Yes, in an irony that is far from lost on its creator, this illustration was executed by AI.
Sean Bolli of Calgary has been experimenting with AI image generation, using it to create typewriter-themed pulp and comic-book illustrations that he's posted on his Instagram account. The technology is now so much more reliable and impressive than it was even last year. It can create images that concretize nearly anything we can put into words, adding the detail, precision, and aesthetic qualities that most of us are simply unable to create without digital help. Does this debase human effort? Or, with intelligent use, does it enhance our efforts? I wonder what you think.
I myself find Sean's idea here delightful, and I think the AI did an excellent job of realizing it. Using AI to question AI is very much in the spirit of the typewriter insurgency, which (as I interpret my own manifesto) doesn't turn its back on all digital technology, but challenges its supremacy and the assumption that it must be implemented everywhere.
Sean writes:
I have been finding fun in the use of AI as a way to explore imagination and storytelling—transforming ideas into visuals I couldn’t create on my own. While I believe in fair use and shared inspiration, I also believe AI tools must be held to higher ethical standards. Artists deserve transparency, consent, and respect for their work. Creativity should be expansive—but never careless.
In short: I believe in creative freedom—with respect. I support innovation—with responsibility. And I pursue art—whether analog or AI—as an outlet for joy, storytelling, and connection.
This particular piece sort of sums up a bunch of things, the Typewriter Revolution, the emerging 'rebellion' against the digital and a thoughtful look 'back' on what this would have looked like from the past into the future, which is still the past for us today....if that makes sense.
Anyhow remember, like the AI says, 'PROGRESS IS PEACE'
It's easy for anyone to understand why using Stockfish to win a game of chess isn't on. There aren't any valid reasons for it. It's a no-brainer. People get loud and angry about it, whether the person cheating was an amateur or a titled player, and rightly so. Why then, do all the excuses abound in favour of using AI to generate images like this? Is it really so difficult to understand that artists (and all creatives) are being robbed to make this stuff, and artists (and all creatives) are being robbed of their livlihoods by the use of AI? How can anyone with even half a conscience possibly, seriously, excuse it? It's theft. But invisible theft.
ReplyDeletePaying lipservice to the idea that artists should be credited or paid --- some day --- which which artists, how? How much? The price of a coffee? --- doesn't wash.
Martha Lea, typetheclouds. UK based British artist and writer, and amateur chess player.
Thanks for your thoughts, Martha. I see this case as more ambiguous. It gets me thinking about our current situation, which is unsettled and unsettling.
DeleteI don't think the Stockfish analogy holds. Sean isn't deceiving or cheating anyone; he's quite open about his use of AI.
Is generative AI a form of theft? I'd say yes, in its origins and in some of its current uses. The just thing would have been for creators to be given the chance to opt in to being "scraped," and to earn significant ongoing royalties if they did. I doubt this can happen retroactively, but maybe, in some form, there can be some justice. Now, is someone like Sean concretely taking money out of an artist's pocket by using AI to make this image? Arguably not: he would never have paid a professional artist to make such an image in the first place. When ad agencies, for instance, use AI to create an ad instead of hiring human beings, then yes—the creator is suffering. But when the average user chooses AI to make something that simply wouldn't exist otherwise, the situation seems different to me.
There are further issues, such as how much electricity and water it takes to make this image and the billions of others that we are creating. Or how jaded we are all going to become (even more jaded than we already are) when the accoutrements of our culture can be swapped and remodeled in an instant. These are problems that face all of us in this strange world of the 2020s and beyond.
Gosh, are you so far removed from modern pornography that you are not bothered by the misdirection created with the too-clever-by-half design relegating the final "...OG" to unnoticeability?
ReplyDeleteI hadn't noticed that at all until a couple of people on social media pointed it out. Now I can't unsee it. I assume Sean was just as innocent as I! But maybe some double entendre is intended?
DeleteI wasn’t aware of the unintended double entendre until a friend kindly pointed it out — and now, of course, it’s all I can see as well. To my ongoing embarrassment, that particular approach wasn’t intentional, except as the best place to sitck a typewriter spool. I do enjoy a good double meaning, but this one completely escaped me in the moment of release.
DeleteNot cool.
ReplyDeleteI actually saw the swoop of cartoonlike orange Trump Hair before I saw the word split. But hey, as in all art (traditional or AI) - everyone has their take. The AI Genie is out the jar and has left the building. There is no going back or rewriting the rules. We all need to settle in, learn what we can, and live with the outcome. Anyone who owns a smart tv, smartphone, smartwatch, Alexa device etc.has been living with AI for a number of years. So we all have a good start on working with AI's growing capabilities and shouldn't be shocked over the upheaval and changes made over the next decade. Buckle in. :)
ReplyDeleteI agree that the genie can't be stuffed back in the bottle. And it can perform some great tricks ...
DeleteThe people in the Progress is Peace sign remind me of the workers in Metropolis.
ReplyDeleteYes!
Delete