So just to recap; artificial intelligence software takes artwork already created by real human artists, manipulates it to produce new artwork, allowing the person using the A.I. software to have free artwork without paying the artists who made that A.I. artwork possible. That doesn’t sit well with me. Real human artists didn’t go to art school, and practice their craft for years just for someone to steal their work.

So that right there is a definitive reason to not use artificial intelligence for illustration. However, some companies insist that their A.I. software does not steal anyone’s art since they rely on their own stock. If that’s the case, then this is acceptable. Of course, if this is true, we can see that A.I. is quite limited to what it can do. Really, it’s just better to have a real artist do the work.

While I don’t think that we should suppress technology just because it can take away jobs since doing so hinders progress to make the world a better place, and since we can adjust when new technology comes along, I think it’s worth noting that using A.I. will deprive many artists, whether story writers or illustrators, of making a living off their skills and dreams, and since there are plenty of reasons to not use A.I. for art already, this just makes it more of a reason to not use it. Yes, art can be expensive, but if you were an artist, wouldn’t you like getting paid for doing your work? I know I would. And I enjoy the fact that I’m helping actual persons to make a living, and to enrich their lives. Wouldn’t you?

For me, the worst thing about using A.I. for story-making is that artificial intelligence eliminates the human aspect, eliminating the potential for a fully satisfying experience. What exactly do I mean by this?

Consider that when we experience art, whether it’s looking at a painting, reading a poem, listening to music, etc, we develop a certain understanding of the artist, and we get to know them in a certain way without even meeting them. If we like the art, and/or we relate to it, we might establish a connection with them. We might feel that someone gets us. Or we might be impressed with what a fellow person was able to accomplish. This kind of satisfying experience goes beyond just enjoying art itself. In other words, our satisfaction can come from more than just looking at a painting, reading a poem, listening to music, etc. And that’s really what art is supposed to do. It makes art meaningful, which makes it special.

So just to recap; artificial intelligence software takes artwork already created by real human artists, manipulates it to produce new artwork, allowing the person using the A.I. software to have free artwork without paying the artists who made that A.I. artwork possible. That doesn’t sit well with me. Real human artists didn’t go to art school, and practice their craft for years just for someone to steal their work.

So that right there is a definitive reason to not use artificial intelligence for illustration. However, some companies insist that their A.I. software does not steal anyone’s art since they rely on their own stock. If that’s the case, then this is acceptable. Of course, if this is true, we can see that A.I. is quite limited to what it can do. Really, it’s just better to have a real artist do the work.

While I don’t think that we should suppress technology just because it can take away jobs since doing so hinders progress to make the world a better place, and since we can adjust when new technology comes along, I think it’s worth noting that using A.I. will deprive many artists, whether story writers or illustrators, of making a living off their skills and dreams, and since there are plenty of reasons to not use A.I. for art already, this just makes it more of a reason to not use it. Yes, art can be expensive, but if you were an artist, wouldn’t you like getting paid for doing your work? I know I would. And I enjoy the fact that I’m helping actual persons to make a living, and to enrich their lives. Wouldn’t you?

For me, the worst thing about using A.I. for story-making is that artificial intelligence eliminates the human aspect, eliminating the potential for a fully satisfying experience. What exactly do I mean by this?

Consider that when we experience art, whether it’s looking at a painting, reading a poem, listening to music, etc, we develop a certain understanding of the artist, and we get to know them in a certain way without even meeting them. If we like the art, and/or we relate to it, we might establish a connection with them. We might feel that someone gets us. Or we might be impressed with what a fellow person was able to accomplish. This kind of satisfying experience goes beyond just enjoying art itself. In other words, our satisfaction can come from more than just looking at a painting, reading a poem, listening to music, etc. And that’s really what art is supposed to do. It makes art meaningful, which makes it special.

So just to recap; artificial intelligence software takes artwork already created by real human artists, manipulates it to produce new artwork, allowing the person using the A.I. software to have free artwork without paying the artists who made that A.I. artwork possible. That doesn’t sit well with me. Real human artists didn’t go to art school, and practice their craft for years just for someone to steal their work.

So that right there is a definitive reason to not use artificial intelligence for illustration. However, some companies insist that their A.I. software does not steal anyone’s art since they rely on their own stock. If that’s the case, then this is acceptable. Of course, if this is true, we can see that A.I. is quite limited to what it can do. Really, it’s just better to have a real artist do the work.

While I don’t think that we should suppress technology just because it can take away jobs since doing so hinders progress to make the world a better place, and since we can adjust when new technology comes along, I think it’s worth noting that using A.I. will deprive many artists, whether story writers or illustrators, of making a living off their skills and dreams, and since there are plenty of reasons to not use A.I. for art already, this just makes it more of a reason to not use it. Yes, art can be expensive, but if you were an artist, wouldn’t you like getting paid for doing your work? I know I would. And I enjoy the fact that I’m helping actual persons to make a living, and to enrich their lives. Wouldn’t you?

For me, the worst thing about using A.I. for story-making is that artificial intelligence eliminates the human aspect, eliminating the potential for a fully satisfying experience. What exactly do I mean by this?

Consider that when we experience art, whether it’s looking at a painting, reading a poem, listening to music, etc, we develop a certain understanding of the artist, and we get to know them in a certain way without even meeting them. If we like the art, and/or we relate to it, we might establish a connection with them. We might feel that someone gets us. Or we might be impressed with what a fellow person was able to accomplish. This kind of satisfying experience goes beyond just enjoying art itself. In other words, our satisfaction can come from more than just looking at a painting, reading a poem, listening to music, etc. And that’s really what art is supposed to do. It makes art meaningful, which makes it special.

So just to recap; artificial intelligence software takes artwork already created by real human artists, manipulates it to produce new artwork, allowing the person using the A.I. software to have free artwork without paying the artists who made that A.I. artwork possible. That doesn’t sit well with me. Real human artists didn’t go to art school, and practice their craft for years just for someone to steal their work.

So that right there is a definitive reason to not use artificial intelligence for illustration. However, some companies insist that their A.I. software does not steal anyone’s art since they rely on their own stock. If that’s the case, then this is acceptable. Of course, if this is true, we can see that A.I. is quite limited to what it can do. Really, it’s just better to have a real artist do the work.

While I don’t think that we should suppress technology just because it can take away jobs since doing so hinders progress to make the world a better place, and since we can adjust when new technology comes along, I think it’s worth noting that using A.I. will deprive many artists, whether story writers or illustrators, of making a living off their skills and dreams, and since there are plenty of reasons to not use A.I. for art already, this just makes it more of a reason to not use it. Yes, art can be expensive, but if you were an artist, wouldn’t you like getting paid for doing your work? I know I would. And I enjoy the fact that I’m helping actual persons to make a living, and to enrich their lives. Wouldn’t you?

For me, the worst thing about using A.I. for story-making is that artificial intelligence eliminates the human aspect, eliminating the potential for a fully satisfying experience. What exactly do I mean by this?

Consider that when we experience art, whether it’s looking at a painting, reading a poem, listening to music, etc, we develop a certain understanding of the artist, and we get to know them in a certain way without even meeting them. If we like the art, and/or we relate to it, we might establish a connection with them. We might feel that someone gets us. Or we might be impressed with what a fellow person was able to accomplish. This kind of satisfying experience goes beyond just enjoying art itself. In other words, our satisfaction can come from more than just looking at a painting, reading a poem, listening to music, etc. And that’s really what art is supposed to do. It makes art meaningful, which makes it special.