How do I balance the ethical and environmental concerns around the role of AI art in my videos and illustrated books? Read on, or if you’d rather listen, watch the video on this topic at the end.
A New Art Form: The Psychemagination Series
When I first started using AI to create illustrations for my introspections and considered putting them into a book, I worried that people might reject my work thinking I was taking a job from an artist. But I realized that my AI use wasn’t taking jobs away from human artists, rather the AI art generator was enabling me to create something entirely new. I could never have afforded to pay an illustrator, but more than that, I would never have considered illustrating my writing. My skills as a traditional artist simply weren’t up to the task of illustrating books, and even if I did have the skills, the sheer volume and complexity of the illustrations required would have been impossible for me to achieve without AI.
In addition to that, I realised that rather than the images merely illustrating the writing, they added a whole other dimension to it. In my first illustrated book, Psychemagination: A Neurodivergent Journey of Self-Discovery it is the two disciplines – art and writing – combined that create the artwork. Because the words and images were created at the same time, rather than words first, then illustrations after, they feed inspiration into each other and together tell the story. The images are not extra to the story; they are an integral part of it. Together, the words and images create the artwork, which can then be turned into a video or a book.
Though traditional artists and photographers could work this way, it has only become possible for me since the arrival of AI art generators. And it is the nature of AI art itself as a distinct medium with its own skillset that has allowed me to create a unique blend of writing and art that is distinctly mine.
The books in my Psychemagination series are a testament to this new art form. They are not replacing anything that existed before because they couldn’t have existed before. AI art has opened up a world of possibilities for me, allowing me to express my creativity in ways I never imagined. If you’re considering purchasing one of my illustrated books, know that you’re supporting a new kind of art—one in which I incorporate AI art into my intuitive, creative process.
The Ethical Dilemma of AI Art
AI art raises questions about intellectual property and the rights of traditional artists. I firmly believe that artists should receive compensation for their contributions to AI training datasets. While the solution isn’t clear-cut, models like Australia’s APRA, which manages music royalties, could serve as inspiration for a fair compensation system for artists when an AI prompt including that artist’s name or a stylistic reference to an existing work from a living artist is used. If this isn’t possible, then AI art generators should not permit prompts that use a living artist’s work as reference. This may never happen, unfortunately, but refusing to use AI art generators in protest is pointless as it will not make any difference to the present situation. Solving these issues are up to the copyright lawyers.
The data set on which the AI art generators were trained also include millions of works from artists that are no longer living, but nothing I create personally is a copy of any previously existing work or style. Rather, the knowledge of all those artworks and how humans use language to describe their attributes is used by the AI art generator as the technical basis for what I create, just as it is with a human artist who has studied paintings by other artists.
Personally, I would never use any other artist’s work as the stylistic basis of a work. I use the Midjourney AI Art generator as I would any artistic medium, and creating my own style(s) is what is important to me, not copying someone else’s.
Breaking Down Prejudices Against AI Art
Despite the rise of AI art, I don’t see it as a threat to traditional art forms. AI-generated art is fundamentally different – a digital creation – and cannot replicate the tactile experience of handmade art. Traditional artists can leverage this distinction by emphasizing the uniqueness and authenticity of their work, perhaps through cooperatives or platforms dedicated to handcrafted art.
I understand that some people might hesitate to support anything that uses AI art, fearing it might undermine traditional artists. But I urge you to see it differently. There are artists, like myself, who use AI as a legitimate medium. It’s not about replacing human creativity; it’s about expanding it. When you buy my books, you’re not just buying AI art—you’re buying Tahlia’s art, which is a unique combination of words and imagery. It’s a personal, creative expression that wouldn’t exist without this technology.
Environmental Concerns and Personal Responsibility in AI Usage
AI technology, including art generators, consumes significant power and water. As someone who values sustainability, this presents a dilemma. Still, I believe advancements will inevitably lead to more efficient, eco-friendly AI—driven largely by the high cost of energy and water. Companies have strong incentives to reduce these demands, and we’re already seeing improvements in hardware and software efficiency.
Power consumption is less concerning when electricity is sourced sustainably. While most isn’t yet, that’s a broader systemic issue.
Personally, my carbon footprint is low. I rely on off-grid solar power, travel only when necessary, and don’t engage in power-hungry activities like online gaming. My AI use is moderate and purposeful.
Data centers often recycle cooling water, though not endlessly. There’s room—and need—for further efficiency.
We use water daily for essentials, and in comparison, the amount used for my AI work is minimal. Many industries consume far more water with far less reflection. For me, the key is to use AI responsibly. I won’t deny myself the chance to explore a new form of creativity, as long as I remain mindful of its impact.
I strive to live lightly on the Earth, balancing technological exploration with conscious choices. For me, AI is a tool—used deliberately, not excessively.
