Visual artists draw from visual references, not words, as they imagine their work. So when language is in the driver’s seat of making art, it erects a barrier between the artist and the canvas.
Robert Mahari, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT); Jessica Fjeld, Harvard Law School, and Ziv Epstein, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Intellectual property law wasn’t written with AI in mind, so it isn’t clear who owns the images that emerge from prompts – or if the artists whose work was scraped to train AI models should be paid.
AI is starting to make us doubt whether humans have a monopoly on creativity. Two scholars argue AI’s use scenarios may be endless but that they require another form of creativity: curation.
Generative AI can seem like magic, which makes it both enticing and frightening. Scholars are helping society come to grips with the potential benefits and harms.
In a world of increasingly convincing AI-generated text, photos and videos, it’s more important than ever to be able to distinguish authentic media from fakes and imitations. The challenge is how.
New technologies are often surrounded by hopeful messages that they will alleviate poverty and bring about positive social change. History shows these assumptions are often misplaced.
During the brainstorming stage of the design process, AI-powered image generation programs can open creative doors that may have otherwise never been accessed.
The technology’s focus on the framing of the artistic task amounts to the fetishization of the creative moment – and devalues the journey that waters the seed of an idea to its fruition.