Fact or Fiction? Real or Fake?

Creating generated imagery is challenging—but the challenge is ethical. Some fear being replaced by boorish hacks who appropriate others’ work; while this is possible, that concern ultimately exposes itself for what it is.

More pressing is how serious artists use tools—any tools—with ethical practice. Once, coloring images digitally seemed unthinkable compared to traditional methods. Yet digital work demands the same depth of knowledge and sensitivity. Without that understanding, the result is predictable and uninspired.

I gave a brief talk the other day on FTS at the college where I teach. I showed the 3-minute video with the spoken-word narration in my previous post. The room gasped when I told the audience that the man's voice was sampled from generated AI. A professor asked me about my ethical use of AI in this case, and I said I had no problems with it, since the voice was generated by a computer. I mentioned my pursuit of the comedian and spoken-word raconteur Reinaldo Ruiz and how a sample of his voice could more accurately express the color of the language in Cordoba. That statement generated even more gasps.

I counter that with:

• Music is routinely sampled. How is sampling a voice by AI any different?

• Is tweening in animation legitimate image processing?

• Decades ago, engineers programmed musical instruments in songs in all genres of music. 

• And CGI is responsible for...finish this sentence for me, please.

Is it the degree? The Origin? The Attribution? 

For my project, studying the language of someone like Reinaldo is essential. Achieving authenticity in the spoken work is where the artistry lies when using a new tool.