Misplaced Pages

Artificial intelligence art is visual artwork created or enhanced through the use of artificial intelligence (AI) programs.

Artists began to create artificial intelligence art in the mid to late 20th century when the discipline was founded. Throughout its history, artificial intelligence art has raised many philosophical concerns related to the human mind, artificial beings, and what can be considered art in a human–AI collaboration. Since the 20th century, artists have used AI to create art, some of which has been exhibited in museums and won awards.

During the AI boom of the early 2020s, text-to-image models such as Midjourney, DALL-E, Stable Diffusion, and FLUX.1 became widely available to the public, allowing non-artists to quickly generate imagery with little effort. Commentary about AI art in the 2020s has often focused on issues related to copyright, deception, defamation, and its impact on more traditional artists, including technological unemployment.

History

Early history

The concept of automated art dates back at least to the automata of ancient Greek civilization, where inventors such as Daedalus and Hero of Alexandria were described as having designed machines capable of writing text, generating sounds, and playing music. Early experiments were driven by the idea that computers, beyond performing logical operations, could generate aesthetically pleasing works, offering a new dimension to creativity.The tradition of creative automatons has flourished throughout history, such as Maillardet's automaton, created around 1800 and capable of creating multiple drawings and poems stored in its "cams," the brass disks that hold memory.

Along with this, Ada Lovelace, typically known for her work on the analytical engine, in her notes, begins to conceptualize the idea "computing operations" could be used to generate music and poems. This concept resulted in what is now referred to as "The Lovelace Effect," which gives a concrete set of tools to analyze situations where a computer's behavior is viewed by users as creative. However, Lovelace also discusses a concept in her notes that is known as "The Lovelace Objection," where she argues that machines have "no pretensions whatever to originate anything," which is a direct contradiction to the idea of artificial intelligence and creative machines.

In 1950, with the publication of Alan Turing's paper Computing Machinery and Intelligence, there was a shift from defining intelligence in regards to machines in abstract terms to evaluating whether a machine can mimic human behavior and responses convincingly. Shortly after, the academic discipline of artificial intelligence was founded at a research workshop at Dartmouth College in 1956 and has experienced several waves of advancement and optimism in the decades since. Since its founding, researchers in the field have raised philosophical and ethical arguments about the nature of the human mind and the consequences of creating artificial beings with human-like intelligence; these issues have previously been explored by myth, fiction, and philosophy since antiquity.

1950s to 2000s: Early implementations

Since the founding of AI in the 1950s, artists and researchers have used artificial intelligence to create artistic works. These works were sometimes referred to as algorithmic art, computer art, digital art, or New media art.

One of the first significant AI art systems is AARON, developed by Harold Cohen beginning in the late 1960s at the University of California at San Diego. AARON uses a symbolic rule-based approach to generate technical images in the era of GOFAI programming, and it was developed by Cohen with the goal of being able to code the act of drawing. In its earliest form, AARON created abstract black-and-white drawings which would later be finished by Cohen painting them. Throughout the years, he also began to develop a way for AARON to paint as well, using special brushes and dyes that were chosen by the program itself without mediation from Cohen. After years of work, AARON was exhibited in 1972 at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. From 1973 to 1975, Cohen refined AARON during a residency at the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at Stanford University. In 2024, the Whitney Museum of American Art exhibited AI art from throughout Cohen's career, including re-created versions of his early robotic drawing machines.

Karl Sims has exhibited art created with artificial life since the 1980s. He received an M.S. in computer graphics from the MIT Media Lab in 1987 and was artist-in-residence from 1990 to 1996 at the supercomputer manufacturer and artificial intelligence company Thinking Machines. In both 1991 and 1992, Sims won the Golden Nica award at Prix Ars Electronica for his 3D AI animated videos using artificial evolution. In 1997, Sims created the interactive installation Galápagos for the NTT InterCommunication Center in Tokyo. In this installation, viewers help evolve 3D animated creatures by selecting which ones will be allowed to live and produce new, mutated offspring. Furthermore, Sims received an Emmy Award in 2019 for outstanding achievement in engineering development.

Eric Millikin has been creating animated films using artificial intelligence since the 1980s, and began posting art on the internet using CompuServe in the early 1980s.

In 1999, Scott Draves and a team of several engineers created and released Electric Sheep as a free software screensaver. Electric Sheep is a volunteer computing project for animating and evolving fractal flames, which are in turn distributed to the networked computers, which display them as a screensaver. The screensaver used AI to create an infinite animation by learning from its audience. In 2001, Draves won the Fundacion Telefónica Life 4.0 prize for Electric Sheep.

2010s: Deep learning

Deep learning, characterized by its multi-layer structure that attempts to mimic the human brain, first came about in the 2010s and causing a significant shift in the world of AI art. During the deep learning era, there are mainly these types of designs for generative art: autoregressive models, diffusion models, GANs, normalizing flows.

In 2014, Ian Goodfellow and colleagues at Université de Montréal developed the generative adversarial network (GAN), a type of deep neural network capable of learning to mimic the statistical distribution of input data such as images. The GAN uses a "generator" to create new images and a "discriminator" to decide which created images are considered successful. Unlike previous algorithmic art that followed hand-coded rules, generative adversarial networks could learn a specific aesthetic by analyzing a dataset of example images.

In 2015, a team at Google released DeepDream, a program that uses a convolutional neural network to find and enhance patterns in images via algorithmic pareidolia. The process creates deliberately over-processed images with a dream-like appearance reminiscent of a psychedelic experience.

Later, in 2017, a conditional GAN learned to generate 1000 image classes of ImageNet, a large visual database designed for use in visual object recognition software research. By conditioning the GAN on both random noise and a specific class label, this approach enhanced the quality of image synthesis for class-conditional models.

Autoregressive models were used for image generation, such as PixelRNN (2016), which autoregressively generates one pixel after another with a recurrent neural network. Immediately after the Transformer architecture was proposed in Attention Is All You Need (2018), it was used for autoregressive generation of images, but without text conditioning.

In 2018, an auction sale of artificial intelligence art was held at Christie's in New York where the AI artwork Edmond de Belamy (a pun on Goodfellow's name) sold for US$432,500, which was almost 45 times higher than its estimate of US$7,000–10,000. The artwork was created by Obvious, a Paris-based collective. Furthermore, the website Artbreeder, launched in 2018, uses the models StyleGAN and BigGAN to allow users to generate and modify images such as faces, landscapes, and paintings.

In 2019, Stephanie Dinkins won the Creative Capital award for her creation of an evolving artificial intelligence based on the "interests and culture(s) of people of color." Also in 2019, Sougwen Chung won the Lumen Prize for her performances with a robotic arm that uses AI to attempt to draw in a manner similar to Chung.

