Is there a socially responsible generative AI? According to Mitch Randall, CEO of Ascending Art, there could be. Or at least there should be.
The company recently launched a new avatar-generating app that pays royalties to artists for the use of their work, unlike many similar programs.
At a time when generative AI programs like Stable Diffusion and Midjourney have come under heavy criticism for lack of artist compensation and even what some consider plagiarism, Ascendant AI hopes changing the narrative surrounding this new technology by bridging the gap between the art world and technology, providing an alternative where AI is not a competitor but an asset for artists.
“If you’re going to train your AI on the work of artists, then when you make money on what you’ve done, those artists should be reimbursed,” Randall said. Hyperallergic. “Capitalism doesn’t present this as an idea when in fact it is the most obvious idea.”
Currently, users can purchase 100 avatars from Ascendant for $11.99. These realistic graphics take less than half an hour to create and are developed using facial recognition technology combined with generative AI.
A quarter of net profits from sales go to artists whose work was used to train the AI, according to the Ascendant website. These profits are then distributed based on the amount of work used, which is tracked through Ascendant’s proprietary software. For example, if an avatar was created using 48% of Artist A’s work and 52% of Artist B’s work, Artist A would receive 48% of the commission while Artist B would receive 52% .
While this concept may seem foolproof in theory, some artists have expressed concerns online about the reality of its effectiveness, believing that generative AI technology has so far harnessed creative work.
Zakuga Mignon, a digital illustrator whose work has ended up on AI-created book covers, has spoken out in opposition to generative AI art, often adding the #SupportHumanArtists hashtag to many of their posts online. The artist recently took to Twitter to air his views on Ascendant’s proposal.
“The ‘you’ll get paid for your contribution to AI’ system is bullshit,” Mignon said. writing. “First, you can’t follow it, and I don’t want to be forced into it. My art is already in romantic indie covers using AI. I don’t want to be forced into my own oblivion.
In addition to monetary compensation, Ascendant also seeks to tackle two other issues that have been at the center of debate since the rise of AI-powered art: consent and credit. As part of Ascendant Art’s design, artists can choose the work they want to submit and upload it to the company’s site to train the app’s AI program.
Earlier this year, Stability AI and other companies were hit by several lawsuits, including a class action, for infringement of copyright and intellectual property rights for the use of artwork without the consent of the artists to train its generative AI. If these lawsuits are confirmed, the model for some of these programs could be forced to include and prioritize artists – something, Randall explained, that Ascendant is trying to do from the start by being a “source of revenue” for the creatives instead of a threat.
“We contacted a lot of artists, and I tell you right away, the artists are not very happy. Many of them. Because they’ve seen what’s going on, and they’re getting ripped off. All of their livelihoods have been threatened,” he said. “So if I just go to an artist and say, ‘I’m doing AI art,’ the door slams because he doesn’t like the idea of AI art. IA right now. We’re trying to change that.
Randall said Ascendant is working on integrating a feature that will give artists on their platform more recognition and give users more ways to access artists and their work.
“In a way, it’s a gallery,” Randall explained. “It’s a bit different from a gallery because in a gallery you look, and you come away with nothing, and you pay nothing. But in this gallery, you just get a little bit of that artist’s work, and they just get a little royalty. When millions of people do that, it’s not a bad life.
