Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AI

Is AI Ruining Etsy? 87

Posted by BeauHD from the complicating-matters dept.
Emily Dreibelbis reports via PCMag: Etsy's reputation as a haven for small, independent creators has come into question as tools like Midjourney have made it easy to list art without disclosing that it's been AI-generated, and shoppers are not happy. "The fact that it's AI isn't listed anywhere," says one Reddit user who purchased a stock photo on Etsy that seemed suspiciously low cost with glowing reviews. "I was so mad at myself for not noticing it was AI before purchasing." [...] "Being avid user of Etsy, I really enjoy supporting small businesses and the talent that goes into their work," the buyer tells PCMag in a private message. "Shops such as we discussed selling massive amounts of AI-generated images take away from genuine sellers who put hours into perfecting their craft."

Etsy's seller policy does not mention artificial intelligence. The platform is still determining the place AI-generated works have on the site, a source tells PCMag. Complicating matters, some sellers take AI-generated images and modify them, adding a hint of human artistry. Etsy also has a policy regarding when sellers can claim an item is "handmade," but it also does not mention AI and appears virtually unenforceable. [...] Beyond the legalities, Etsy shoppers debate the ethical and economic implications. One argues it devalues the work, citing an ancient example of explorer Mansa Musa handing out fake gold during his travels, inflating the overall supply and tanking the market. If anyone can create art at the push of a button, what defines an artist's work? And what role does Etsy play in answering that question?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is AI Ruining Etsy? More

Is AI Ruining Etsy?

Comments Filter:
  • It is either doing that or changing it considerably.

  • Why care? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 16, 2024 @05:26AM (#64319567)

    I don't understand this - art is art regardless of the source* so why should I care if art is AI generated or not? Mostly I dislike AI generated art because I find it to be bad art, but I'd hate the same vapid meaningless picture of a horse staring into a woodland landscape whether it were whipped up by an AI in 30 seconds or meticulously composed pixel by pixel by a human artist.

    *unless the source is directly referenced in the work itself. Of course this brings in complications. I know that the historical context of a piece can add meaning to it as an item, but we're talking digital art being sold on Etsy here...

    • art is art regardless of the source

      I agree. If you can't tell if art is from AI, then why does it matter?

      But I've had this conversation with people who vehemently disagree.

      They say, if it doesn't come from a human, it can't be art.

      Perhaps there is a market for humans who create art while the buyer watches it being created. I've seen street artists who do this.

      • If you can't tell if the Mona Lisa painting in front of you is a student forgery or the real thing, why does it matter? BTW, the ticket price is $100, please pay the lady at the counter, and take your chances.

        • If you can't tell if the Mona Lisa painting in front of you is a student forgery or the real thing, why does it matter?

          If two paintings are indistinguishable, then it doesn't matter.

          Unless you want to resell it. But then it's about money, not art.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by pjt33 ( 739471 )

            It's not about distinguishability. The Mona Lisa in the Prado is easily distinguished from the one in the Louvre, but some people still care about whether Leonardo printed it.

          • To say that two paintings are indistinguishable does not make sense objectively. Some people can distinguish the paintings (eg an art expert or a collector or an interested member of the public), and others can't (eg an uninterested individual, or a young child perhaps). There is always a subset of the population that notices the differences, there are those that don't notice the differences at first but can't unsee them after they are pointed out to them, etc.

            The problem is about you and how you feel ab

        • It matters if the person looking at it does, that's all there is to it. Mona Lisa's value isn't determined by the person who values it the least.
        • That example really doesn't make the point you think it does. If a student can make such a perfect forgery it really does draw into question the value of the original.
          • You should read up more on history of art, many original paintings are student copies or student finished works. Up until about 100 years ago painting students around the world were apprentices in their masters' ateliers, ie what we would call interns in an art studio today. The master would order them to make copies as close to perfect as they could, and many of these paintings have also been sold over time. So we are not talking about 100%, completely identical copies that nobody can tell apart.

            It's lik

      • I agree. If you can't tell if art is from AI, then why does it matter?

        Because of the money.