2020s: Text-to-image and diffusion models

In the 2020s, text-to-image models, which generate images based on prompts, became widely used, marking yet another shift in the creation of AI generated artworks.

In 2021, using the influential large language generative pre-trained transformer models that are used in GPT-2 and GPT-3, OpenAI released a series of images created with the text-to-image AI model DALL-E 1. It was an autoregressive generative model with essentially the same architecture as GPT-3. Along with this, later in 2021, EleutherAI released the open source VQGAN-CLIP based on OpenAI's CLIP model.

Diffusion models, generative models used to create synthetic data based on existing data, were first proposed in 2015, but they only became better than GANs in early 2021. Latent diffusion model was published in December 2021 and became the basis for the later Stable Diffusion (August 2022).

In 2022, Midjourney was released, followed by Google Brain's Imagen and Parti, which were announced in May 2022, Microsoft's NUWA-Infinity, and the source-available Stable Diffusion, which was released in August 2022. DALL-E 2, a successor to DALL-E, was beta-tested and released. Stability AI has a Stable Diffusion web interface called DreamStudio, plugins for Krita, Photoshop, Blender, and GIMP, and the Automatic1111 web-based open source user interface. Stable Diffusion's main pre-trained model is shared on the Hugging Face Hub.

In 2023, Eric Millikin released The Dance of the Nain Rouge, a documentary film created using AI deepfake technology about the Detroit folklore legend of the Nain Rouge. The film is described as "an experimental decolonial Detroit demonology deepfake dream dance documentary." It was awarded the "Best Innovative Technologies Award" ("Premio Migliori Tecnologie Innovative") at the 2024 Pisa Robot Film Festival in Italy and "Best Animation Film" at the 2024 Absurd Film Festival in Italy. Ideogram was released in August 2023, this model is known for its ability to generate legible text.

In 2024, Flux was released, this model can generate realistic images with consistent results and was integrated into Grok, the chatbot used on X (formerly Twitter), and Le Chat, the chatbot of Mistral AI. Flux was developed by Black Forest Labs, founded by the researchers behind Stable Diffusion. Grok later switched to its own text-to-image model Aurora in December 2024.

Along with this, some examples of text-to-video model models of the mid-2020s are Runway's Gen-2, Google's VideoPoet, and OpenAI's Sora (unreleased as of October 2024).

Tools and processes

Imagery

There are many tools available to the artist when working with diffusion models. They can define both positive and negative prompts, but they are also afforded a choice in using (or omitting the use of) VAEs, LorAs, hypernetworks, ipadapter, and embeddings/textual inversions. Variables, including CFG, seed, steps, sampler, scheduler, denoise, upscaler, and encoder, are sometimes available for adjustment. Additional influence can be exerted during pre-inference by means of noise manipulation, while traditional post-processing techniques are frequently used post-inference. Artists can also train their own models.

In addition, procedural "rule-based" generation of images using mathematical patterns, algorithms that simulate brush strokes and other painted effects, and deep learning algorithms such as generative adversarial networks (GANs) and transformers have been developed. Several companies have released apps and websites that allow one to forego all the options mentioned entirely while solely focusing on the positive prompt. There also exist programs which transform photos into art-like images in the style of well-known sets of paintings.

There are many options, ranging from simple consumer-facing mobile apps to Jupyter notebooks and webUIs that require powerful GPUs to run effectively. Additional functionalities include "textual inversion," which refers to enabling the use of user-provided concepts (like an object or a style) learned from a few images. Novel art can then be generated from the associated word(s) (the text that has been assigned to the learned, often abstract, concept) and model extensions or fine-tuning (such as DreamBooth).

Impact and applications

AI has the potential for a societal transformation, which may include enabling the expansion of noncommercial niche genres (such as cyberpunk derivatives like solarpunk) by amateurs, novel entertainment, fast prototyping, increasing art-making accessibility, and artistic output per effort and/or expenses and/or time—e.g., via generating drafts, draft-refinitions, and image components (inpainting). Generated images are sometimes used as sketches, low-cost experiments, inspiration, or illustrations of proof-of-concept-stage ideas. Additional functionalities or improvements may also relate to post-generation manual editing (i.e., polishing), such as subsequent tweaking with an image editor.

Prompt engineering and sharing

Prompts for some text-to-image models can also include images and keywords and configurable parameters, such as artistic style, which is often used via keyphrases like "in the style of " in the prompt and/or selection of a broad aesthetic/art style. There are platforms for sharing, trading, searching, forking/refining, and/or collaborating on prompts for generating specific imagery from image generators. Prompts are often shared along with images on image-sharing websites such as Reddit and AI art-dedicated websites. A prompt is not the complete input needed for the generation of an image; additional inputs that determine the generated image include the output resolution, random seed, and random sampling parameters.

Related terminology

Synthetic media, which includes AI art, was described in 2022 as a major technology-driven trend that will affect business in the coming years. Synthography is a proposed term for the practice of generating images that are similar to photographs using AI.

Impact

Bias

A major concern raised about AI-generated images and art is sampling bias within model training data leading towards discriminatory output from AI art models. In 2023, University of Washington researchers found evidence of racial bias within the Stable Diffusion model, with images of a "person" corresponding most frequently with images of males from Europe or North America.

Looking more into the sampling bias found within AI training data, in 2017, researchers at Princeton University used AI software to link over 2 million words, finding that European names were viewed as more "pleasant" than African-Americans names, and that the words "woman" and "girl" were more likely to be associated with the arts instead of science and math, "which were most likely connected to males." Generative AI models typically work based on user-entered word-based prompts, especially in the case of diffusion models, and this word-related bias may lead to biased results.

Along with this, generative AI can perpetuate harmful stereotypes regarding women. For example, Lensa, an AI app that trended on TikTok in 2023, was known to lighten black skin, make users thinner, and generate hypersexualized images of women. Melissa Heikkilä, a senior reporter at MIT Technology Review, shared the findings of an experiment using Lensa, noting that the generated avatars did not resemble her and often depicted her in a hypersexualized manner. Experts suggest that such outcomes can result from biases in the datasets used to train AI models, which can sometimes contain imbalanced representations, including hypersexual or nude imagery.

In 2024, Google's chatbot Gemini's AI image generator was criticized for perceived racial bias, with claims that Gemini deliberately underrepresented white people in its results. Users reported that it generated images of white historical figures like the Founding Fathers, Nazi soldiers, and Vikings as other races, and that it refused to process prompts such as "happy white people" and "ideal nuclear family". Google later apologized for "missing the mark" and took Gemini's image generator offline for updates. This prompted discussions about the ethical implications of representing historical figures through a contemporary lens, leading critics to argue that these outputs could mislead audiences regarding actual historical contexts.

