The Death of Originality: AI’s Threat to Artists

By E.S

While doing some investigation for a college research paper, I stumbled upon an article titled, “Can AI be a poet?” and automatically when I glanced at it, I nearly vomited; because we, as creatives, should not be asking can AI be what we are. Our lived human experiences and lives interlace into a delicate art form that only we, as individuals, can bring into fruition. What we should be asking is should AI even be given a seat in the creative space. I realize there are many controversial forms on this topic depending on the area of the world and political beliefs of some folks; however, I must assert my opinion as part of the creative community.So yes, this is my personal opinion on the topic as E.S, not as Canvas & Quill nor Mila. This means this column is going to be very opinionated, and if you are not up for it, that is understandable. It is also understandable that you disagree with me and I even encourage you to write to us your own opinion.   

In this column I will talk about (1) my own beginning as a writer to introduce the problem of AI in the creative world with problems such as the lack of protection for us; (2) then I will touch on how art is perceived and the definition I would give of it; (3) next i will briefly say that AI has been replacing our essence as creatives; (4) another topic that is important to talk about is in regards of the protection of artists, which I will expand on, including the themes of the artists strikes and lawsuits; (5) following the last point, it is necessary to dive into the transparency and economic aspect of the consequences of using AI from multi-billion-dollar companies; (6) then, before the conclusion, I will mention the consequences of using AI and claiming it as your own and end with a personal advice; (7) Now it’s time to explain an actual plan for this on-growing problem, to which I will add my own proposition; (8) Lastly, I will finish with a proper conclusion.

(1) Before “AI” was even born into the world, I spent my first steps as a writer scribbling onto a physical piece of paper on my bedroom floor-I remember it vividly-wanting my book to one day be on my shelf with all of the others. That was the moment I knew that writing was indefinitely in my blood, just brewing beneath the surface. Yes while growing up, I did indulge in science fiction here and always at the back of my mind just as everyone else, robots would take over. Never did I think that it could threaten my entire livelihood. Yet as of now, I’m seeing it in front of my eyes as every single day there is some new advancement, some new copyright infringement, yet in the major AI companies definition of infringement apparently doesn’t apply. Artistes aren’t protected in this world. Today my phone started to blow up with the Studio Ghibli update that Open AI had just released. And I hate to say it but I am not surprised, and this isn’t the end. Unfortunately, no matter how successful us writers and artists are we end up being compromised in the end, our work stolen, or completely undermined. And that is the danger when AI intertwines with the arts. We start to lose the very definition and essence of what is. 

(2) Another point has to do with the definition of art and AI. The most used definition for art is from the Oxford Dictionary, which says, I quote: “the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.” From this sentence alone we can take out two important points: 1. Almost immediately it says “human creative skill and imagination.” Hence, it is safe to say that its origin comes from the human mind and skills. 2. It ends with “emotional power.” 

You need to be a human to be an artist. Hand in hand with this, a lot of people may have a surface level definition of what art is to them, “it’s just a pretty painting, or a poem that rhymes,” but in the end what has always made art, art, is that it was made by a human. Because of its imperfections, because of the raw nature it can portray, because of the story it can create and represent injustices, and miracles. Art has always been living, breathing part of human culture since the dawn of time. And to automatically attempt to strip art’s essence, that it was made by a human, is to completely disregard art in itself. 

Now, I guess you could be asking yourself “doesn’t AI come from the human mind as well?” To this I have got my own opinion. Artificial Intelligence is “The term artificial intelligence (AI) refers to a set of computer science techniques that enable systems to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, decision making and language translation. Machine learning and deep learning are branches of AI which, based on algorithms and powerful data analysis, enable computers to learn and adapt independently. For ease of reference we will use “artificial intelligence”, or AI, throughout this report to refer to machine learning, deep learning and other related techniques and technologies.” – Economist Intelligence Unit‘s definition 