      • One might want to support humans doing arts in the traditional way (digital or not) rather than humans writing prompts. Should people not allowed the option? I agree on the result that art is art, but what I don't agree with is all the lies and deception because of lack of detection mechanisms.

        • One might want to support humans doing arts in the traditional way

          They can still do that by buying from known artists rather than from unknown sellers on Etsy.

          • How do you become known? It's a chicken and egg problem. When you're still a nobody, how do you break through? You have to compete with nobodys and AIs now. Your competition is machines. You don't stand a chance.

            • How do you become known?

              You can go to art festivals. You can put up your own website. You can market by word-of-mouth.

              A woman in my neighborhood sells paintings and sculptures directly out of her house by advertising on Craigslist.

              Conversely, I know of no one who became famous by selling stuff on Etsy.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by allo ( 1728082 )

              If you don't know, why does it matter how the artist you like to pay creates its art?

        • That would be discrimination.

      • Re:Why care? (Score:5, Informative)

        by not flu ( 1169973 ) on Saturday March 16, 2024 @06:44AM (#64319683)

        Perhaps there is a market for humans who create art while the buyer watches it being created. I've seen street artists who do this.

        There certainly is, many artists stream their process or post timelapses.

        • > There certainly is, many artists stream their process or post timelapses.

          Brb, guys!
          ... (runs to implement time-lapse with SD)

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        art is art regardless of the source

        I agree. If you can't tell if art is from AI, then why does it matter?

        I think it is even simpler than that, and it has nothing to do with "AI". If I see a picture that I like, why does it matter who created it or how it was created?

      • There is at the least a legal distinction as ai produced materials are ineligible for copyright protection. In a commercial context this could be very important, especially if you want to prevent other people from using the assets you purchased. Probably not many people going to etsy for that kind of thing, but beyond objecting for the sake of objecting to "AI" this is a problem for the buyer when the product is misrepresented by the seller.

      • "If anyone can create art at the push of a button, what defines an artist's work?"

        My definition has been if I can do it it's not art. So that "modern art" piece of a short piece of rope nailed to a board is not art. Anything Waterhouse painted is art. Gamazda doing piano versions of rock sounds is art. Etc.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    • Signal to noise ratio - that's why (Score:4, Insightful)

      by fleeped ( 1945926 ) on Saturday March 16, 2024 @05:56AM (#64319607)
      If it becomes easy to flood website with AI-generated stuff, that you can only notice if you spend time and energy (bloody things do a good job), then creators that don't use AI are at a great disadvantage. Also, not having a good way to detect if something is made using AI or not, results in having to trust what people say (ha!). If, for whatever reason you choose to support people who don't use AI, well ... it becomes increasingly difficult to do so, because the AI-based creators can lie without repercussions.
      • AI art has this terrible tendency to look fine at a first glance but when you spend any time looking at it you start to see the messed up fingers and other body horrors and logical inconsistencies. It feels like you're having a stroke with how little some parts make sense. It is very stressful to look at and its mere existence makes it harder to enjoy art in general since the paranoia builds up.

        • messed up fingers and other body horrors and logical inconsistencies.

          Generative AI is way better at that than it was a year ago.

          Were you looking at ancient images from 2022?

      • It becoming increasingly difficult to be a discriminatory luddite isn't much of a problem. If the market truly wants that it will be solved but I suspect it's a minority fringe being loud.
    • Art is nothing without the audience (even if that audience is just the creator) and it's up to the audience to decide if AI art has value or not, or even qualifies as art in the first place. I keep going back and forth on this myself but I certainly value it less than even amateurish human-made art.

    • If you got to see the full resolution image, or the painting up close, then art is art. If you buy a thing expecting it was made by an artist but up close it's full of AI artifacts instead of brushstrokes, then you got cheated.

      Sometimes art is purchased as an investment rather than for its art, in which case stuff like the isotope ratios in the paint becomes important.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Calydor ( 739835 )

      For something like this people pay to support the creative process.

      For AI there is no such process.

