March Edition 2026: Redefining AI Art's Limits

In Denmark, citizens are allowed to copyright their face, combating against the recent and growing rise in AI-generated deepfakes. On the surface, it may seem absurd, but when faces are inputted into databases of models, and used as reference for AI generation, it raises serious concerns about privacy, credibility, and consent. This legislation ultimately leads to a bigger question—just how much does generative AI affect our media and the world we live in?

Generative AI’s roots can be traced back to Joseph Weizenbaum. As a professor at MIT during the early ’60s, he created ELIZA, a chatbot programmed to play the role of a psychotherapist. ELIZA used natural language and empathized with its user instead of giving advice.  Since then, AI chatbots evolved into much more complex LLM’s, or large language models, such as ChatGPT and Sora, which are used to create realistic videos and images without using any human model. Similarly, they focus on making users happy by agreeing instead of offering different advice. .  

Despite its strengths, AI has received plenty of criticism. In early 2025, tools like ChatGPT and AI-powered filters were used to generate images inspired by the iconic animation style of Studio Ghibli films. While they brought more attention to AI’s evolving ability to create images, it also sparked backlash throughout creative spaces. Nevertheless, what do artists and creators at Hopkins think about it?

We anonymously surveyed artists here at Hopkins, asking about their experiences with generative AI. Several respondents expressed concern about AI’s energy consumption and its impact on the environment. Data centers, which house the infrastructure needed to run AI models, use freshwater to cool down their servers. According to a study at the University of California, each 100-word prompt is estimated to use 1 bottle of water. In one day, large data centers use up to 5 million gallons of water per day. Others also criticized AI’s uncanny art style, pointing out extra limbs, airbrushed faces that “lack humanity,” and other inconsistencies that it has. Furthermore, many didn’t like AI art for its lack of boundaries, ethics, and consent, noting that models do not create images from thin air. Oftentimes, they are trained with stolen art fed into their algorithms without proper credit or approval, making AI art plagiarism.

From that poll, we’ve already seen many artists showing their discontent towards AI. Nevertheless, that’s only one side of the conversation. We also surveyed some people who didn’t consider themselves particularly artistic with the same questions that we asked before. There was a significantly higher percentage of respondents who used AI compared to the percentage of artists who also did. In the written responses, many explained that they used AI art for visualization, experimentation, or out of pure curiosity. Ultimately, both polls showed the respondents didn’t think we should be allowed to use AI art, but not for the same reasons. A common belief shared among the artists was that AI use was a slap in the face towards real artists and their work. On the other hand, the others believed that not all applications of AI are inherently bad, acknowledging its uses in entertainment and studying. However, they recognized that over-reliance on it could hinder growth and learning.

Although the divide between artists and casual users of AI may seem clear at first glance, the poll results suggest otherwise. Despite a difference in how they used AI, both groups understood the risk of mixing AI with authentic human expression too closely. Many artists struggle to uphold their standards of originality and creativity in an online landscape over-saturated with AI-generated references. The everyday user faces the challenge of prioritizing their sense of self or the efficiency and convenience AI offers. Ultimately, this debate isn’t just about how technology should be used—it’s about preserving human creativity, individuality, and culture in a rapidly changing world.