Then, in a New Yorker article with the “Grandfather of AI” Geoffrey Hinton, it was said that: “There are many reasons to be concerned about the advent of artificial intelligence. It’s common sense to worry about human workers being replaced by computers, for example. But Hinton has joined many prominent technologists, including Sam Altman, the C.E.O. of OpenAI, in warning that A.I. systems may start to think for themselves, and even seek to take over or eliminate human civilization. It was striking to hear one of A.I.’s most prominent researchers give voice to such an alarming view.” I think many of you might have also seen the Fox News interview with Hinton, if not, I encourage you to watch it to get a better understanding of this threat. While this was said not in the area of art, it also applies to it, heavily. AI and robots have always been said to be the way humanity gets replaced and/or ends. Now imagine that same machine in the fields of art. If it was established that it may eliminate humans, how could it not eliminate artists? Even the great mind Stephen Hawkings warned, “It will either be the best thing that's ever happened to us, or it will be the worst thing. If we're not careful, it may very well be the last thing.”

(3) That is what AI has been doing, attempting to replace our essence as creatives. And no, I do not think it is completely possible for these mechanical systems to achieve such a feat; however, if they are being funded by these billion dollar corporations, the economic repercussions could be drastic.

(4) Hand in hand with the last point, protecting the integrity of writers' works and their rights is crucial for protecting people's livelihoods and the entertainment industry, encompassing all forms of media that humans enjoy. Just in the last 2 years, the longest writer's strike in years brought the entertainment industry to a standstill for a total of 146 days, resulting in reported CNN losses exceeding $6 billion dollars. Several productions, including Saturday's live stream events, House of Dragons, Marvel productions, Blade, and more, were halted during this period, as reported by CNN. 

In order to prevent yet another writers strike, the legalization of the Authors Guild open letter is essential to preserving this industry in order to keep entertainment alive for us all. As writers and authors become increasingly compromised with the advancement of AI, the Authors Guild's open letter should be legalized into a federal law. This law should mandate that AI companies must obtain direct consent to use authors' works to train their AI and offer compensation to authors who permit the usage of their work. This is just one of the many ways that we can keep these AI companies truly accountable. 

A.    The first instances seen where AI was stealing author’s books can be brought to light were in these lawsuits that these authors filed against major AI companies.  

1. One of the first official legal instances where AI stole authors work was from a lawsuit filed in the San Francisco federal courts filed on June 29th 2023 by novelists Paul Trembley and Montana Awad argued that artificial intelligence companies like chatGPT are stealing authors work without credit, consent, or compensation. According to Kurkis reviews, “The lawsuit says that OpenAI engaged in direct and vicarious copyright infringement, unfair competition, negligence, and unjust enrichment. The attorneys are asking that the suit proceed as a class action and are seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief,” (Schaub). This lawsuit is just one of the ways authors are starting to take affirmative action to protect themselves. 

2. Furthermore, the second lawsuit that raised more awareness was this time filed as meta and open ai as the defendant, the actor and comedian sarah silverman is suing both AI companies for using her book The bedwetter: stories of courage, redemption to pee to train their AI model without consent or compensation. According to Kirkus reviews against, the attorneys state, “In the suit against Meta, attorneys Joseph Saveri and Matthew Butterick claim that the authors’ “copyrighted materials were copied and ingested as part of training LLaMA,” Which is chatGPT’s language model used in the AI (Schaub).

These lawsuits provided added momentum to move the more investigative measures to see how exactly AI was stealing authors books. However, the methods at which to source whether chat gpt matters are used to steal others' worked material is difficult to pinpoint due to the lack of transparency. A report from the Guardian state that in earlier iterations of ChatGPT the training material for chatGPT called “Book2” has speculations from lawyers that deduced that the size of the dataset is a rough estimate of 294,000 titles, which could mean that the books could be drawn from pirated libraries such as Z-library and Library genesis (Creamer).  These pirated sites often times have quote on quote “free” copyrighted books that authors have written and uploaded for public use; however these cities are illegally uploaded and this is just one of the many ways that author’s works are becoming even more victimized because they already don’t get paid from people stealing their books on these pirating sites, but when AI steals them as well it causes authors to lose a lot of money, and AI companies profit off of their works without compensation, credit, or consent. 