      • This take is out of touch with reality and the broad spectrum of AI art workflows. Not all AI art is just typing a prompt.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by MpVpRb ( 1423381 )

      Art is made by artists, AI generated stuff is not art

      That said, a lot of the images we see are not art, they are artless commercial products that may have been made by mercenary artists who needed to pay the bills.
      Most commercial illustration, decorative images, ad copy and the other artless crap that surrounds us can easily be made by AI, cheaper and better.
      AI stuff can also be whimsical fun, and can be amusing to make and look at.
      On the other side, a lot of art made by artists has ventured far into the ab

      • AI art is made by artists. FTFY.

        It will be easier to be far more productive for those making a living doing the tasks you mention.
      • I had a thought that I'd like to take up pottery but then realised I don't really enjoy clutter, so the most effective art for me would be digital... create it then delete it
    • AI can generate something that you appreciate as art, but in that case it's a human promoter or audience who causes it to be art. The AI isn't capable of knowing what it generates. While it's conceivable to create an AI that does know, it would be unimaginably more complex and expensive to do than just making a dumb machine that churns out gibberish until you like something it puts out.

      Insert joke about Jackson Pollock if you must.
      • > The AI isn't capable of knowing what it generates.

        Go to chatGPT-4, paste an image and ask it what it understands from that image. Then copy the text, make a new chat session, paste it and ask it to draw with DallE. This is about how much it understands from the original image.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Rei ( 128717 )

          Then try that experiment with humans.

          (Note: the text model of most diffusion models has historically been very primitive, not much more advanced that GLoVe. That said, they're increasingly starting to incorporate Transformers into them, so it gives a much greater understanding of object relations. The incorporation of a 3d internal model, ala Sora, offers the potential for even further advancement)

    • Because AI is bad under the progressive orthodoxy of allowed thought.

  • push of a button (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hjf ( 703092 ) on Saturday March 16, 2024 @05:45AM (#64319585) Homepage

    "If anyone can create art at the push of a button, what defines an artist's work?"

    We had this discussion literally 200 years ago, and we accepted photography as art.

    If we accepted a fucking white canvas as art [sfmoma.org] why shouldn't we accept AI too?

    • Both are acceptable to present as art because neither can be passed off as real art. Ironically, it's the fact that they're clearly not art that makes them art. If AI can be used to flawlessly simulate the results of actual art while not really being art, then it's fraud.

      • It's art so no fraud.

        • Well, it might be art in an environment where it's possible to clearly label it as AI generated art, but in an environment where the social expectation is that everything not clearly labeled otherwise was made by hand, it's fraud. That's what this is about really, social expectations.

          • It's art regardless of a butthurt label.

            • An actual label could fix this whole problem, truthfully. The "butthurt" part is directly because of the current lack of any fair categorization system.

            • ...Oh, and, incidentally, when you're trying to make your point sound morally defensible you might want to avoid equating your stance to anal rape.

    • The art in photography isn't in the pushing of the button, it's in other things, but it's there.

      And a white canvas as art is a poor example because that's only art to a human who understands it.

      But sometimes we need boilerplate "art" that doesn't have a deeper meaning, just has to look nice. AI "art" is good enough for that. Human artists are just gonna have to do better, like everyone else.

      • The art in photography isn't in the pushing of the button, it's in other things

        That's how I see this "AI art" thing playing out, too, audiences will quickly get desensitized to anything AI models create too easily just like audiences got desensitized to photorealism in paintings. AI art without the messed up fingers etc. is already much more valuable than the usual AI stuff in my eyes. Likewise for careful brush- and linework. The part that AI can properly do (smooth shading) isn't just worthless but already has negative value.

      • The AI art isn't in the pushing of the button, it's in the other things, but it's there.
    • Photography was a new medium, that could exist in parallel with others. In the very digital world we live in, AI can consume any digital art. That takes quite a slice of the art pie. Physical-based arts will remain of course. I've seen people paint with onion skins and such, I'm sure these kind of arts are safe

      • Re:push of a button (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Rei ( 128717 ) on Saturday March 16, 2024 @07:34AM (#64319731) Homepage

        It was indeed a new medium, and painters by and large HATED it. They saw photographers as failed artists. You often would get responses that photography has a role, such as in the sciences or documenting proof of facts, but that it has no business in the world of art. Update the language to that of our modern era and they'd be calling photographers "Tech Bros".

