OwONekko’s Generative AI Stance and How it Harms Artists (art commentary)

Introduction

Recently, I delved into the ongoing debate between traditional art and the infusion of Generative AI in creative fields, inspired by a controversial video from the well-known YouTuber, OoNekko, also known as Nandi. This discussion is particularly relevant as many artists grapple with the implications of AI technology on their work and livelihoods.

Nandi's channel boasts around 350,000 subscribers and focuses primarily on art-related content, including redesigns that resonate with fellow artists. However, her recent video titled "Neko’s AI Playlist for Enlightened Artists" generated a significant amount of backlash due to her uncritical embrace of AI-generated music.

In her original video, she presented a playlist created using an AI music generator called Sunno. While meant to be light-hearted, Nandi's decision to use AI for creative output drew criticism, especially considering the ethical implications of using AI to create art. Critics, including some larger creators, pointed out that using generative AI to create music is comparable to using it to produce images—the ethics of art theft and exploitation remain unchanged.

Nandi's response video, aptly titled "Don't Let Anyone Punk You Out of Being Yourself: The Real AI Issue," provided a platform for her to defend her stance. Her primary argument circulated around the idea that using AI offers fun and entertainment, asserting that it's a harmless tool for personal expression. However, such reasoning misses the greater ethical concerns surrounding the use of AI in creative processes, many of which revolve around exploitation and ownership of artistic work.

Throughout her video, she emphasizes that, despite the existence of bad actors, the potential for AI to fuel enjoyable and memorable experiences takes precedence. In doing so, Nandi inadvertently trivializes the worries many artists share—concerns about their work being used without consent to train AI systems that may one day replace them.

Nandi's comments also revealed contradictions in her stance, particularly when she acknowledged that stealing art is unacceptable, yet maintained there are benign ways to enjoy AI creations. She failed to address the significant issue of artists discovering their work being utilized in AI training models without permission, which many see as a form of theft.

A few notable cases highlight this dangerous trend: artists have found their creations incorporated into companies’ AI training datasets without their consent. For instance, Adobe faced backlash when artists discovered their work was included without any prior notification or approval. Similarly, individuals from the YouTube community have raised concerns about their videos being used to train AI models, often under vague terms and conditions established by the platforms.

While Nandi's response to criticism involved asserting her right to use AI as a tool, this argument lacked specificity and often trailed into irrelevant tangents that did not add depth to the ongoing discussion. Furthermore, she demonstrated a concerning tendency to censor opposing viewpoints by deleting critical comments on her videos, a move that goes against the very ethos of healthy discourse in creative communities.

Moreover, her reactions on social media, including a now-deleted tweet referencing her critics in a dismissive manner, indicate that rather than fostering open dialogue, she opts instead for deflection and emotional responses to valid criticisms. This behavior raises questions about her respect towards fans and audience members who look up to her, especially since many people were offering constructive criticism.

Compounding this issue is Nandi's misgendering of a prominent creator who commented on her video, further showcasing a troubling pattern of dismissiveness towards valid dissent. As artists face constant pressures from the integration of AI in the creative process, it is crucial to engage responsibly and ethically within this dialogue—something that is sorely lacking in Nandi's approach.

In conclusion, while one can appreciate Nandi's artistry and perspective on the use of AI as a fun tool, there are undeniable consequences to embracing this technology without a critical lens. The potential for AI to disrupt traditional art forms, alongside the ethical dilemmas surrounding ownership and consent, must be carefully examined. As for myself, I stand firmly against something that could put the future of artists and the creative community at stake.

Keyword

Generative AI, OoNekko, Nandi, art theft, ethical implications, artistic integrity, censorship, AI training models, artist exploitation, YouTube community.

FAQ

What is the main issue with Generative AI in art?

The primary concern revolves around the potential for AI to use artists' work without consent, effectively undermining the value and integrity of traditional art forms.

How did Nandi respond to criticism about her AI stance?

Nandi defended her position on using AI as a tool for fun and personal expression, but faced backlash for not adequately addressing the ethical implications raised by critics.

Why are artists worried about AI art generation?

Many artists fear that AI can potentially replace their work, exploit their existing creations, and dilute the authenticity of the creative process.

Did Nandi engage with her critics openly?

Nandi has been criticized for deleting negative comments and showing dismissive behavior towards constructive feedback, raising concerns about her willingness to engage in open discussion.

What are some examples of companies using artists' work without consent?

Adobe and Google have faced scrutiny for integrating copyrighted material from various creators into their AI training datasets without explicit permission.