Copyright

Legal scholars, artists, and media corporations have considered the legal and ethical implications of artificial intelligence art since the 20th century. Some artists use AI art to critique and explore the ethics of using gathered data to produce new artwork.

In 1985, intellectual property law professor Pamela Samuelson argued that US copyright should allocate algorithmically generated artworks to the user of the computer program. A 2019 Florida Law Review article presented three perspectives on the issue. In the first, artificial intelligence itself would become the copyright owner; to do this, Section 101 of the US Copyright Act would need to be amended to define "author" as a computer. In the second, following Samuelson's argument, the user, programmer, or artificial intelligence company would be the copyright owner. This would be an expansion of the "work for hire" doctrine, under which ownership of a copyright is transferred to the "employer." In the third situation, copyright assignments would never take place, and such works would be in the public domain, as copyright assignments require an act of authorship.

In 2022, coinciding with the rising availability of consumer-grade AI image generation services, popular discussion renewed over the legality and ethics of AI-generated art. A particular topic is the inclusion of copyrighted artwork and images in AI training datasets, with artists objecting to commercial AI products using their works without consent, credit, or financial compensation. In September 2022, Reema Selhi, of the Design and Artists Copyright Society, stated that "there are no safeguards for artists to be able to identify works in databases that are being used and opt out." Some have claimed that images generated with these models can bear resemblance to extant artwork, sometimes including the remains of the original artist's signature. In December 2022, users of the portfolio platform ArtStation staged an online protest against non-consensual use of their artwork within datasets; this resulted in opt-out services, such as "Have I Been Trained?" increasing in profile, as well as some online art platforms promising to offer their own opt-out options. According to the US Copyright Office, artificial intelligence programs are unable to hold copyright, a decision upheld at the Federal District level as of August 2023 followed the reasoning from the monkey selfie copyright dispute.

OpenAI, the developer of DALL-E, has its own policy on who owns generated art. They assign the right and title of a generated image to the creator, meaning the user who inputted the prompt owns the image generated, along with the right to sell, reprint, and merchandise it.

In January 2023, three artists—Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz—filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt, claiming that it is legally required to obtain the consent of artists before training neural nets on their work and that these companies infringed on the rights of millions of artists by doing so on five billion images scraped from the web. In July 2023, U.S. District Judge William Orrick was inclined to dismiss most of the lawsuits filed by Andersen, McKernan, and Ortiz, but allowed them to file a new complaint. Also in 2023, Stability AI was sued by Getty Images for using its images in the training data. A tool built by Simon Willison allowed people to search 0.5% of the training data for Stable Diffusion V1.1, i.e., 12 million of the 2.3 billion instances from LAION 2B. Artist Karen Hallion discovered that her copyrighted images were used as training data without their consent.

In March 2024, Tennessee enacted the ELVIS Act, which prohibits the use of AI to mimic a musician's voice without permission. A month later in that year, Adam Schiff introduced the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act which, if passed, would require that AI companies to submit copyrighted works in their datasets to the Register of Copyrights before releasing new generative AI systems.

Deception

As with other types of photo manipulation since the early 19th century, some people in the early 21st century have been concerned that AI could be used to create content that is misleading and can be made to damage a person's reputation, such as deepfakes. Artist Sarah Andersen, who previously had her art copied and edited to depict Neo-Nazi beliefs, stated that the spread of hate speech online can be worsened by the use of image generators. Some also generate images or videos for the purpose of catfishing.

AI systems have the ability to create deepfake content, which is often viewed as harmful and offensive. The creation of deepfakes poses a risk to individuals who have not consented to it. This mainly refers to deepfake pornography which is used as revenge porn, where sexually explicit material is disseminated to humiliate or harm another person. AI-generated child pornography has been deemed a potential danger to society due to its unlawful nature.

To mitigate some deceptions, OpenAI developed a tool in 2024 to detect images that were generated by DALL-E 3. In testing, this tool accurately identified DALL-E 3-generated images approximately 98% of the time. The tool is also fairly capable of recognizing images that have been visually modified by users post-generation.

• Pseudomnesia: The Electrician won Boris Eldagsen one of the categories in the Sony World Photography Awards competition.
• A 2023 AI-generated image of Pope Francis wearing a puffy winter jacket fooled some viewers into believing it was an actual photograph. It went viral on social media platforms.
• Journalist Eliot Higgins' Midjourney-generated image depicts former President Donald Trump getting arrested. The image was posted on Twitter and went viral.
• One of the seven AI-generated images that were used for figures in the now-retracted paper Cellular functions of spermatogonial stem cells in relation to JAK/STAT signaling pathway. Figure 1, "Spermatogonial stem cells, isolated, purified and cultured from rat testes".

After winning the 2023 "Creative" "Open competition" Sony World Photography Awards, Boris Eldagsen stated that his entry was actually created with artificial intelligence. Photographer Feroz Khan commented to the BBC that Eldagsen had "clearly shown that even experienced photographers and art experts can be fooled". Smaller contests have been affected as well; in 2023, a contest run by author Mark Lawrence as Self-Published Fantasy Blog-Off was cancelled after the winning entry was allegedly exposed to be a collage of images generated with Midjourney.

In May 2023, on social media sites such as Reddit and Twitter, attention was given to a Midjourney-generated image of Pope Francis wearing a white puffer coat. Additionally, an AI-generated image of an attack on the Pentagon went viral as part of a hoax news story on Twitter.

In the days before March 2023 indictment of Donald Trump as part of the Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal, several AI-generated images allegedly depicting Trump's arrest went viral online. On March 20, British journalist Eliot Higgins generated various images of Donald Trump being arrested or imprisoned using Midjourney v5 and posted them on Twitter; two images of Trump struggling against arresting officers went viral under the mistaken impression that they were genuine, accruing more than 5 million views in three days. According to Higgins, the images were not meant to mislead, but he was banned from using Midjourney services as a result. As of April 2024, the tweet had garnered more than 6.8 million views.

In February 2024, the paper Cellular functions of spermatogonial stem cells in relation to JAK/STAT signaling pathway was published using AI-generated images. It was later retracted from Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology because the paper "does not meet the standards".

Income and employment stability

As generative AI image software such as Stable Diffusion and DALL-E continue to advance, the potential problems and concerns that these systems pose for creativity and artistry have risen. In 2022, artists working in various media raised concerns about the impact that generative artificial intelligence could have on their ability to earn money, particularly if AI-based images started replacing artists working in the illustration and design industries. In August 2022, digital artist R. J. Palmer stated that "I could easily envision a scenario where using AI, a single artist or art director could take the place of 5-10 entry level artists... I have seen a lot of self-published authors and such say how great it will be that they don’t have to hire an artist." Scholars Jiang et al. state that "Leaders of companies like Open AI and Stability AI have openly stated that they expect generative AI systems to replace creatives imminently." A 2022 case study found that AI-produced images created by technology like DALL-E caused some traditional artists to be concerned about losing work, while others use it to their advantage and view it as a tool.