        Yet photography was possibly one of the greatest gifts that could have been given to the art world. Because before the camera, the push in the art world was for ever greater amounts of realism. Once it became clear that the camera was going to trounce humans in terms of realism, how did artists react? Diversification. It spawned wave after wave of new art styles. Almost all of the art styles we've gotten in the past ~150 years are thanks to the existence of the camera. It's not a coincidence that the Wikipedia page on art movements [wikipedia.org] only starts in the 19th century, mainly the late 19th century, as the growing power of the camera was becoming clear.

        So how will art react to AI? There's two possibilities.

        In one, humans diversify further, always pushing new stylistic boundaries and finding things which AI can't achieve.

        In the other, humans try to do that, but fail and are continuously bested by AI even in terms of exploring new artistic ground - showing that the AI simply bests humans at artistic creativity.

        But there is no third "The Genie Goes Back In The Bottle" option.

  • AI is ruining everything (Score:3)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Saturday March 16, 2024 @05:57AM (#64319609)

    That includes Etsy.

  • You mean fake photos weren't a problem on Etsy before AI?
  • Could this be a case where Betteridge's law is violated?
    • No Etsy was already ruined by a multitude of other problems long before ai came to the scene. You can't kill a dead horse.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mhkohne ( 3854 )

        This. It'd be nice if the average seller would at least not put up drop-shipped merchandise with the same pictures as 100 other sellers wasn't 'hand made'.

  • by Etsy. Nice scapegoat though!

  • Even Less Valuable (Score:4, Interesting)

    by YetAnotherDrew ( 664604 ) on Saturday March 16, 2024 @06:18AM (#64319645)

    This, in typical technophobic fashion, is framed badly, if you'll excuse the pun.

    Just like photography meant that most portraits became cheap, this cheapens whatever art it's replacing. But if it's anything like photography, it will mean the democratization of art and will mean that art becomes more ubiquitous. How long will it be until engaged couples can register for their very own unique china pattern? How long will it be until college dorm rooms aren't all adorned with the exact same 100 cheap posters when they could be personalized? Speaking for tattoo artists I know, maybe it will mean people will stop wanting the same damned Taz illustration!

    And despite all of the potential change, some people will still want the "old-fashioned" hand-made items. Those skills won't die. The crafts won't go away. They'll just be devalued with the exception of a few "master craftsfolk." Frankly, I don't see the great loss, given that most art was already so low-value that it was difficult to make a living doing it even before AI entered the scene.

  • Huh? (Score:3)

    by Rei ( 128717 ) on Saturday March 16, 2024 @06:35AM (#64319673) Homepage

    Since when was Mansa Munsa accused of handing out *fake* gold?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Rei ( 128717 )

      ** Musa
      ** Witchcraft

    • Looks like it's just the writer of the article, Emily Dreibelbis, who drew the fake gold conclusion. The post referencing Mansa Musa in the thread she directly links to doesn't mention anything about fake gold.

      Maybe she had an AI poorly summarise the thread for her?

  • Correct Answer : NO (Score:3)

    by weirdow ( 9298 ) on Saturday March 16, 2024 @07:09AM (#64319703) Homepage
    AI isn't ruining Etsy. People who use AI are ruining a lot more than just Etsy.

  • AI "art" on Etsy == basic fraud and violating TOS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dr Herbert West ( 1357769 ) on Saturday March 16, 2024 @08:41AM (#64319821)
    Most of the comments here seem to be missing the point of the article in favor of pedantic, distracting, or trollish comments about the nature of art, so I'll log in for the first time in ten years to give it a go.

    The article asserts (yeah, I read it) that Etsy is a platform where people go to buy art/products/objects with the implicit agreement that there is a modicum of human endeavor and creativity put into producing these objects.

    It's in the TOS that these objects are "handmade", which is a term that has a lot of wiggle room in it and there are certainly grey areas here. However, according to the article, Etsy policy says sellers are required to disclose the "names and roles of people who help make your items". AI produced objects cannot, by definition, do this-- they're un-copyrightable to start with.

    Anyone who wants to argue about what "handmade" and "art" means here, I invite you to pick up a copy of "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" and stick it where the sun don't shine.