According to an Atlantic report, chatGPT new “Book3” data set recently revealed,   “Of the 170,000 titles, roughly one-third are fiction, two-thirds nonfiction. They’re from big and small publishers. To name a few examples, more than 30,000 titles are from Penguin Random House and its imprints, 14,000 from HarperCollins, 7,000 from Macmillan, 1,800 from Oxford University Press, and 600 from Verso. The collection includes fiction and nonfiction by Elena Ferrante and Rachel Cusk. It contains at least nine books by Haruki Murakami, five by Jennifer Egan, seven by Jonathan Franzen, nine by bell hooks, five by David Grann, and 33 by Margaret Atwood, (Reisner).

(5) Now that we have heard some of the things that authors are doing and how AI is compromising writers, let’s look at what this means at a personal level, especially economically and in regards of transparency.

As a society, we need to stand up and understand the real threat that opposes us. These lawsuits highlight a major issue with transparency regarding AI. We have very little knowledge about what they are using to train their AI, and from the little information we do have, our compromises are evident. I mean, we're talking about people's livelihoods here. Artists already struggle to make a living as is, I myself have experienced it when trying to create an art business and it is not doing as well as i thought it would do. Art is subjective, that’s the hard part. But the moment AI takes over, people will start to get their drawings rendered from an AI rather than a real human artist. And that human artist has a family, they breathe air, they have to live somehow, someway. But instead, humanity decides to take the easy route out. And we don’t even realize its repercussions just yet. But every time you utilize AI in creating an art piece or a text prompt, you are lining up money for billion dollar companies rather than that of an artist or a writer who needs money to survive. Additionally, these ‘billion dollar companies of ai’ I am not just making it up numbers speak for themselves; it is estimated by Yahoo finance that openai, the company of chatgpt, is worth over 157 billion dollars. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather support smaller entities that are our neighbours and are in our communities than to just be slaves to the rich. 

(6) Taking all these into consideration, let’s not forget the side effects of using AI and claiming it as your own work. First of all, that’s plagiarism, deceit, and lying, to put it bluntly; just as these companies are. There is a very thin line between transparency with the usage of AI, for both the company and the user. For the company, it’s putting people’s livelihoods at risk, stealing their work to train their models without their permission is complete and utter theft; there is no other word for it. As for the user of AI, it can come across as an insult to other fellow writers or artists who have started at square one from the bottom up, and work their way up through learning new vocabulary, or spending hours on how to draw faces, to say the least. 

The thing about art is you don’t see the blood, the sweat and the tears behind the piece, and most of the time that is what makes the piece of art so great, is the effort put in. But when AI is used, it is effortless and that is the problem. AI art is devoid of the experience that it took to create that piece, and typically it is devoid of such emotion and empathy because it can never comprehend a human’s unique individual experience. So for those who post AI art, and poetry, and claim it as your own, you’re doing yourself a disservice by not actually putting in the work to become what you want to be. 

I’m not saying this as an attack, but I am shedding light on what it is as the situation, and I’m here to give solutions to a problem. I’d recommend starting from scratch, at the bottom of the ladder just like everyone else is. And be observant, be observant of your peers how they write, decipher their styles, become critical of weak points from yourself and of others and research how you can strengthen it. And last but not least practice, carry a journal around with you everywhere, sketch, write down hints and fragments of what people say to combine them into a poem later on

(7) Now that the transparency aspect has been touched on by both the user and ai companies, it’s time to actually devise an actual plan, hence, I will give a proposition. 

Already, actions have already begun to take place since writers feel their work is being unlawfully taken from them without their permission, feeling the rage among their community, writer’s are supporting writers, over 15,000 of them (Authors Guild). In order to gain some kind of retribution, the authors signed an open letter established by the Authors Guild in hopes to help protect their rights and regain some semblance of control.

