A new survey released by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University highlights a profound crisis within the professional visual arts community, with 99% of respondents expressing dislike for generative artificial intelligence. The study, which polled 378 verified professional visual artists, found that 92% categorized their feelings toward the technology as a "strong dislike." Beyond sentiment, the data indicates that 80% of these artists believe they are in direct competition with AI systems, fundamentally altering the landscape of creative labor.
Widespread Career and Income Impact
The research details significant negative impacts on the professional lives of artists. Fifty-four percent of respondents reported that AI has diminished their income, while 75% stated it has reduced their job and clientele security. Furthermore, 90% indicated a decrease in income opportunities, and 77% noted a negative impact on their career growth. The survey also found that 61% of artists are concerned about the future of their career, and 74% question its long-term sustainability.
Commercial artists, graphic designers, and concept artists in the entertainment industry are among those most heavily affected. The survey notes that their work is sometimes entirely replaced or largely commandeered by images generated using tools such as Midjourney, Adobe Firefly, or DALL-E. However, fine artists working in traditional media are also experiencing a devaluation of their work and a shrinking pool of employers.
Artist Testimonies and Industry Context
Survey participants expressed deep demoralization, stress, and fear. One costume designer and illustrator stated, "I’m working on getting out of the field and planning to get my PhD in something non-art related because I can’t see my current work as being sustainable when I see them actively replacing me [with] chatGPT." Another illustrator noted the difficulty of seeing younger artists abandon their creative passions due to a perceived lack of future in the field.
The study affirms findings from Brian Merchant, a former technology columnist, who has documented similar trends through his newsletter, "Blood in the Machine." Merchant highlights the "good enough" principle of AI-generated art, where clients and consumers may deem AI work sufficient, leading companies to push down wages and corrode the ability of human artists to earn a living. One anonymous contributor described being out of work for over a year, relying on food donations and receiving a small payment from a client out of guilt after the client switched to AI.
Defensive Measures and Proving Humanity
Artists are also grappling with the pressure to prove their humanity. One illustrator and designer reported that users online are more critical, looking at art to determine if it is AI-generated rather than to enjoy it. Another artist and sculptor mentioned recording the creation process of most works to avoid false accusations of AI use.
In response to these challenges, a growing number of defensive tools have emerged. Software such as Glaze adds pixel-sized changes to artwork to confuse AI training, while Nightshade acts as a poison to corrupt AI training data, preventing systems from scraping protected images. These measures reflect a broader resistance among visual artists seeking to protect their livelihoods and creative integrity in an evolving technological landscape.