    In addition, a lot of AI produced product sold on Etsy is the result of typing in OTHER artists names (the photographer Jingna Zhang is given an example) into LLMs that have been trained on their work and style (a style that took years of practice, effort, and talent to perfect) and then selling mass produced copies, indistinguishable from the original in any meaningful way.

    This devalues not only the original artists work, but ALL work sold on Etsy since it calls into question the "human-made-ness" of everything sold on the platform.

    "Human-made-ness" is important here, because a great many people value the training, practice, and skill it takes to learn a craft, and the beauty of "human-made" things created with that craft. It provides a sense of connection to fellow humans and can inspire a sense of wonder and awe at the miracle of human endeavor. Objects created with talent and skill can evoke an emotional connection to the artist and other people that experience that work in a very real way (if you're a person that has emotions and feelings). This is one of the things people value about art, and an ESSENTIAL, albeit difficult-to-define, value-add to "handmade" objects being sold on Etsy. This entire system and value structure is now being called into question.

    Whether or not you value connection to other people, wonder, beauty, and creativity is not the point here. If you don't, I feel bad for you, but even the most misanthropic troll can see that this is a case where scammers are flooding an existing market with sub-standard or misleading product due to loosely enforced (or unenforceable) policy.

    The fact that this very real devaluation of human talent, creativity, and skill at a global scale seems to bring a lot of people a perverse sense of glee is baffling and depressing to me.

    Maybe I'll go make a watercolor out of it.

    • Just like there's a debate between whether any particular piece of art should be judged independently from the circumstances of its creation (e.g. the artist's intentions, evaluated within the context of the circumstances of the time), the "purpose" of Etsy might not at all be relevant to its position or impact in its industry.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by waspleg ( 316038 )

      While I agree, the part where it's impossible to police is what will kill the platform.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Rei ( 128717 )

      AI produced objects cannot, by definition, do this-- they're un-copyrightable to start with.

      This is frequently misrepresented, and I strongly encourage people to go back and read the US copyright office ruling on the subject rather than bad internet summaries.

      The copyright office determined that, based on their current understanding of the tech at the time of writing (which they stated will require changing stances as the nature of the technology changes), people using AI to generate media do not control t

  • ... then how is it a shoddy product?
    • I think sometimes the difference is only apparent once you get the product.

      Also, if it the seller tries to pass the product as being made by a human artist but it's instead AI generated, some form of fraud is being committed: Some buyers care about the provenance of the product, especially in art.

  • Etsy was ruined... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by wshs ( 602011 ) on Saturday March 16, 2024 @10:03AM (#64319959)
    Etsy was ruined when it turned into an unofficial drop shipper for Aliexpress

  • ali express (Score:3)

    by Lehk228 ( 705449 ) on Saturday March 16, 2024 @10:21AM (#64319999) Journal
    ali express already ruined etsy years ago, so many items are just relisted stuff from ali express or temu

  • Etsy is Ruining Etsy (Score:3)

    by GFS666 ( 6452674 ) on Saturday March 16, 2024 @11:07AM (#64320089)
    AI art on Etsy could be dealt with/fixed. However, Etsy itself is ruining Etsy with its horrible non functional search function. It used to be simple and work. However, at some point the computer marketplace weenies decided that one had to intersperse your search request with lots of excess junk that probably is "sponsored" and has absolutely nothing connected to what your desired search item is. Etsy takes this "idea" and supercharges it such that like 1 in 10 items on there search "results" are actually what you are looking for, causing you to scroll through multiple pages of junk to find what you want. It's gotten so bad that Etsy is literally one of the last places I go to when I'm searching for something.

  • How AI can never help people? All it can do is take their jobs and ruin their art.

    There's no AI that can help someone find a job. All it can do is replace them. There's no AI that can help an Etsy seller market their work. All it can do is replace them.

    Funny how "AI" seems to always be against humans.

  • Not hard to find stuff on Etsy that's made in factories
  • and who thought AI would be a good thing ??? Already out of control and misused !

Slashdot Top Deals

I THINK THEY SHOULD CONTINUE the policy of not giving a Nobel Prize for paneling. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.

Close