I’m a designer and illustrator with art history schooling, and I’ve been working in tech since 1995, the past 10 years with implementations of MarTech SaaS solutions involving machine learning, among other things. I understand both Art and Tech well enough to realize the true impact of A.I. is ultimately about neither.

First, the debate about the technology of A.I. is a red herring. This is not ultimately about Technology, or even about Art – Tech is an enabler, and Art is the victim, but the perpetrator of the abuse is Business.

Generative A.I. acts as a business disruptor, and as long as such disruption is profitable (and unregulated), it will persist. Generative A.I. art is happening not because Technology is compelling it, but because Business Disruption is driving it, and Technology is acting as an enabler, entirely without the consent of the victim, Art. Much in the same way as self-driving cars are disrupting the transportation industry: you’d be a fool to think that is happening for technological reasons. Tech is just the symptom of the underlying profit motive. And wherever there is a profit motive, a technological enablement, and a lack of regulation, bad things tend to happen. This is not, as some suggest, a doomsday prophecy – it is simply learning from history!

Analogies abound about other technological advancements, but this is not science fiction. A.I. is being sold as capable of things it is already doing. Publishers are already integrating the technology, artists are already being made obsolete, and their work is already being appropriated, on an industrial scale. The genie is out of the bottle, and as always, legislation is struggling to catch up.

Generative A.I. is not ultimately about what is possible, but what is right, and what is wrong. There is nothing right about appropriating the work of unwitting human beings for purposes they have not agreed to. And what is wrong will be the driver in legislation and regulation, which is where A.I. is going next. Don’t believe me? Just look at the E.U. As it did with data privacy laws, the E.U. is leading the legislative field in A.I. regulations. But don’t expect the U.S. to take any initiatives here – true to its core capitalist nature, the U.S. will always lead with its business interests, and let all other interests fall by the wayside. Until they are forced to reconsider.

Perhaps that actually offers a glimmer of hope, because American profit interests are to some degree dependent on being able to do business in Europe. And just like with data privacy legislation, E.U. regulations may ultimately convince American businesses to comply.

Do what’s right.