About Site

No.

All of the artwork on this site is original, digital artwork produced by the use of a drawing tablet and pen. 

Every written segment is original with no AI inclusion or adjustment as well. 

I do not use AI for any purpose, nor do I plan to for reasons I will address below.                                                                    

I firmly believe that the use of generative AI for commercial purposes is ethically wrong.
I will try to lay out my perspective and reasoning in an organized and succinct way.   

Generative AI, as it is currently, is built on theft. Countless artists, who've spent countless hours creating original works have had their projects taken and used to “train” generative AI systems without thought, consent or compensation. The technology as it is currently leans on this stolen work entirely and would not function without it. It is to the point that, in many cases, generated images will include fictitious “watermarks” or markings clearly meant to mimic signatures from such stolen works. 

Additionally, people may enter prompts using specific artists' names, and the result will most likely mirror the artist's actual creations and potentially include a distorted, mimicked signature of said artist. This feature alone serves as an impactful illustration of the problem. There is no pathway or opportunity available for artists to reclaim their work from these bots, and the vast majority of artists don't have the funds, reach, influence or other form of power to, in any way, impact the course of which these developments are taking. Thus, commercial use of these “tools” has grown tremendously, while the artist community is essentially powerless in terms of having a say. 

To be clear, I'm not opposed to the use of generative AI for personal or private use. 

The problem arises primarily where there is profit. 

There's another argument against the use of generative AI in commercial projects that I often hear from other artists, that being the fact that generative AI is taking jobs from real artists. This is absolutely true as many companies are, unfortunately, opting to layoff their talented, passionate and dedicated creative workers in favor of the cheaper, newer option. This is not only true, but deeply problematic. 

In my opinion, the biggest problem with this development lies in the details I've laid out above in my statement regarding my stance on the subject. That is, that companies are essentially profiting off of stolen work. 

Where my perspective deviates, however, is in the potential and future of AI assistance. Some artists and others believe that AI is inherently problematic, which is very understandable and in some ways truthful. People losing their employment because of the introduction of generative AI into mainstream commercial work is a serious problem and simply should not be happening. That being said, AI as a subject is complicated and multi-faceted, and shouldn't be dismissed outright or entirely. I won't say that I'm alone in my personal perspective, but I don't often see an openness to more creative uses of AI technology in certain settings, which admittedly is to be expected considering current circumstances. 

Basically, I hold the belief that there is a potential for AI technology to be useful to creatives. That is, if there were to be major changes to the model and direction. If artists were to have more of a say, more opportunities to influence the course of such development, there could be assistive technology that would provide greater opportunities to creatives without leeching off of others' original works, or “doing the work for them”. For instance, in digital art programs, there are many tools that optimize artists' workflows without impeding the creative process. AI assistance could, if developed carefully and correctly, potentially boost such optimization without, again, interfering with the actual creative process. 

Consider this parallel. In the field of music, there were originally many limits for individuals wanting to create or play works, which was seen as natural of course. With the digital age's introduction, there came a number of new opportunities and genres... but there were also developments (and some still being developed today) of digital tools. Individuals can now use virtual instruments, make intricate modifications to recordings, use programs and workspaces that were inconceivable in earlier generations. People were fairly suddenly given the opportunity to work with numerous sounds and materials through these programs.... but, the people who benefited the most from these developments were musicians and creatives. People stayed true to their creative spirit, utilized what they needed, streamlined their projects and retained originality regardless of the drastic and vast technological changes. 

I believe the same course can be available to digital artists. Technology and advancements are good for artists when developed with creator individuals as the focus. So, in my opinion, forms of AI assistance have good potential, and I believe it is entirely possible for this form of technology to be produced and tuned in a thoughtful and ethical manner where creatives can benefit and further optimize their workflow. It should not be cast aside outright, despite the discouraging current state and direction.