Like many nascent artistic movements, generative AI art has been widely criticized. But some artists are nevertheless pushing the creative limits of these new tools. In this era of AI slop, the idea that generative AI tools like Midjourney and Runway could be used to make art can seem absurd: What possible artistic value is there to be found in the likes of Shrimp Jesus and Ballerina Cappuccina? But amid all the muck, there are people using AI tools with real consideration and intent. Some of them are finding notable success as AI artists: They are gaining huge online followings, selling their work at auction, and even having it exhibited in galleries and museums. "Sometimes you need a camera, sometimes AI, and sometimes paint or pencil or any other medium," says Jacob Adler, a musician and composer who won the top prize at the generative video company Runway's third annual AI Film Festival for his work Total Pixel Space "It's just one tool that is added to the creator's toolbox."

The introduction of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into the domains of traditional art (visual arts, performing arts, and crafts) has sparked a complicated discussion about whether this might be an agent of disruption or an enhancement of our traditional art forms. This paper looks at the duality of AI, exploring the ways that recent technologies like Generative Adversarial Networks and Diffusion Models, and text-to-image generators are changing the fields of painting, sculpture, calligraphy, dance, music, and the arts of craft. Using examples and data, we illustrate the ways that AI can democratize creative expression, improve productivity, and preserve cultural heritage, while also examining the negative aspects, including: the threats to authenticity within art, ethical concerns around data, and issues including socio-economic factors such as job losses. While we argue for the context-dependence of the impact of AI (the potential for creative homogenization and the devaluation of human agency in artmaking), we also illustrate the potential for hybrid practices featuring AI in cuisine, etc. We advocate for the development of ethical guidelines, collaborative approaches, and inclusive technology development. In sum, we are articulating a vision of AI in which it amplifies our innate creativity while resisting the displacement of the cultural, nuanced, and emotional aspects of traditional art. The future will be determined by human choices about how to govern AI so that it becomes a mechanism for artistic evolution and not a substitute for the artist's soul.

For many months, AMD offered a special treat to enthusiasts wishing to run AI chatbot LLMs on their PCs: configurable VRAM that significantly improved performance. Now Intel can say the same. Bob Duffy, who oversees Intel's AI Playground application for running AI art and local chatbots on your PC, tweeted that the company's latest Arc driver for its integrated GPUs now offers a "shared GPU memory override" that offers the ability to adjust your PC's VRAM, provided that you have a supported processor. This is a big deal for AI and even some games, though not an obvious one. If you owned an Intel Core laptop with 32GB of memory, 16GB of it would be assigned to AI and games.

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) continues to grow daily, more exciting (and somewhat controversial) technology emerges every other day. As we see the advancements in AI, we see more and more people becoming skeptical of it. This paper explores the complications and confusion around the ethics of generative AI art. We delve deep into the ethical side of AI, specifically generative art. We step back from the excitement and observe the impossible conundrums that this impressive technology produces. Covering environmental consequences, celebrity representation, intellectual property, deep fakes, and artist displacement. Our research found that generative AI art is responsible for increased carbon emissions, spreading misinformation, copyright infringement, unlawful depiction, and job displacement. In light of this, we propose multiple possible solutions for these problems. We address each situation's history, cause, and consequences and offer different viewpoints. At the root of it all, though, the central theme is that generative AI Art needs to be correctly legislated and regulated.

As AI enters the workforce and seeps into all facets of our lives at unprecedented speed, we're told by leaders across industries that if you're not using it, you're falling behind. Yet when AI's use in art enters the conversation, some retreat in discomfort, shunning it as an affront to the very essence of art. This ongoing debate continues to create disruptions among artists. AI is fundamentally changing the creative process, and its purpose, significance, and influence are subjective to one's own values--making its trajectory hard to predict, and even harder to confront. Miami-based Panamanian photographer Dahlia Dreszer stands out as an optimist and believer in AI's powers.

In early 2025, Augmented Intelligence - Christie's first AI art auction - drew criticism for showcasing a controversial genre. Amid wider legal uncertainty, artists voiced concerns over data mining practices, notably with respect to copyright. The backlash could be viewed as a microcosm of AI's contested position in the creative economy. Touching on the auction's presentation, reception, and results, this paper explores how, among social dissonance, machine learning finds its place in the artworld. Foregrounding responsible innovation, the paper provides a balanced perspective that champions creators' rights and brings nuance to this polarised debate. With a focus on exhibition design, it centres framing, which refers to the way a piece is presented to influence consumer perception. Context plays a central role in shaping our understanding of how good, valuable, and even ethical an artwork is. In this regard, Augmented Intelligence situates AI art within a surprisingly traditional framework, leveraging hallmarks of "high art" to establish the genre's cultural credibility. Generative AI has a clear economic dimension, converging questions of artistic merit with those of monetary worth. Scholarship on ways of seeing, or framing, could substantively inform the interpretation and evaluation of creative outputs, including assessments of their aesthetic and commercial value.

The new Apple Intelligence within the new Apple iPhone 16 provides a surprisingly practical approach to AI. Apple, which touts itself as the foundation for creative work, could have used AI to allow creatives to generate "photos" of imaginary objects, as Google's Pixel now does. It could have used AI, either running locally on in the cloud, to produce AI-generated art, or AI-produced facsimiles of celebrity voices. It did none of that. Instead, the Apple iPhone 16 uses AI as a productivity tool, first and foremost, with a focus on supercharging existing features with machine smarts. Apple is revamping Siri with a new AI foundation to help it better understand what you yourself are looking for, and follow complex conversations.

Artists and writers all over the world have spent the past two years engaged in an existential battle. Generative-AI programs such as ChatGPT and DALL-E are built on work stolen from humans, and machines threaten to replace the artists and writers who made the material in the first place. Their outrage is well warranted--but their arguments don't always make sense or substantively help defend humanity. Over the weekend, the legendary science-fiction writer Ted Chiang stepped into the fray, publishing an essay in The New Yorker arguing, as the headline says, that AI "isn't going to make art." Chiang writes not simply that AI's outputs can be or are frequently lacking value but that AI cannot be used to make art, really ever, leaving no room for the many different ways someone might use the technology.

Taylor Swift fans are not endorsing Donald Trump en masse. Kamala Harris did not give a speech at the Democratic National Convention to a sea of communists while standing in front of the hammer and sickle. Hillary Clinton was not recently seen walking around Chicago in a MAGA hat. But images of all these things exist. In recent weeks, far-right corners of social media have been clogged with such depictions, created with generative-AI tools.

Today, you can ask Microsoft Copilot to draw an AI-generated image of a strawberry pie for free, right from within Windows. But if you want to do the same thing in Microsoft Word, it will cost you at least 26 dollars per month. Does that make sense to you? AI art has existed within Microsoft's ecosystem since 2022, when Microsoft released its first beta of Microsoft Bing Image Creator. That later became Microsoft Designer, the design tool that Microsoft developed to compete against Canva. This week, Microsoft said that Designer's AI art capabilities would roll out in several of its apps and services, including Photos, Word, and PowerPoint. There's a catch, though: Those capabilities don't come for free.