I propose that this open letter becomes a federal law, and maybe even one day an international one so that AI cannot further compromise writers.  

Now, I would like to touch on the specifics of that. Open letter proposed by authors, Guild and how they should be legalized as a federal law, and one day international law,  in order to protect writers’ rights. On July 18, 2023, The Authors Guild, the prominent organization representing writers in America, established an open letter addressed to artificial intelligence companies such as meta microsoft, openAI and more to establish a list of demands for writers in order to protect their rights. The letter calls for AI companies to be required to provide consent, credit and compensation for authors before AI companies can even think about using author’s work to train their AI models (Authors Guild). 

The letter was signed by 15,000 authors and continues to add. Such as Margaret Atwood, Neil Gaimen, Stephen King, just to name a few that were all victims of AI stealing their works (Resiner).

The letter initially outlines the exploitation that AI is inflicting on writers. A perfect analogy is provided in the Authors Guild letter: "Millions of copyrighted books, articles, essays, and poetry serve as 'food' for AI systems, providing endless meals without any payment, (Authors Guild)" This vividly illustrates that these creations must be compensated for, just like everything else in this world.

It also outlines specific protections that need to become implemented by AI companies in order to help preserve the writing profession.  

1. Obtain permission for the use of our copyrighted materials in your generative AI programs.

2. Compensate writers fairly for the past and ongoing use of our works in your generative AI programs.  

3.  Compensate writers fairly for the use of our works in AI output, whether or whether not the outputs are infringing under current law. 

I would also like to additionally add to that list is  that AI should be legally required to become more TRANSPARENT about what they are training their AI with. Knowing exactly what AI is doing would make it easier to pinpoint whether what AI is using is morally, ethically, and legally acceptable within society.

1. Without the legalization of this letter, AI companies still have the total power and will only get worse over time, further endangering this profession, and other art professions. 

2.  If these ideologies become drafted into a bill and become fully legalized, not only will it be able to protect writers, but the integrity of society as a whole.

It is evident that there are opposing viewpoints from those who are against the authors' filed letters, particularly from the AI companies themselves. Now, I would like to address some of the AI company's points for dismissing these lawsuits, as well as their main arguments against the authors' guild letter.

  III.         AI companies establish  various arguments to dismiss lawsuits and oppose the Authors Guild letters, in order to maintain the integrity of their AI and continue operating as usual. However, changes are necessary in order to preserve this profession.

Meta tends to use a common defense. In order to dismiss the case in the lawsuit filed against them. The defense is known as a fair use. Falling under US copyright law argues that training a model is a quote on quote ‘transformative use of work’, claiming that it does not directly take from the work or reproduce; therefore, it does not infringe on copyright laws (The New Zealand Herald). 

However,  no court would easily ignore the idea of AI illegally copying source materials (Authors Guild). Courts are responsible for upholding copyright laws and protecting content creators' rights. Given the importance of AI technology on intellectual property, any claims of AI engaging in unauthorized copying must be taken seriously. Dismissing such claims without careful consideration would undermine copyright law and set a dangerous standard. Therefore, it's unlikely that any court would dismiss allegations of AI illegally copying source materials without thorough examination.

Furthermore, an Atlantic report reveals that AI companies are already starting to dig their feet in the mud with illegal sources, which could pull them into deeper trouble (Resiner).  The report states, that when openAI was training chatGPT it was nearly estimated to contain over 300,000 titles in the dataset, and it was then deduced that the only websites that had that much material were websites called shadow libraries (Resiner). These were pirated sites such as Z-library and Library Genesis which are an illegal program that uploads ebooks for free for people to read (Creamer). 

With that being said, the argument of “Fair Use” is not  a completely defendable argument when there is already dirt on these AI companies for using illegally sourced material to train their AI, and on top of that not offering compensation, credit, or consent from these authors to use their books that take hard work to make. 