How I Use And Don’t Use AI
I use AI primarily for three purposes: creating imagery, assisting with copywriting and planning for business promotion (something I find extremely difficult and time consuming to do myself), and content editing on articles I’ve written (often using speech to text technology). AI serves as a reflective tool, offering new perspectives on my work and helping me to clarify and organise my ideas. For example, I can get Chatgpt to make a rambling section more concise, and I have programmed it such that it recognises my personal style and retains my voice, so the result usually saves me a lot of time and frustration.
However, AI does not write my articles; it just helps me refine them. I approach AI-generated content with a critical eye, discarding what doesn’t fit my intention and blending it with my original words to maintain my authentic voice.
While AI can be a valuable resource for information, I prefer traditional research methods to ensure accuracy. AI’s tendency to present information based on user preferences can create a narrow view, so I use a search engine to explore diverse sources and perspectives. I’ll only accept an AI summary on a topic if I have already done my own research and can pick up any biases.
In terms of putting people out of work, I have never paid a human to do anything that I use AI for. I have previously done all these things myself – often not very well – and since I am a very small business, I could never afford to employ a human to do them. For me AI is a valuable tool in the areas in which I lack expertise. I would never use it to write or edit a novel because in those areas my human mind far outstrips the capabilities of AI. AI can only simulate human experience and understanding. It cannot replace it, just as it cannot pick up a paint brush to create a painting.
Balancing Creativity and Ethics in AI Usage
In summary, the environmental and ethical challenges of AI art are significant, but not insurmountable. I remain optimistic that technological advancements will address sustainability concerns, and I advocate for fair compensation for artists whose work contributes to AI training. Ultimately, AI art and traditional art can coexist, each offering unique value to the creative landscape. By embracing AI with caution and responsibility, I can continue to explore my passions while staying true to my values.
I hope that you can see my work without the veils of prejudice. I’m an author and an artist, trying to bring my passions together in a way that feels natural and authentic to me. The combination of words and AI imagery I developed in what became the audio-visual book Psychemagination: Journey into the Psyche is how my creativity is flowing at the moment, and as someone with AuDHD, I literally can’t stop it. It’s a ride I have to take because inspiration drives me to step onboard. I hope you enjoy it as much as I enjoy creating it.
Though the first work I created in the Psychemagination series is the memoir written in lyrical prose mentioned above, it’s not yet in book form. I’m publishing the Psychemagination: Introspective AI Art Guide first so that others can learn how to transform digital imagery into a mirror of their inner world.
I’m involved in how writers use AI and how they should be compensated by AI companies who, on the most part, have stolen their work. That’s my main issue with using AI. It has predominantly been trained without compensating the writers and artists whose work it has used.
Another issue we need to address is to identify ethical AI companies so people who want to use AI can find them.
Has the AI you use, been trained using open source images or by compensating the artists whose work it has used?
Thanks
David
Hi David. No. Midjourney has not done that, and the court case being brought by some artists involving them and Stable Diffusion and others is still ongoing as far as I know. My suggestion about either paying artists whose names are mentioned in prompts (they could just charge users who do that a fee – easy) or not permitting the names of living artists in prompts, with artists having the option to choose this as their preferred option, is probably the best that can happen at this stage because the amount of data taken from any single artist would be impossible to work out and taken as a % of the whole is miniscule, and any artist who has not taken out US copyright on their work (which is time consuming and costly so few will have done it) is out of the loop legally speaking. I tried using Adobe Firefly whose model was trained only on works they owned the copyright to, but the results where practically useless for my purposes.
Practically, to ask every artist with their work freely viewable on the web for permission to use their work would likely not have been possible. They could only have done it with copyrighted works, and as I understand it, legally that’s all they are required to do. It’s worse with writing. Most of our works are copyrighted, certainly our books, and as my blog is written in Australia, it’s automatically copyrighted as soon as I press the publish button. I assume my writing was used along with everyone else’s, but I’m not going to chase some kind of compensation. Every word on my blog, every excerpt from my books published will have been used, but as far as I am concerned what’s done is done, and even if it bothered me so much that I wanted compensation, there’s nothing I can do about it. So instead of cutting myself off from a handy tool, I use the AI trained on my and every other writers words, but I don’t use it to write my books and articles, only to help in very limited and specific ways.
And as for art, artists haven’t had to face their work being pirated like authors and musicians have over the years, so the situation is quite raw for them. In this instance their works themselves aren’t being stolen, only descriptions of their works as numerical values, which become algorithms related to words. It’s not as bad as my full and complete books being available on book pirate sites, and they are, but I don’t waste time and energy trying to get them taken down because the people who use those sites were never going to buy my books anyway. In terms of art, the people who buy traditional art are never going to buy AI art anyway. Those who will buy AI art were never going to buy traditional art either because they don’t have the money. They will have bought mass produced posters, so on that level there will be an impact, but not on the artists who show their work in galleries and earn their living that way. Rather it will, like live theatre in the age of television, retain its cliental and be seen as something completely different, and experience that TV could never give, just as there is a huge different between seeing the texture on a painting and the simulation of texture on an AI image. AI art can never compete with traditional art. I think some artists worry too much.