AI-based images have become more commonplace in art markets and search engines because AI-based text-to-image systems are trained from pre-existing artistic images, sometimes without the original artist's consent, allowing the software to mimic specific artists' styles. For example, Polish digital artist Greg Rutkowski has stated that it is more difficult to search for his work online because many of the images in the results are AI-generated specifically to mimic his style. Furthermore, some training databases on which AI systems are based are not accessible to the public.

The ability of AI-based art software to mimic or forge artistic style also raises concerns of malice or greed. Works of AI-generated art, such as Théâtre D'opéra Spatial, a text-to-image AI illustration that won the grand prize in the August 2022 digital art competition at the Colorado State Fair, have begun to overwhelm art contests and other submission forums meant for small artists. The Netflix short film The Dog & the Boy, released in January 2023, received backlash online for its use of artificial intelligence art to create the film's background artwork. Within the same vein, Disney released Secret Invasion, a Marvel TV show with an AI-generated intro, on Disney+ in 2023, causing concern and backlash regarding the idea that artists could be made obsolete by machine-learning tools.

AI art has sometimes been deemed to be able to replace traditional stock images. In 2023, Shutterstock announced a beta test of an AI tool that can regenerate partial content of other Shutterstock's images. Getty Images and Nvidia have partnered with the launch of Generative AI by iStock, a model trained on Getty's library and iStock's photo library using Nvidia's Picasso model.

Power usage

Researchers from Hugging Face and Carnegie Mellon University reported in a 2023 paper that generating one thousand 1024×1024 images using Stable Diffusion's XL 1.0 base model requires 11.49 kWh of energy and generates 1,594 grams (56.2 oz) of carbon dioxide, which is roughly equivalent to driving an average gas-powered car a distance of 4.1 miles (6.6 km). Comparing 88 different models, the paper concluded that image-generation models used on average around 2.9 kWh of energy per 1,000 inferences.

Analysis of existing art using AI

In addition to the creation of original art, research methods that use AI have been generated to quantitatively analyze digital art collections. This has been made possible due to the large-scale digitization of artwork in the past few decades. According to CETINIC and SHE (2022), using artificial intelligence to analyze already-existing art collections can provide new perspectives on the development of artistic styles and the identification of artistic influences.

Two computational methods, close reading and distant viewing, are the typical approaches used to analyze digitized art. Close reading focuses on specific visual aspects of one piece. Some tasks performed by machines in close reading methods include computational artist authentication and analysis of brushstrokes or texture properties. In contrast, through distant viewing methods, the similarity across an entire collection for a specific feature can be statistically visualized. Common tasks relating to this method include automatic classification, object detection, multimodal tasks, knowledge discovery in art history, and computational aesthetics. Synthetic images can also be used to train AI algorithms for art authentication and to detect forgeries.

Researchers have also introduced models that predict emotional responses to art. One such model is ArtEmis, a large-scale dataset paired with machine learning models. ArtEmis includes emotional annotations from over 6,500 participants along with textual explanations. By analyzing both visual inputs and the accompanying text descriptions from this dataset, ArtEmis enables the generation of nuanced emotional predictions.

Other forms of art

AI has also been used in arts outside of visual arts. Generative AI has been used in video game production beyond imagery, especially for level design (e.g., for custom maps) and creating new content (e.g., quests or dialogue) or interactive stories in video games. AI has also been used in the literary arts, such as helping with writer's block, inspiration, or rewriting segments. In the culinary arts, some prototype cooking robots can dynamically taste, which can assist chefs in analyzing the content and flavor of dishes during the cooking process.

See also

• Algorithmic art
• Applications of artificial intelligence § Art
• Artificial intelligence and elections – Use and impact of AI on political elections
• Artificial intelligence in architecture
• Computational creativity
• Cybernetic art
• Generative art
• List of artificial intelligence artists
• Music and artificial intelligence
• Neural style transfer
• Synthetic media

