Art is a form of expression that has been around for centuries. Throughout history, artists have drawn inspiration from their surroundings, other artists, and the world around them. The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) has led to a new era of artistic expression, where machines are creating art that is similar to that created by humans. However, the rise of AI in art has brought up the controversy of whether training on existing artwork without paying artists is ethical. In this article, I want to provide an unmainstream point of view on AI art.

First, AI is indeed inspired by other artists, but humans too, and there is no single piece of artwork that is never inspired by existing things. It is important to understand that AI never creates a single piece of art that is identical to existing works in most cases. Typically, AI-generated art does not produce identical replicas of existing works. Instead, it yields entirely unique pieces, which will continue to evolve and become even more distinctive over time.

In certain edge cases, such as using a highly stylized image and a specific artist's name as a prompt, AI might generate artwork that bears a strong resemblance to pre-existing pieces. However, even in these instances, the generated artwork is never an exact copy. It is important to note that the user's intent plays a significant role in these cases, which transcends the AI's "intention." The user's intention is what ultimately drives the outcome.

Consider a traditional artist using a brush to replicate an existing style. Would one deem the brush itself unethical? The ethical responsibility, in this case, falls on the user, not the tool. AI, like the brush, is an instrument used by people, and it is essential to differentiate between the technology itself and the intentions of those who wield it.

Second, Imagine you hire a person that could learn every style of art from the world and produce any artwork you ask, and that person imitates some famous style but never copies a specific piece of art. He is totally legal and genius, and AI is doing that exactly. AI is not reproducing existing works of art; it is creating something new that is inspired by existing works. If an assistant of artists is allowed to do that, then there is no reason that AI is not allowed to do that.

Just like if a person is inspired by other artists he loves and creates works with their vibe, he doesn't need to pay for these artists. There is no reason to disallow AI training on an existing artist without consent because every brain of human artists is "trained" on existing artists without paying them. People only need to pay for artists when they use exact (or at least produce highly-identical works) existing works. However, it is obvious that even if we use specific text prompts that push the AI to imitate a specific artist's style, it is still possible to produce a totally different theme, composition, and emotion in the style that reminds you of the human artist, which is totally different than the situation when a person needs to pay for the artist.

Third, it is understandable that illustrators and digital artists are anxious and frustrated about being replaced, but the meaning of art is about expression, and that's what only a human can do. AI liberates humans from technique and allows everyone to express their ideas. AI is not a replacement for human artists; it is a tool that can help artists create their art more efficiently. AI is not capable of expressing emotions or ideas in the same way that humans can. It can create art that is technically proficient, but it lacks the emotional depth that comes from human experience.

So, the brutal reality is that no "artist" will be replaced. People who will be replaced are not artists but just skilled workers. From that perspective, not only does AI not kill real art, but also AI is a metric of whether a work is an art.

Looking at art history, when photography first appeared, it didn't end traditional art. Instead, it pushed artists to make art that showed human creativity, going beyond just showing the real world as it is. Nowadays, we understand that just making a realistic portrait without deeper meaning isn't very valuable artistically. In the future, we'll see art that's been replaced in the same way. If an artwork today is really original and expressive, it will stay unique because AI can't create art with real purpose or meaning.

In conclusion, as long as a brush is ethical and an artist who learn from others' style but never produce identical artworks is ethical, AI is ethical. AI will never kill art, and what it will kill is exactly "drawings" that are not art. It is understandable that individuals who have spent years honing their hand-drawing skills might harbor resentment towards AI, as they may feel their expertise has become obsolete. However, they cannot claim a moral high ground in this matter. This elimination signifies the democratization of artistic expression, the advancement of human civilization, and the lowering of barriers to self-expression for the newer generations. It is indeed worth celebrating, as it will encourage humanity to explore and uncover forms of expression that are more uniquely valuable to our human experience.