Sarah E. Fox

Jordan Taylor, Joel Mire, Alicia DeVrio et al. · cmu

Art-making is a collective social activity through which queer people engage in political resistance, develop identities, archive queer memory, and form community. However, in recent years, generative AI has disrupted queer artistic communities. Through 15 semi-structured interviews, we examine how queer artists are making sense of the encroachment of GenAI into their art worlds. Our findings surface significant tensions between the relationality of our participants' queer art practices and the perceived anti-relationality of GenAI development and use. We detail how our participants refuse and resist GenAI use and development in response and highlight the limited role our participants saw for GenAI within art-making, such as the queer aesthetic potential of surreal image models. Drawing on queer theory, we discuss how CSCW researchers might support queer artists by refusing dominant AI imaginaries and supporting queer world-building.

Jordan Taylor, William Agnew, Maarten Sap et al.

Visual generative AI models are trained using a one-size-fits-all measure of aesthetic appeal. However, what is deemed "aesthetic" is inextricably linked to personal taste and cultural values, raising the question of whose taste is represented in visual generative AI models. In this work, we study an aesthetic evaluation model--LAION Aesthetic Predictor (LAP)--that is widely used to curate datasets to train visual generative image models, like Stable Diffusion, and evaluate the quality of AI-generated images. To understand what LAP measures, we audited the model across three datasets. First, we examined the impact of aesthetic filtering on the LAION-Aesthetics Dataset (approximately 1.2B images), which was curated from LAION-5B using LAP. We find that the LAP disproportionally filters in images with captions mentioning women, while filtering out images with captions mentioning men or LGBTQ+ people. Then, we used LAP to score approximately 330k images across two art datasets, finding the model rates realistic images of landscapes, cityscapes, and portraits from western and Japanese artists most highly. In doing so, the algorithmic gaze of this aesthetic evaluation model reinforces the imperial and male gazes found within western art history. In order to understand where these biases may have originated, we performed a digital ethnography of public materials related to the creation of LAP. We find that the development of LAP reflects the biases we found in our audits, such as the aesthetic scores used to train LAP primarily coming from English-speaking photographers and western AI-enthusiasts. In response, we discuss how aesthetic evaluation can perpetuate representational harms and call on AI developers to shift away from prescriptive measures of "aesthetics" toward more pluralistic evaluation.