References

1. Todorovic, Milos (2024). "AI and Heritage: A Discussion on Rethinking Heritage in a Digital World". International Journal of Cultural and Social Studies. 10 (1): 1–11. doi:10.46442/intjcss.1397403. Retrieved 4 July 2024.
2. ^ Vincent, James (24 May 2022). "All these images were generated with Google's latest text-to-image AI". The Verge. Vox Media. Retrieved 28 May 2022.
3. ^ Edwards, Benj (2 August 2024). "FLUX: This new AI image generator is eerily good at creating human hands". Ars Technica. Retrieved 17 November 2024.
4. Noel Sharkey (4 July 2007), A programmable robot from 60 AD, vol. 2611, New Scientist, archived from the original on 13 January 2018, retrieved 22 October 2019
5. Brett, Gerard (July 1954), "The Automata in the Byzantine "Throne of Solomon"", Speculum, 29 (3): 477–487, doi:10.2307/2846790, ISSN 0038-7134, JSTOR 2846790, S2CID 163031682.
6. kelinich (8 March 2014). "Maillardet's Automaton". The Franklin Institute. Retrieved 24 August 2023.
7. Natale, S., & Henrickson, L. (2022). The Lovelace Effect: Perceptions of Creativity in Machines. White Rose Research Online. Retrieved September 24, 2024, from https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/182906/6/NMS-20-1531.R2_Proof_hi%20%282%29.pdf
8. Lovelace, A. (1843). Notes by the translator. Taylor’s Scientific Memoirs, 3, 666-731.
9. Turing, Alan (October 1950). "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" (PDF). Retrieved 16 September 2024.
10. Crevier, Daniel (1993). AI: The Tumultuous Search for Artificial Intelligence. New York, NY: BasicBooks. p. 109. ISBN 0-465-02997-3.
11. Newquist, HP (1994). The Brain Makers: Genius, Ego, And Greed In The Quest For Machines That Think. New York: Macmillan/SAMS. pp. 45–53. ISBN 978-0-672-30412-5.
12. ^ Elgammal, Ahmed (2019). "AI Is Blurring the Definition of Artist". American Scientist. 107 (1): 18. doi:10.1511/2019.107.1.18. ISSN 0003-0996. S2CID 125379532.
13. Greenfield, Gary (3 April 2015). "When the machine made art: the troubled history of computer art, by Grant D. Taylor". Journal of Mathematics and the Arts. 9 (1–2): 44–47. doi:10.1080/17513472.2015.1009865. ISSN 1751-3472. S2CID 118762731.
14. McCorduck, Pamela (1991). AARONS's Code: Meta-Art. Artificial Intelligence, and the Work of Harold Cohen. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. p. 210. ISBN 0-7167-2173-2.
15. Poltronieri, Fabrizio Augusto; Hänska, Max (23 October 2019). "Technical Images and Visual Art in the Era of Artificial Intelligence". Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Digital and Interactive Arts. Braga Portugal: ACM. pp. 1–8. doi:10.1145/3359852.3359865. ISBN 978-1-4503-7250-3. S2CID 208109113.
16. "Fine art print - crypto art". Kate Vass Galerie. Retrieved 7 May 2022.
17. "HAROLD COHEN (1928–2016)". Art Forum. 9 May 2016. Retrieved 19 September 2023.
18. ^ Diehl, Travis (15 February 2024). "A.I. Art That's More Than a Gimmick? Meet AARON". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 1 June 2024.
19. "Karl Sims - ACM SIGGRAPH HISTORY ARCHIVES". history.siggraph.org. 20 August 2017. Retrieved 9 June 2024.
20. "Karl Sims | CSAIL Alliances". cap.csail.mit.edu. Retrieved 9 June 2024.
21. "Karl Sims". www.macfound.org. Retrieved 9 June 2024.
22. "Golden Nicas". Ars Electronica Center. Archived from the original on 26 February 2023. Retrieved 26 February 2023.
23. "Panspermia by Karl Sims, 1990". www.karlsims.com. Retrieved 26 February 2023.
24. "Liquid Selves by Karl Sims, 1992". www.karlsims.com. Retrieved 26 February 2023.
25. "ICC | "Galápagos" - Karl SIMS (1997)". NTT InterCommunication Center . Retrieved 14 June 2024.
26. "- Winners". Television Academy. Retrieved 26 June 2022.
27. Baetens, Melody (25 October 2023). "Things to do this Halloween weekend in Metro Detroit". The Detroit News.
28. Angelo, Delos Trinos (26 October 2023). "10 Greatest Innovations In Comics History". Comic Book Resources. Retrieved 1 November 2023.
29. Draves, Scott (2005). "The Electric Sheep Screen-Saver: A Case Study in Aesthetic Evolution". In Rothlauf, Franz; Branke, Jürgen; Cagnoni, Stefano; Corne, David Wolfe; Drechsler, Rolf; Jin, Yaochu; Machado, Penousal; Marchiori, Elena; Romero, Juan (eds.). Applications of Evolutionary Computing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 3449. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. pp. 458–467. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-32003-6_46. ISBN 978-3-540-32003-6. S2CID 14256872.
30. "Entrevista Scott Draves - Primer Premio Ex-Aequo VIDA 4.0". YouTube. 17 July 2012. Retrieved 26 February 2023.
31. "What Is Deep Learning? | IBM". www.ibm.com. 17 June 2024. Retrieved 13 November 2024.
32. Goodfellow, Ian; Pouget-Abadie, Jean; Mirza, Mehdi; Xu, Bing; Warde-Farley, David; Ozair, Sherjil; Courville, Aaron; Bengio, Yoshua (2014). Generative Adversarial Nets (PDF). Proceedings of the International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2014). pp. 2672–2680.
33. Mordvintsev, Alexander; Olah, Christopher; Tyka, Mike (2015). "DeepDream - a code example for visualizing Neural Networks". Google Research. Archived from the original on 8 July 2015.
34. Mordvintsev, Alexander; Olah, Christopher; Tyka, Mike (2015). "Inceptionism: Going Deeper into Neural Networks". Google Research. Archived from the original on 3 July 2015.
35. Szegedy, Christian; Liu, Wei; Jia, Yangqing; Sermanet, Pierre; Reed, Scott E.; Anguelov, Dragomir; Erhan, Dumitru; Vanhoucke, Vincent; Rabinovich, Andrew (2015). "Going deeper with convolutions". IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2015, Boston, MA, USA, June 7–12, 2015. IEEE Computer Society. pp. 1–9. arXiv:1409.4842. doi:10.1109/CVPR.2015.7298594. ISBN 978-1-4673-6964-0.
36. Mordvintsev, Alexander; Olah, Christopher; Tyka, Mike (2015). "DeepDream - a code example for visualizing Neural Networks". Google Research. Archived from the original on 8 July 2015.
37. Reynolds, Matt (7 April 2017). "New computer vision challenge wants to teach robots to see in 3D". New Scientist. Retrieved 15 November 2024.
38. Markoff, John (19 November 2012). "Seeking a Better Way to Find Web Images". The New York Times.
39. Odena, Augustus; Olah, Christopher; Shlens, Jonathon (17 July 2017). "Conditional Image Synthesis with Auxiliary Classifier GANs". International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR: 2642–2651. arXiv:1610.09585.
40. Oord, Aäron van den; Kalchbrenner, Nal; Kavukcuoglu, Koray (11 June 2016). "Pixel Recurrent Neural Networks". Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR: 1747–1756.
41. Parmar, Niki; Vaswani, Ashish; Uszkoreit, Jakob; Kaiser, Lukasz; Shazeer, Noam; Ku, Alexander; Tran, Dustin (3 July 2018). "Image Transformer". Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR: 4055–4064.
42. "Is artificial intelligence set to become art's next medium?". Christie's. 12 December 2018. Retrieved 21 May 2019.
