Generative AI has stirred significant concern across various professions, especially among artists, while writers seem to exhibit a more subdued response. This article delves into the reasons behind this discrepancy.

The consensus among many is that generative AI poses a risk to numerous white-collar jobs, including those of artists, writers, and programmers. These systems can produce impressive artworks, articulate prose, and even write code, suggesting that a human leveraging advanced AI might soon eclipse entire teams of workers.

The release of ChatGPT acted as a wake-up call, even though the development of generative AI had been underway for years. While many individuals are now aware of the impending changes, a segment remains oblivious to the implications of AI in their fields. Some professionals view AI as a tool for enhancing their capabilities, while others regard it as a threat to their livelihoods. This latter group often expresses resentment towards technological advancements, reflecting a broader conflict with progress that neglects those left behind.

What stands out is that this animosity towards generative AI is concentrated in specific professions. Understanding this phenomenon is crucial.

Artists, encompassing designers, painters, and illustrators, appear to be particularly troubled by these advancements. If we consider anger as an indicator of perceived danger, artists seem especially vulnerable. In contrast, writers—who operate in similar environments—often display a surprising calmness. Are they not also under threat?

Since the rise of AI art tools in early 2021, I've observed traditional artists express significant concern and even hostility towards platforms like DALL-E and Stable Diffusion. Many take to social media to voice their frustrations and advocate for better regulations concerning generative AI, especially regarding the often questionable practices of AI companies that may infringe upon copyright. Legal actions are on the horizon, though their outcomes remain uncertain.

Despite the evident risks that AI poses to both artists and writers, the latter group seems less engaged. In my observations, writers tend to either embrace generative AI, dismiss it as insignificant, or ignore it entirely.

I witness little hostility or fear among my peers.

As a writer, my personal experience aligns with these observations; I do not feel threatened by AI. Neither GPT-3 nor the current iteration of ChatGPT induces fear in me. While this may be anecdotal—given my background in AI—I believe this sentiment is common among fellow writers.

This exploration is not a scientific study but rather a quest to understand the behavioral divide between two groups that should, on the surface, experience similar repercussions from advancements in generative AI.

I perceive a notable distinction in how AI impacts artists versus writers. Both groups may be similarly undervalued, yet the creation and perception of their work differ significantly.

Visual art primarily revolves around style, a concept that many have discussed, including responses to my hypotheses shared on Twitter. The consensus suggests that style is far more prominent in visual art than in writing.

As Will Knight from Wired pointed out, “you can instantly see elements of other artists' style in imagery, but it’s much harder to sense that copying and remixing in text.” Parvaz Cazi highlighted that one can easily identify influences in visual art, yet it requires a trained reader to recognize stylistic elements in prose.

I concur: style is a crucial aspect of visual art, whereas it plays a less critical role in writing. This difference renders individual artists more vulnerable to AI's capacity to remix data and produce ostensibly original content that maintains a recognizable style. AI models like Stable Diffusion and Midjourney can mimic artistic styles effectively, often only needing an artist's name in the prompt to create outputs reminiscent of their work.

However, a closer examination reveals that generative AI struggles to replicate an artist's style accurately. While it may produce superficially appealing results, discerning eyes can identify inconsistencies that disrupt the illusion of perfection. Illustrators like Hollie Mengert have firsthand experience with unauthorized reproductions of their work by AI. In an interview, she noted:

> “As far as the characters, I didn’t see myself in it. I didn’t personally see the AI making decisions that … I would make, so I did feel distance from the results.”

> “I feel like AI can kind of mimic brush textures and rendering, and pick up on some colors and shapes, but that’s not necessarily what makes you really hireable as an illustrator or designer.”

If AI art generators excel at mimicking styles but falter in precise replication, why do artists react so strongly against perceived plagiarism of their work?

The crux of their concern lies in art perception rather than creation. Artists fear that the general public may not discern the subtleties that differentiate authentic artwork from AI-generated imitations, potentially leading to a devaluation of their craft.

In contrast, writers face a different landscape. The human perception of images is less discerning than that of text. As Benedict Evans notes, “It’s easier for text to be ‘wrong’.” This phenomenon extends across all forms of language; a simple misspelling is easily recognized, and semantic inaccuracies are immediately apparent.

Language is inherently more precise, establishing a direct connection between a writer's intent and a reader's understanding. This clarity is often absent in visual art, where interpretations can vary widely. The saying "an image is worth a thousand words" underscores the complexity of visual interpretation, suggesting it is less concrete than text.

In summary, writers experience less threat from generative AI due to the lesser emphasis on style in writing, coupled with AI's struggles to accurately replicate artistic styles. The lower threshold for accepting visual art as "good enough" creates fertile ground for AI applications, which explains artists' heightened concerns.

For more insights, subscribe to The Algorithmic Bridge. This newsletter connects algorithms with the people who use them, focusing on the AI developments that matter most to you.

Support my work on Medium directly and gain unlimited access by becoming a member through my referral link here! :)