Just like AI-generated writing, AI-generated art is a shortcut that many look to when they need to create a digital art piece. While FUHSD implements many policies restricting AI-generated writing, AI-generated art is not as easily verifiable in academic settings. Even so, using AI-generated art should be avoided in the same way AI-generated writing is, because AI art hinders learning.

Currently, Lynbrook’s academic dishonesty policy prohibits the use of AI in both writing and art. Yet, while English teachers use applications such as Turnitin that detect AI writing, AI art is not as easily spotted. Rather, AI-generated digital art is only detectable through observing the overall art style, which can be subjective.

“In situations where students are working digitally, I see their work often enough in process to get to know their style,” art teacher Matthew Reynolds said. “So if there was a huge shift in imagery or in the ways that they make marks with digital tools, it would maybe be apparent.”

However, outside of art classes, many academic classes assign art projects as well. In these cases, without a way to monitor the creation process or a student’s style, AI art can be harder to spot. Using AI art defeats the purpose of why art projects are assigned in the first place. Many academic classes, not just art classes, assign projects that involve drawing as a way to get a clearer understanding of the class material. Creating art is a mental and visual process that can stimulate a student to learn the curriculum. Skipping that process by going directly to AI to generate a final product has the same effect as using AI to cheat on an assignment does: it removes the learning aspect.  

Often, students who don’t have previous art experience are discouraged from doing their own work, and are more likely to gravitate toward AI. However, academic art projects are never assigned with the purpose of producing a high-quality artistic piece. They are assigned to prompt critical thinking and a thorough understanding of the content. AI art reduces the learning process to a prompt and a five-second wait.

“I see how, as a thought partner or editor, it is very helpful,” Reynolds said. “But I can also see where the person’s voice, creativity and experience can be overshadowed by the bot’s input due to the speed and ease with which it generates information.”

Additionally, using AI art creates a copyright risk. AI-generated media gathers information from real art made by real artists, generating art by drawing from a real artist’s hard work. This means that the AI-generated assignment you turn in could be somebody else’s hours of effort. AI art pushes aside real artists, replacing their work with lifeless copies. 

AI-generated art should be avoided in academic settings. Instead, spend a little extra time with your pencil, sketching things out on a piece of paper. Whatever the final result may be, those few extra minutes gave you a valuable learning experience.

“There is the danger of turning over too much responsibility to technology, where it does the heavy lifting,” Reynolds said. “In an academic setting, this can be detrimental to learning, as developing critical thinking, learning to research, synthesizing information and formulating a particular point of view are critical to the learning process and to dealing with the complexities of our world. If those aspects are handed to AI, learning could be short-circuited, and a deeper understanding across many fields could be stunted.”