43. Cohn, Gabe (25 October 2018). "AI Art at Christie's Sells for $432,500". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 5 May 2019. Retrieved 26 May 2024.
44. Turnbull, Amanda (6 January 2020). "The price of AI art: Has the bubble burst?". The Conversation. Archived from the original on 26 May 2024. Retrieved 26 May 2024.
45. Simon, Joel. "About". Archived from the original on 2 March 2021. Retrieved 3 March 2021.
46. George, Binto; Carmichael, Gail (2021). Mathai, Susan (ed.). Artificial Intelligence Simplified: Understanding Basic Concepts -- the Second Edition. CSTrends LLP. pp. 7–25. ISBN 9781944708047.
47. Lee, Giacomo (21 July 2020). "Will this creepy AI platform put artists out of a job?". Digital Arts Online. Archived from the original on 22 December 2020. Retrieved 3 March 2021.
48. "Not the Only One". Creative Capital. Retrieved 26 February 2023.
49. "Sougwen Chung". The Lumen Prize. Retrieved 26 February 2023.
50. Ramesh, Aditya; Pavlov, Mikhail; Goh, Gabriel; Gray, Scott; Voss, Chelsea; Radford, Alec; Chen, Mark; Sutskever, Ilya (24 February 2021). "Zero-Shot Text-to-Image Generation". arXiv:2102.12092 .
51. Burgess, Phillip. "Generating AI "Art" with VQGAN+CLIP". Adafruit. Retrieved 20 July 2022.
52. Radford, Alec; Kim, Jong Wook; Hallacy, Chris; Ramesh, Aditya; Goh, Gabriel; Agarwal, Sandhini; Sastry, Girish; Askell, Amanda; Mishkin, Pamela; Clark, Jack; Krueger, Gretchen; Sutskever, Ilya (2021). "Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision". arXiv:2103.00020 .
53. "What Are Diffusion Models?". Coursera. 4 April 2024. Retrieved 13 November 2024.
54. Sohl-Dickstein, Jascha; Weiss, Eric; Maheswaranathan, Niru; Ganguli, Surya (1 June 2015). "Deep Unsupervised Learning using Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics" (PDF). Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning. 37. PMLR: 2256–2265. arXiv:1503.03585.
55. Dhariwal, Prafulla; Nichol, Alexander (2021). "Diffusion Models Beat GANs on Image Synthesis". Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 34. Curran Associates, Inc.: 8780–8794. arXiv:2105.05233.
56. Rombach, Robin; Blattmann, Andreas; Lorenz, Dominik; Esser, Patrick; Ommer, Björn (20 December 2021), High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models, arXiv:2112.10752
57. Rose, Janus (18 July 2022). "Inside Midjourney, The Generative Art AI That Rivals DALL-E". Vice.
58. "NUWA-Infinity". nuwa-infinity.microsoft.com. Retrieved 10 August 2022.
59. "Diffuse The Rest - a Hugging Face Space by huggingface". huggingface.co. Archived from the original on 5 September 2022. Retrieved 5 September 2022.
60. ^ Heikkilä, Melissa (16 September 2022). "This artist is dominating AI-generated art. And he's not happy about it". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 2 October 2022.
61. "Stable Diffusion". CompVis - Machine Vision and Learning LMU Munich. 15 September 2022. Retrieved 15 September 2022.
62. "Stable Diffusion creator Stability AI accelerates open-source AI, raises $101M". VentureBeat. 18 October 2022. Retrieved 10 November 2022.
63. Choudhary, Lokesh (23 September 2022). "These new innovations are being built on top of Stable Diffusion". Analytics India Magazine. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
64. Dave James (27 October 2022). "I thrashed the RTX 4090 for 8 hours straight training Stable Diffusion to paint like my uncle Hermann". PC Gamer. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
65. Lewis, Nick (16 September 2022). "How to Run Stable Diffusion Locally With a GUI on Windows". How-To Geek. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
66. Edwards, Benj (4 October 2022). "Begone, polygons: 1993's Virtua Fighter gets smoothed out by AI". Ars Technica. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
67. Mehta, Sourabh (17 September 2022). "How to Generate an Image from Text using Stable Diffusion in Python". Analytics India Magazine. Retrieved 16 November 2022.
68. Ringler, Chris (18 October 2022). "THE DANCE OF THE NAIN ROUGE". Retrieved 1 November 2023.
69. "PISA ROBOT FILM FESTIVAL 3 - I vincitori - CinemaItaliano.info". www.cinemaitaliano.info. Retrieved 3 June 2024.
70. "Awards of December 2023 – January 2024". Absurd Film Festival (in Italian). 1 February 2024. Retrieved 31 March 2024.
71. "Announcing Ideogram AI". Ideogram. Retrieved 13 June 2024.
72. Metz, Rachel (3 October 2023). "Ideogram Produces Text in AI Images That You Can Actually Read". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
73. "Flux.1 – ein deutscher KI-Bildgenerator dreht mit Grok frei". Handelsblatt (in German). Retrieved 17 November 2024.
74. Zeff, Maxwell (14 August 2024). "Meet Black Forest Labs, the startup powering Elon Musk's unhinged AI image generator". TechCrunch. Retrieved 17 November 2024.
75. Franzen, Carl (18 November 2024). "Mistral unleashes Pixtral Large and upgrades Le Chat into full-on ChatGPT competitor". VentureBeat. Retrieved 11 December 2024.
76. Growcoot, Matt (5 August 2024). "AI Image Generator Made by Stable Diffusion Inventors on Par With Midjourney and DALL-E". PetaPixel. Retrieved 17 November 2024.
77. Davis, Wes (7 December 2024). "X gives Grok a new photorealistic AI image generator". The Verge. Retrieved 10 December 2024.
78. "OpenAI teases 'Sora,' its new text-to-video AI model". NBC News. 15 February 2024. Retrieved 28 October 2024.
79. "A.I. photo filters use neural networks to make photos look like Picassos". Digital Trends. 18 November 2019. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
80. Biersdorfer, J. D. (4 December 2019). "From Camera Roll to Canvas: Make Art From Your Photos". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
81. Psychotic, Pharma. "Tools and Resources for AI Art". Archived from the original on 4 June 2022. Retrieved 26 June 2022.
82. Gal, Rinon; Alaluf, Yuval; Atzmon, Yuval; Patashnik, Or; Bermano, Amit H.; Chechik, Gal; Cohen-Or, Daniel (2 August 2022). "An Image is Worth One Word: Personalizing Text-to-Image Generation using Textual Inversion". arXiv:2208.01618 .
83. "Textual Inversion · AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui Wiki". GitHub. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
84. ^ Elgan, Mike (1 November 2022). "How 'synthetic media' will transform business forever". Computerworld. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
85. ^ Roose, Kevin (21 October 2022). "A.I.-Generated Art Is Already Transforming Creative Work". The New York Times. Retrieved 16 November 2022.
86. ^ Leswing, Kif. "Why Silicon Valley is so excited about awkward drawings done by artificial intelligence". CNBC. Retrieved 16 November 2022.
87. Robertson, Adi (15 November 2022). "How DeviantArt is navigating the AI art minefield". The Verge. Retrieved 16 November 2022.
88. Proulx, Natalie (September 2022). "Are A.I.-Generated Pictures Art?". The New York Times. Retrieved 16 November 2022.
