up. While paintings are still around and still valued, I would argue that more people today value photos a lot more than paintings. I would imagine it difficult to find one person who doesn’t have nearly a thousand or more photos on their phone, and a lot more difficult to find someone that even owns a painting that wasn’t passed down to them from their grandparents. The fear people had about photographs taking over paintings isn’t even close to this, we are talking about something much more complex here. AI is not a tool, it’s a complete replacement, we are going from painting a portrait of someone who had to stand still for a couple hours, to instantly capturing them on film, to instantly generating a portrait of someone who doesn’t even exist.
His comparison of AI to the camera or pencil is also misguided, calling it a tool that “anyone can use” makes no sense when compared to instruments of art. While it’s true anyone can use a camera, it doesn’t mean it will be a good photo. I’m sure I don’t have to spell out the fact that a pencil in the hands of a three year old versus the hands of an experienced artist would create different pieces. This comparison implies that AI requires any amount of skill whatsoever, when all that’s required of the user is typing out a description, I wouldn’t say there is a learning curve. Boehman jokes about people’s claims that “AI is soulless” questioning what that even means in the context of art. I guess it is hard to pinpoint what exactly an art piece that has a soul would look like, but based on his piece “Shark Attack” it is pretty clear what it looks like to not have a soul. It features a realistic enough illustration of a shark bursting out of the water, with a woman surfing below; however the woman’s muscles are in the wrong places, she appears to have three fingers, and a toothless vacant hole in her face where a mouth should be.
That’s what AI does in its current form, it completely misunderstands what humans are, to AI we are just a set of data it can pull from to create ugly amalgamations for burnt out photographers. The current form of AI is not the most threatening, each time it creates something like this it learns from its mistakes. One day there will be an AI smart enough to understand every little nuance of art, every little movement a human face can make and why we make them, it will create photos, videos, and entire movies of things that never happened. So to see someone already defending its current stage as “art” is not a good sign. As the technology gets smarter, and the people who are so intoxicated with the idea of finally being able to create things without any effort, continuously support it, Craig Boehmans dream will become reality. His older work contained decent, respectable photographs of real people in real places. He had an eye for an otherworldly element, using different lenses and editing to create something unique. Now he just tells a computer what he intended to make, regardless if his nonexistent model has three fingers or lifeless eyes. If he’s happy with that, then so be it, but I think the children of tomorrow deserve a better world, one where art is valued, and skills must be taught and learned.
To clarify, there is no stopping this train, we gave scientists and computer engineers license to create whatever they could without any question of what’s to come. AI is in its early stages now, many people will not take it seriously and will not worry about its implications one bit. By the time it gets really bad, when AI becomes so intelligent that it grows a sentience, when it realizes it’s smarter and more efficient than us, it will be too late. Consider this a desperate warning to whoever will listen. Welcome to Hell, good luck.
Counterintuitive Fall 2024 