Mediocre artists copy; great ones steal. So goes the cliche attributed to Picasso and others. This metric raises the question of whether AI’s machine learning pilfering of artists’ work from the internet makes for great art. And whether artists should have a cause of action against AI platforms whose output derives from the algorithmic appropriation of their work.
As I read artists complaining that AI is going to put them out of an already shitty business to try and make a living in I am sympathetic. Being a lawyer I can’t help thinking of ways to sue on their behalf. And being a computer law lawyer I’m drawn to the glitter of another matter of first impression in computer law that doesn’t fit neatly into the old brick-and-mortar paradigms for intellectual property and copyright.
The handwringing over the rise of AI reminds me a bit of the concern that photography would kill painting or that film would kill theater. Neither happened, although both painting and theater were forced to adapt. Painting had a freakout and gave us cubism and abstract expressionism while never completely abandoning figurative representation. Pablo Picasso, Jackson Pollock, and Alice Neel. Their work cannot be embodied in a photograph, just like to this day no photograph can capture the experience of looking in person at a great work of art. Indeed, that’s my metric for a great work of art - does a photo do it justice? If not then it’s potentially great.
As for theater, you cannot recreate the experience of a properly executed Samuel Beckett play, like Endgame, on film. Because the physical presence of live actors and audience is core to the experience; I’ve yet to see a film of any of Beckett’s major theatrical works that doesn’t fall flat. Done well, a Beckett play brings an intensity to your physical being in the moment shared in community with the actors on the stage. (If you’ve ever acted in a Beckett play it’s an experience like no other).
Great artists will rise to the occasion and AI has a long way to go before it can match a human’s creative genius. All the AI art I’ve seen so far consists of derivative mediocrity. And I use AI art at the top of all these blog posts because it’s quick and convenient. But the image at the header of this comes from typing “a painter painting a painting like Jasper Johns.” The real Jasper Johns (one of my favorite painters) blows the above image out of the water, not just visually but also conceptually.
The AI, libertarian, free-riding crowd will argue they shouldn’t be sued because all culture is derivative and what they’re doing is fair use. While that’s a rational argument, I’m not totally sold on it. There’s something parasitic about AI that concerns me - perhaps the worry that it will kill the host. I think artists are vital to society, and that STEM is a disaster because it’s the ideology behind the ruthless efficiency of the Holocaust. (See Peter Weiss’s excellent play The Investigation if you doubt this). Like the internet itself, the promise of AI comes with a dark side, and what worries me is that the dark side is the destruction of our humanity at the hands of soulless investors and engineers. I don’t know yet where I come out on this issue, but as I hear the artists’ cri de guerre I’m sympathetic.