Artists are one of the many groups poised to experience the impact of AI in the coming years, but it’s not a gloomy outlook for everyone. A collective of artists has coordinated an open letter addressed to Congress, making the case that generative AI isn’t inherently detrimental. More crucially, they advocate for the inclusion of the creative community in discussions concerning how this technology should be governed and defined.
The complete letter, along with the names of those who have endorsed it, can be found here. In essence, the argument is that AI, machine learning, and automated algorithms have been integral to music, art, and various media for decades, making them no different from any other creative tools. Consequently, those who utilize these tools, whether as software engineers or painters, should be actively involved in shaping their development and regulatory framework.
Here is an edited excerpt from the letter:
Similar to past innovations, these tools are lowering the barriers to entry for artistic expression—a field that has historically been limited to those with substantial financial resources, physical capabilities, and social connections.
Regrettably, the pioneering work of diverse individual artists is being misrepresented. Some simplistically characterize it as merely inputting prompts or recycling existing creations. Others criticize our methods and our art as founded on ‘plagiarism’ and ‘data misappropriation.’ Many individual artists fear potential backlash if they engage with these significant new tools.
Senator Schumer and Members of Congress, we commend your ongoing hearings, ‘Insight Forums,’ and other initiatives aimed at regulating generative AI systems. We recognize your goal of inclusivity, drawing from a range of ‘scientists, advocates, and community leaders’ actively involved in the field. Ultimately, this must encompass artists like us.
In this moment, we see a unique opportunity to responsibly shape the development of generative AI. The widespread concerns regarding the exploitation of artistic labor cannot be ignored. Too often, major corporations and powerful entities utilize technology in ways that exploit artists’ work and undermine our ability to earn a livelihood. If you aim to ensure that the revolutionary path of generative AI benefits all of humanity, it would be a grave oversight to exclude those within our society who work within its potential and constraints.
These words indeed contain wisdom and reason, and the government would be remiss to overlook the creator community if it seeks to establish a diverse and representative body to provide guidance on AI-related deliberations.
However, the letter, while published under the auspices of Creative Commons, noticeably misinterprets the most substantial criticism against the AI systems artists are concerned about: that these systems were developed through wholesale intellectual property theft, which continues to exploit artists’ work for commercial gain without their consent and without compensation. It’s an unusual oversight for an organization dedicated to navigating the intricate terrain of digital copyright and licensing.
While some may subjectively view AI-assisted art as mere prompt manipulation or similar endeavors, many object due to the way these tools were created, exploiting artists. Regardless of whether the art generated by such systems is derivative or original, it’s reasonable to view it as the product of an unethical foundation.
Just as authors raise concerns about large language models that appear to have been trained on their own work, artists may and probably will voice objections during any congressional hearings or forums, asserting that companies unethically, and possibly illegally, incorporate copyrighted material against the wishes and interests of their creators.
We are only at the initial stages of the AI-driven era of art and industry, so there’s ample room for both disagreement and collaboration. While this open letter represents just one perspective, it is a valuable one—albeit one likely to encounter significant resistance from other artists who believe their own work or viewpoints are being misrepresented. As the world evolves and shifts, abandoning today’s models and methodologies, discussions on this topic will endure for a considerable time.
