Using AI is a choice. Disclosing its use isn’t
Creatives need to be clear as to when and how they use AI
“Just because you can doesn’t mean you should.” I’ve often thought this maxim applicable for the tech industry in general but it now seems particularly apt for the thorny question of whether it's OK or not to use AI for creative work.
There seems to be a growing backlash against AI in the creative industry—Adobe’s recent missteps with “skip the photoshoot” and the insensitivity of Apple’s “Crush” ad that we covered here on MBH4H immediately come to mind—but there are also recent articles from Rolling Stone outlining a broader pushback against AI from brands including Dove, and a report in AdAge detailing how brands are now writing restrictions against agencies using AI into their contracts.
I get the distinct feeling that there’s a growing consensus that the use of AI, particularly for imagery, is not only bad but a real and present danger to the careers of many in the creative industry—something clear enough that many brands are creating explicit distance from. And by and large, I increasingly tend to agree: The more I consider the ramifications of AI on the creative industry, the more I see it as a threat rather than a benefit.
This is a change of opinion on my part, even from a few months ago. Going back further to 2022, I was genuinely excited by the prospect of using AI when I first became aware of it. I tend to be an early adopter and a fan of bright and shiny new technology; I love gadgets, even dumb ones. Yes, I am a nerd. So I was fascinated by Dall-E and Midjourney when they first appeared. I had lots of fun making ridiculous images for my Instagram posts and personal essays. I also used them to create component elements for my own art, mostly background shapes or gradients, though using generative tools in this way wasn't as much fun or successful as I first thought; I quickly became frustrated by how much time I wasted trying umpteen prompts that never looked quite right, were low resolution or just looked, to borrow Ross' word, "icky." I found it quicker and better to create the work myself "by hand" using Photoshop or Illustrator, and I now use Midjourney so infrequently that I've already canceled the renewal of my basic plan.
I am happy to use AI, the tool, to help me create something; I am not happy for AI, the robot, to do the work for me.
That doesn’t mean that I no longer use AI. As I have written before, I draw a distinction between using AI as a tool—a plugin to remove background from an image or applying generative fill in Photoshop, not unlike how a chef uses a food processor—and using an AI image generator to create “final” art by typing in a prompt and using whatever image it produces without adjustment.
But this distinction is very much my own opinion and not declarative. The more I go down the rabbit hole of AI and ponder whether or not it is moral for creatives to use it—not only in terms of the legitimate concerns over the number of jobs AI is putting at risk but also with regards the rights of the creatives whose work was used (stolen?) to train the models—the more I have come to realize that the answer is almost entirely subjective.
The choice of whether to use AI at all and to what extent is entirely personal. It is one that all creatives should feel free to make for themselves based on their own ethics policy, and I don’t think anyone has the right to say whether one choice is more valid than the other. But I hope we can all agree that everyone should at least have the right to choose.
Indeed, there are many within the creative community that say that using AI is deeply problematic. Period.
Photographer Jingna Zhang, the founder of Cara, an artist-focused portfolio platform that prohibits any imagery created by AI whatsoever, was recently interviewed by WIRED. When asked whether she saw anything positive in generative AI art tools, she replied, "If they were made with clean data, I might be able to think of ways to use tools to automate some of my own processes. But the problem is, I don't think a little bit of convenience for me is worth the price of many people losing their jobs."
Zhang makes a compelling point. Given the tangible threat this technology already presents to the broader creative industry, I too find myself increasingly uncomfortable justifying the convenience of using AI for my work. But then again, and as I have said before, it also depends: I believe there is a clear distinction between using AI as a tool and using AI as a robot creative in its own right. In other words, I am happy to use AI, the tool, to help me create something; I am not happy for AI, the robot, to do the work for me.
We need to be open about our use of AI. This is not a moral issue; it is an ethical one.
My approach to using AI may be an anathema to many. And that’s OK. Jingna Zhang has gone so far out of her way to avoid using generative AI that she launched an entirely new platform for creatives and gained almost a million users in the process. I applaud her for it. But I also respect other creatives like industrial and transport designer an_improbable_future—who joined Instagram in June 2022 and has already built a following of over 239k—who seem to have fully embraced AI and have found innovative and, dare I say it, incredibly creative ways to use it.
We’re at an inflection point: We need to move beyond the subjective discussion of whether AI is or is not a good thing and accept that the answer is both. Instead, I think it would be more helpful for us to declare how we, as individual creatives, agencies or brands, intend to use it, regardless of whether that be always, sometimes, or never. If you’ll excuse the (very obvious) pun, we need to be Open about AI. This is not a moral issue; it is an ethical one. It’s not important why I or anyone chooses to use or not to use AI; that’s their decision based upon their moral values. But I think it is necessary that I, personally, that we at MBH4H, and the creative industry in general be publicly open about when and how they use AI.
To that end, Ross and I will begin work on our own ethics statement for MBH4H to clearly outline to our audience (and anyone interested) exactly how we will and will not use AI in our work, both visual and written. Our hope is that this can serve as inspiration and as a starting point to help others do the same.
And now for something completely different
Ross here! A couple years ago I had the privilege to work with Jeremy Toeman and his team at Augie Studio (formerly Aug X Labs). It was a brief stint but nonetheless I was impressed by everyone’s talent, their focus on user experience design, and their exploration of AI as an assistive tool—something we’ve talked about before here at MBH4H.
Today, Augie Studio officially launched its flagship platform, which helps users create social video content starting from as little as a rough script or audio narration, generating recommended scene breaks and filling it with pre-licensed content for users to edit and refine all aspects. I’m especially impressed by their focus on making an approachable user interface—a “Canva for AI video creation,” as Venture Beat aptly put it. Congratulations to Jeremy and the whole team on Augie’s commercial launch—you can check out Augie Studio yourself here.