Can There be Art Without an Artist?

Unauthorized training on artists' work is a significant concern: The paper identifies plagiarism as a key issue, where generative AI models are trained on artists' artwork without their permission, raising serious questions about intellectual property rights and consent in the AI era.

Economic harm is shifting profits away from creators: The research documents "profit shifting," where financial benefits in the art market are moving from individual artists to the companies that own and operate generative AI models, fundamentally altering the economics of artistic work.

AI-generated art is already winning recognition: Some AI-generated images have been judged as high-quality enough to win accolades from qualified judges, demonstrating that these systems can produce work competitive with human artists in certain contexts.

Responsible deployment could make AI a positive force: Rather than viewing generative AI as inherently harmful to artists, the paper suggests that with proper safeguards and ethical deployment practices, these tools could become a beneficial new artistic medium that coexists with rather than displaces human creativity.

The core question challenges our definition of art: The paper's title—"Can There be Art Without an Artist?"—raises a fundamental philosophical question about whether AI-generated work can truly be considered art, and what role human creativity and intention should play in that definition.