AI in Creative Spaces
As an artist throughout the years we have experienced an increase of AI or artificial intelligence within artistic platforms. This includes photography, writing, publishing, and in many professional spaces. Having the usage of AI in jobs can harm the credibility of certain fields and the respect that follows.
Many authors have started using AI or ChatGPT and other forms for covers for books and other artistic means. Essentially the authors are dodging paying professional artists since a prompt can now lead to images and mockups of how characters may have appeared in a book. Many people are outraged wanting actual artists to be used and properly compensated for similar work.
Photographers in busy season may rely on AI editing software to edit similar to their style for an entire gallery. It is quick and in some cases a full wedding can be done in an hour or less.
(I do not use these softwares and edit my images 100% on my own.)
I get that there are only so many hours in a day to work and it gets tougher by the day, but with many artist okaying the works of computers to mimic our creative nature, the question still stands. Are we overdoing it with the amount of AI and generative AI in many fields?
ChatGPT is wrong: Most of the time
The overall accuracy of ChatGPT 3.5 was 48-49%, while that of ChatGPT 4 was 65-69%. ChatGPT 3.5 consistently failed to pass the threshold of 50% correct responses. Within a single day, the percent agreement was 76-79% for ChatGPT 3.5 and 87-88% for ChatGPT 4 (Cohen’s Kappa 0.67-0.71 and 0.81-0.84 respectively). The percent agreement between responses from different days was 75-79% for ChatGPT 3.5 and 85-88% for ChatGPT 4 (Cohen’s Kappa 0.65-0.69 and 0.80-0.85 respectively) (Kochanek et. al, 2024).
This evidence proves that while accuracy is close to that of a human, it still lacks inaccurate information and data. But if AI systems can learn, the information we give it can establish similar results from photos to questions being asked. AI also can follow analytics and other methods of charting.
We should look at anything presented to us with a grain of salt. Testing credibility is crucial and no two things are alike. A person can ask google and ChatGPT the same question and receive multiple answers. Both can be right, both can be wrong.
While useful, many people disagree with its usages and question the ethics surrounding the platform.
Ai can't replicate what is real
While AI may get close to what something may look like and stimulate a similar outcome, the software cannot give a 100% real image. If you want to stand out in a job market, get legitimate headshots from a photographer. It's simple and real.
Please don't put a selfie into ChatGPT and expect a picture worthy of helping you gain employment. As much as people don't want to hear this spend on the important things and capture what is real. AI cannot capture photos of your family and memories with others.