Moreover,  AI companies also argue that providing authors compensation would be expensive (Authors Guild).  However, this notion is somewhat preposterous when OpenAI is worth 175 Billion dollars, (Yahoo Finance).

3.     Overall, with these statistics of these major AI tech companies it shows just how much wealth they have to invest into their own company; and if writers are a part of their company, even unwillingly, they would be able to financially be able to provide writers with proper compensation, it is just a matter of them morally wanting to do so. Which, personally, I feel is unlikely to happen based on the plague of capital greed in this economy; however, they can be held legally accountable to offer compensation. 

(8) With all of this being said, I personally believe that AI should be kept out of the arts completely just to stray away from copyright infringement, and overall the integrity of the writing industry. However, I do realize that I as a single person cannot wave a magic want and wish that to happen. But as someone who does have a vision to at least protect writers as a whole, I propose that the author’s guild letter does become a federal, and maybe even international law on AI, so that we can keep these companies accountable and protect writers so that they don’t run us out of the job. We as a society need to remember that faster does not always mean better, efficient, does not always mean it will increase the quality of life. And we should be focusing on improving the quality of life. The quality of art, so let’s not let these huge companies take over our lives, and cripple us creatives. So keep writing, keep painting, authentically, and creatively. 

Let’s make art live again.

Works Cited

Definition of Artificial Intelligence

https://impact.economist.com/perspectives/sites/default/files/Artificial_intelligence_in_the_real_world_1.pdf

Authors Guild Open Letter to Generative AI Leaders. actionnetwork.org/petitions/authors-guild-open-letter-to-generative-ai-leaders.

Creamer, Ella. “Authors File a Lawsuit Against OpenAI for Unlawfully ‘Ingesting’ Their Books.” The Guardian, 5 July 2023, www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jul/05/authors-file-a-lawsuit-against-openai-for-unlawfully-ingesting-their-books.

Curry. “ChatGPT Revenue and Usage Statistics (2024) - Business of Apps.” Business of Apps, 15 Jan. 2024, www.businessofapps.com/data/chatgpt-statistics.

“George R. R. Martin, Jodi Picoult and other famous writers join Authors Guild in class action lawsuit against OpenAI.” CNN, 21 Sept. 2023, www.cnn.com/2023/09/20/tech/authors-guild-openai-lawsuit/index.html. Accessed 5 May 2024.

Hays, Kali. “Meta Used Copyright to Protect Its AI Model, but Argues Against the Law for Everyone Else.” Business Insider, 28 Feb. 2024, www.businessinsider.com/meta-copyright-protect-ai-model-argues-against-law-everyone-else-2024-1.

Macrotrends. “Meta Platforms Revenue 2010-2023 | META.” Macrotrends, www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/META/meta-platforms/revenue#google_vignette.

Reisner, Alex. “Revealed: the authors whose pirated books are powering generative AI.” The Atlantic, 25 Sept. 2023, www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/08/books3-ai-meta-llama-pirated-books/675063/?gift=GGfLhTs9MEJ8c6YuKw77IeLy3M0-CknGO2HrNCgoffE&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share.

Schaub, Michael. “Authors Sign Open Letter to Tech CEOs About AI.” Kirkus Reviews, www.kirkusreviews.com/news-and-features/articles/authors-sign-open-letter-to-tech-ceos-about-ai.

---. “Report: Meta Used Pirated Books to Train AI Model.” Kirkus Reviews, www.kirkusreviews.com/news-and-features/articles/report-meta-used-pirated-books-to-train-ai-model.

The New Zealand Herald. “You’re spending billions of dollars to develop AI.” The New Zealand Herald, 17 Nov. 2023, login.proxy189.nclive.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/quote1-you-re-spending-billions-dollars-develop/docview/2890360067/se-2?accountid=15152. Accessed 5 May 2024.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/official-openai-worth-157-billion-171936578.html