Let’s be real for a second. If you’ve spent any time on ArtStation or Twitter lately, you’ve seen the flood. It’s a relentless, digital tidal wave of hyper-perfect faces, neon-soaked landscapes, and fingers that—honestly—still look like a bundle of uncooked sausages. Everyone is arguing about prompts. Some call it the future. Others call it theft. But the conversation we’re actually avoiding is much simpler: we need to kill AI artist as a serious label because it’s fundamentally hollow, and it’s sucking the oxygen out of the room for people who actually make things.
It isn't about being a Luddite. It’s about value.
When Midjourney or Stable Diffusion spits out an image in twelve seconds, it’s doing a math equation. It’s calculating the statistical likelihood that a pixel of a certain color should sit next to another pixel based on five billion scraped images. That’s cool tech. It’s an amazing toy. But calling the person who typed "gothic castle, 8k, trending on artstation" an artist is like calling someone a chef because they clicked "order" on Uber Eats. We are confusing the act of curation with the act of creation, and that’s a dangerous road to go down if we care about the soul of human expression.
✨ Don't miss: Facebook Marketplace Venmo Scam: Why People Are Still Losing Money
The Copyright Ghost in the Machine
The legal reality is finally catching up to the hype. You’ve probably heard about the lawsuits. Kelly McKernan, Sarah Andersen, and Karla Ortiz didn't just wake up one day and decide to be angry; they saw their life's work being fed into a meat grinder without a "thank you" or a royalty check.
When we talk about why we need to kill AI artist pretensions, we have to talk about the data. Most of these models were trained on the LAION-5B dataset. It’s a massive crawl of the internet that grabbed everything—private medical photos, family snapshots, and, most importantly, copyrighted portfolios. If you’re using a tool that literally wouldn't exist without the uncompensated labor of millions of humans, can you really claim the output is yours? The US Copyright Office has been pretty firm so far: you can’t copyright AI-generated images because there is no "human authorship."
That’s a massive hurdle for anyone trying to turn this into a business. If you can’t own it, you can’t protect it. If you can’t protect it, it has zero market value in the long run.
Why Quality is Actually Dropping
Have you noticed how all AI art is starting to look the same? It’s a phenomenon called "model collapse." Basically, as the internet gets flooded with AI-generated junk, newer versions of these models start training on the output of older models. It’s a digital version of Hapsburg inbreeding. The colors get weirder, the anatomy gets more distorted, and the "soul" of the image—that specific, intentional choice a human makes—disappears.
Human artists make mistakes that look like style. AI makes mistakes that look like glitches.
The Myth of Democratic Art
One of the biggest talking points for AI enthusiasts is that these tools "democratize" art. They say it gives a voice to people who can't draw. That sounds nice, doesn't it? It’s a great sentiment.
But art isn't just about the finished product. It’s about the struggle. It’s about the 4,000 hours you spent failing to draw a hand until you finally understood how the bones move under the skin. When you bypass the process, you bypass the growth. If everyone can generate a masterpiece in seconds, then "masterpieces" become a commodity. They become background noise. They become cheap.
We are essentially devaluing the very thing we claim to love.
By pushing back against the "AI artist" narrative, we aren't saying the tech shouldn't exist. We're saying it needs to be relegated to what it actually is: a reference tool. A mood board generator. A way to brainstorm. It shouldn't be the finish line.
Real World Consequences for Pro Creators
Look at the concept art industry. It’s a bloodbath right now. Entry-level jobs are vanishing because studios think they can just have a senior designer "fix up" AI generations. But here’s the kicker: if you kill the entry-level roles, where do the future senior designers come from? You’re burning the ladder while you’re still standing on the roof.
- Speed over Substance: Studios want it fast, but they’re losing the ability to iterate on specific, narrative-driven ideas that AI can't grasp.
- The Ethical Stain: Major brands like Wizards of the Coast and Ubisoft have faced massive backlash for even hinting at using AI in their final products.
- The Talent Drain: Real-world masters are moving to private platforms or physical media to escape the scrapers.
Moving Past the Prompt
So, what do we actually do? We can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. The tech is here. But we can change how we value it.
First, we need to stop pretending that "prompt engineering" is a skill on par with oil painting or digital sculpting. It’s a technical workaround. Second, we need to support "Human-in-the-Loop" systems where the AI is a tiny part of a much larger, human-driven process.
If we want to save what makes art worth looking at, we need to kill AI artist as a concept and replace it with "AI-assisted technician." It's more honest. It’s more accurate. And frankly, it’s the only way to keep human creativity from being paved over by a giant, soulless parking lot of generated pixels.
How to Protect Your Own Work Right Now
If you're a creator worried about your stuff being used to train the next version of GPT or Midjourney, you aren't helpless. There are tools designed specifically to fight back.
💡 You might also like: Finding the Apple Store Fashion Fair Mall: Why This Fresno Spot Still Matters
- Use Glaze: Developed by researchers at the University of Chicago, this tool adds a "cloak" to your images that is invisible to humans but messes with how AI interprets the style.
- Nightshade: This is the more aggressive cousin of Glaze. It actually "poisons" the training data, making the AI think a dog is a cat or a car is a tree.
- Opt-out Lists: Sites like "Have I Been Trained" allow you to check if your work is in the LAION dataset and request removal, though the effectiveness varies by platform.
- Go Physical: There is a massive resurgence in traditional media—oil, watercolor, charcoal. You can’t scrape a physical canvas easily, and collectors are starting to pay a premium for "provenance"—proof that a human hand actually touched the work.
The future isn't about banning computers. It's about drawing a line in the sand. We need to decide right now if we want a world where art is a conversation between two humans, or just a feedback loop between two servers. Choose the human. Every single time.
Actionable Next Steps for Creators and Consumers
- Verify the Source: Before sharing or buying art online, look for process shots, sketches, or time-lapse videos. Genuine artists are increasingly sharing their "behind the scenes" to prove human authorship.
- Support Ethical Platforms: Use sites like Cara, which was built by artists (including Karla Ortiz) and has built-in protections against AI scraping and a strict "no AI art" policy for its main feed.
- Demand Transparency: If you’re a client hiring a freelancer, include a clause in your contract that explicitly forbids the use of generative AI for final deliverables to ensure you actually own the copyright to what you pay for.
- Learn the Difference: Educate yourself on the visual "tells" of AI—inconsistent lighting, repetitive textures, and nonsensical background details—so you can better curate your own media diet.