89. Vincent, James (15 September 2022). "Anyone can use this AI art generator — that's the risk". The Verge. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
90. Davenport, Corbin. "This AI Art Gallery Is Even Better Than Using a Generator". How-To Geek. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
91. Robertson, Adi (2 September 2022). "Professional AI whisperers have launched a marketplace for DALL-E prompts". The Verge. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
92. "Text-zu-Bild-Revolution: Stable Diffusion ermöglicht KI-Bildgenerieren für alle". heise online (in German). Retrieved 9 November 2022.
93. Mohamad Diab, Julian Herrera, Musical Sleep, Bob Chernow, Coco Mao (28 October 2022). "Stable Diffusion Prompt Book" (PDF). Retrieved 7 August 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
94. Reinhuber, Elke (2 December 2021). "Synthography–An Invitation to Reconsider the Rapidly Changing Toolkit of Digital Image Creation as a New Genre Beyond Photography". Google Scholar. Retrieved 20 December 2022.
95. Milne, Stefan (29 November 2023). "AI image generator Stable Diffusion perpetuates racial and gendered stereotypes, study finds". UW News.
96. Hadhazy, Adam (18 April 2017). "Biased bots: Artificial-intelligence systems echo human prejudices". Office of Engineering Communications - Princeton University. Retrieved 13 November 2024.
97. Fox, V. (March 11, 2023). AI Art & the Ethical Concerns of Artists. Beautiful Bizarre Magazine. Retrieved September 24, 2024, from https://beautifulbizarre.net/2023/03/11/ai-art-ethical-concerns-of-artists/
98. Heikkilä, Melissa. "The viral AI avatar app Lensa undressed me—without my consent". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
99. Lamensch, Marie. "Generative AI Tools Are Perpetuating Harmful Gender Stereotypes". Centre for International Governance Innovation. Retrieved 26 November 2024.
100. Birhane, Abeba; Prabhu, Vinay Uday (1 July 2020). "Large image datasets: A pyrrhic win for computer vision?". 2021 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV). pp. 1536–1546. arXiv:2006.16923. doi:10.1109/WACV48630.2021.00158. ISBN 978-1-6654-0477-8. S2CID 220265500.
101. ^ Robertson, Adi (21 February 2024). "Google apologizes for "missing the mark" after Gemini generated racially diverse Nazis". The Verge. Archived from the original on 21 April 2024. Retrieved 20 April 2024.
102. Crimmins, Tricia (21 February 2024). "Why Google's new AI Gemini accused of refusing to acknowledge the existence of white people". The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on 8 May 2024. Retrieved 8 May 2024.
103. Raghavan, Prabhakar (23 February 2024). "Gemini image generation got it wrong. We'll do better". Google. Archived from the original on 21 April 2024. Retrieved 20 April 2024.
104. "Unmasking Racism in AI: From Gemini's Overcorrection to AAVE Bias and Ethical Considerations | Race & Social Justice Review". 2 April 2024. Retrieved 26 October 2024.
105. "Rendering misrepresentation: Diversity failures in AI image generation". Brookings. Retrieved 26 October 2024.
106. Stark, Luke; Crawford, Kate (7 September 2019). "The Work of Art in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: What Artists Can Teach Us About the Ethics of Data Practice". Surveillance & Society. 17 (3/4): 442–455. doi:10.24908/ss.v17i3/4.10821. ISSN 1477-7487. S2CID 214218440.
107. Pamela, Samuelson (1985). "Allocating Ownership Rights in Computer-Generated Works". U. Pittsburgh L. Rev. 47: 1185.
108. Victor, Palace (January 2019). "What if Artificial Intelligence Wrote This? Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law". Fla. L. Rev. 71 (1): 231–241.
109. Chayka, Kyle (10 February 2023). "Is A.I. Art Stealing from Artists?". The New Yorker. ISSN 0028-792X. Retrieved 6 September 2023.
110. ^ Vallance, Chris (13 September 2022). ""Art is dead Dude" - the rise of the AI artists stirs debate". BBC News. Retrieved 2 October 2022.
111. ^ Plunkett, Luke (25 August 2022). "AI Creating 'Art' Is An Ethical And Copyright Nightmare". Kotaku. Retrieved 21 December 2022.
112. Edwards, Benj (15 December 2022). "Artists stage mass protest against AI-generated artwork on ArtStation". Ars Technica. Retrieved 21 December 2022.
113. Magazine, Smithsonian; Recker, Jane. "U.S. Copyright Office Rules A.I. Art Can't Be Copyrighted". Smithsonian Magazine.
114. "You can't copyright AI-created art, according to US officials". Engadget. 13 December 2022.
115. "Re: Second Request for Reconsideration for Refusal to Register A Recent Entrance to Paradise" (PDF).
116. Cho, Winston (18 August 2023). "AI-Created Art Isn't Copyrightable, Judge Says in Ruling That Could Give Hollywood Studios Pause". Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 19 August 2023.
117. Can I sell images I create with DALL·E? (n.d.). OpenAI Help Center. Retrieved November 11, 2024, from https://help.openai.com/en/articles/6425277-can-i-sell-images-i-create-with-dall-e
118. James Vincent "AI art tools Stable Diffusion and Midjourney targeted with copyright lawsuit" The Verge, 16 January 2023.
119. Brittain, Blake (19 July 2023). "US judge finds flaws in artists' lawsuit against AI companies". Reuters. Retrieved 6 August 2023.
120. Korn, Jennifer (17 January 2023). "Getty Images suing the makers of popular AI art tool for allegedly stealing photos". CNN. Retrieved 22 January 2023.
121. ^ Jiang, Harry H.; Brown, Lauren; Cheng, Jessica; Khan, Mehtab; Gupta, Abhishek; Workman, Deja; Hanna, Alex; Flowers, Johnathan; Gebru, Timnit (8 August 2023). "AI Art and its Impact on Artists". Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. ACM. pp. 363–374. doi:10.1145/3600211.3604681. ISBN 979-8-4007-0231-0. S2CID 261279983.
122. Rosman, Rebecca (22 March 2024). "Tennessee becomes the first state to protect musicians and other artists against AI". NPR.
123. Robins-Early, Nick (9 April 2024). "New bill would force AI companies to reveal use of copyrighted art | Artificial intelligence (AI) | The Guardian". amp.theguardian.com. Retrieved 13 April 2024.
124. Wiggers, Kyle (24 August 2022). "Deepfakes: Uncensored AI art model prompts ethics questions". TechCrunch. Retrieved 15 September 2022.
125. ^ Parra, Dex (24 February 2023). "CASE STUDY: The Case of DALLE-2". University of Texas at Austin, Center for Media Management.
126. Beahm, Anna (12 February 2024). "What you need to know about the ongoing fight to prevent AI-generated child porn". Reckon News. Archived from the original on 7 March 2024. Retrieved 7 March 2024.
127. Whitwam, Ryan (8 May 2024). "New OpenAI Tool Can Detect Dall-E 3 AI Images With 98% Accuracy". ExtremeTech. Archived from the original on 26 May 2024. Retrieved 26 May 2024.
128. "OpenAI's new tool can detect images created by DALL-E 3". 7 May 2024.
129. Higgins, Eliot (21 March 2023). "Making pictures of Trump getting arrested while waiting for Trump's arrest". Archived from the original on 20 April 2023 – via Twitter.
130. "Sony World Photography Award 2023: Winner refuses award after revealing AI creation". BBC News. 17 April 2023. Retrieved 16 June 2023.
131. Sato, Mia (9 June 2023). "How AI art killed an indie book cover contest". The Verge. Retrieved 19 June 2023.
132. Novak, Matt. "That Viral Image Of Pope Francis Wearing A White Puffer Coat Is Totally Fake". Forbes. Retrieved 16 June 2023.
133. Stokel-Walker, Chris (27 March 2023). "We Spoke To The Guy Who Created The Viral AI Image Of The Pope That Fooled The World". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved 16 June 2023.
134. Edwards, Benj (23 May 2023). "Fake Pentagon "explosion" photo sows confusion on Twitter". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2 July 2024.
135. Oremus, Will; Harwell, Drew; Armus, Teo (22 May 2023). "A tweet about a Pentagon explosion was fake. It still went viral". Washington Post. Retrieved 2 July 2024.
136. Devlin, Kayleen; Cheetham, Joshua (25 March 2023). "Fake Trump arrest photos: How to spot an AI-generated image". Archived from the original on 12 April 2024. Retrieved 24 February 2024.
137. "Trump shares deepfake photo of himself praying as AI images of arrest spread online". The Independent. 24 March 2023. Retrieved 16 June 2023.
138. Garber, Megan (24 March 2023). "The Trump AI Deepfakes Had an Unintended Side Effect". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 18 May 2024. Retrieved 21 April 2024.
139. Lasarte, Diego (23 March 2023). "As fake photos of Trump's "arrest" went viral, Trump shared an AI-generated photo too". Quartz (publication). Archived from the original on 21 April 2024. Retrieved 21 April 2024.
140. Guo, Xinyu; Dong, Liang; Hao, Dingjun (2024). Kumaresan, Arumugam (ed.). "Cellular functions of spermatogonial stem cells in relation to JAK/STAT signaling pathway". Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology. 12. doi:10.3389/fcell.2024.1386861. ISSN 2296-634X.
141. King, Hope (10 August 2022). "AI-generated digital art spurs debate about news illustrations". Axios. Retrieved 2 October 2022.
142. Salkowitz, Rob (16 September 2022). "AI Is Coming For Commercial Art Jobs. Can It Be Stopped?". Forbes. Retrieved 2 October 2022.
143. Inie, Nanna; Falk, Jeanette; Tanimoto, Steve (19 April 2023). "Designing Participatory AI: Creative Professionals' Worries and Expectations about Generative AI". Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. pp. 1–8. arXiv:2303.08931. doi:10.1145/3544549.3585657. ISBN 978-1-4503-9422-2. S2CID 257557305.
144. ^ Roose, Kevin (2022). "An A.I.-Generated Picture Won an Art Prize. Artists Aren't Happy". The New York Times.
145. ^ "An AI-Generated Artwork Won First Place at a State Fair Fine Arts Competition, and Artists Are Pissed". Vice. Retrieved 15 September 2022.
146. Chen, Min (7 February 2023). "Netflix Japan Is Drawing Ire for Using A.I. to Generate the Background Art of Its New Anime Short". Artnet. Archived from the original on 2 December 2023. Retrieved 2 December 2023.
147. Pulliam, C. (2023, June 27). Marvel’s Secret Invasion AI credits should shock no one. The Verge. Retrieved August 26, 2024, from https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/27/23770133/secret-invasion-ai-credits-marvel
148. Tolliver-Walker, Heidi (11 October 2023). "Can AI-Generated Images Replace Stock?". WhatTheyThink. Retrieved 26 May 2024.
149. David, Emilia (8 January 2024). "Getty and Nvidia bring generative AI to stock photos". The Verge. Archived from the original on 26 May 2024. Retrieved 26 May 2024.
150. Luccioni, Alexandra Sasha; Jernite, Yacine; Strubell, Emma (2024). "Power Hungry Processing: Watts Driving the Cost of AI Deployment?". The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. pp. 85–99. arXiv:2311.16863. doi:10.1145/3630106.3658542. ISBN 979-8-4007-0450-5.
151. Cetinic, Eva; She, James (31 May 2022). "Understanding and Creating Art with AI: Review and Outlook". ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications. 18 (2): 1–22. arXiv:2102.09109. doi:10.1145/3475799. ISSN 1551-6857. S2CID 231951381.
152. ^ Cetinic, Eva; She, James (16 February 2022). "Understanding and Creating Art with AI: Review and Outlook". ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications. 18 (2): 66:1–66Kate Vass2. arXiv:2102.09109. doi:10.1145/3475799. ISSN 1551-6857. S2CID 231951381.
153. Lang, Sabine; Ommer, Bjorn (2018). "Reflecting on How Artworks Are Processed and Analyzed by Computer Vision: Supplementary Material". Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) Workshops – via Computer Vision Foundation.
154. Ostmeyer, Johann; Schaerf, Ludovica; Buividovich, Pavel; Charles, Tessa; Postma, Eric; Popovici, Carina (14 February 2024). "Synthetic images aid the recognition of human-made art forgeries". PLOS ONE. 19 (2). United States: e0295967. arXiv:2312.14998. Bibcode:2024PLoSO..1995967O. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0295967. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 10866502. PMID 38354162.
155. Achlioptas, Panos; Ovsjanikov, Maks; Haydarov, Kilichbek; Elhoseiny, Mohamed; Guibas, Leonidas (18 January 2021). "ArtEmis: Affective Language for Visual Art". arXiv:2101.07396 .
156. Myers, Andrew (22 March 2021). "Artist's Intent: AI Recognizes Emotions in Visual Art". hai.stanford.edu. Retrieved 24 November 2024.
157. Yannakakis, Geogios N. (15 May 2012). "Game AI revisited". Proceedings of the 9th conference on Computing Frontiers. pp. 285–292. doi:10.1145/2212908.2212954. ISBN 9781450312158. S2CID 4335529.
158. "AI creates new levels for Doom and Super Mario games". BBC News. 8 May 2018. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
159. Katsnelson, Alla (29 August 2022). "Poor English skills? New AIs help researchers to write better". Nature. 609 (7925): 208–209. Bibcode:2022Natur.609..208K. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-02767-9. PMID 36038730. S2CID 251931306.
160. "KoboldAI/KoboldAI-Client". GitHub. 9 November 2022. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
161. Dzieza, Josh (20 July 2022). "Can AI write good novels?". The Verge. Retrieved 16 November 2022.
162. "AI Writing Assistants: A Cure for Writer's Block or Modern-Day Clippy?". PCMAG. Retrieved 16 November 2022.
163. Song, Victoria (2 November 2022). "Google's new prototype AI tool does the writing for you". The Verge. Retrieved 16 November 2022.
164. Sochacki, Grzegorz; Abdulali, Arsen; Iida, Fumiya (2022). "Mastication-Enhanced Taste-Based Classification of Multi-Ingredient Dishes for Robotic Cooking". Frontiers in Robotics and AI. 9: 886074. doi:10.3389/frobt.2022.886074. ISSN 2296-9144. PMC 9114309. PMID 35603082.

• Artificial intelligence art
• Generative artificial intelligence
• Visual arts
• Digital art
• Computer art
• Art controversies
• 20th-century introductions
• Works involved in plagiarism controversies