Sakura-Con accepted a pro-AI art panel as part of their programming in 2023.

For quick context, AI art platforms scrape artists’ work from sites, like DeviantArt, without their permission. The platforms use that artwork to train AI models to generate ‘art’ in the style of any artist sourced. That’s theft.

Will Sakura-Con, who rents booths out to artists, support artists by NOT hosting a panel in favor of AI art platforms? How can Sakura-Con take money from artists, but allow a panelist to promote AI art? Is this not a conflict of interest? 

A Call to Action
Based on the details from the Context section that follows, we make the following demands of Asia Northwest Cultural Education Association (ANCEA), the 501c3 nonprofit corporation that presents Sakura-Con:

1. A call to release a public statement about Sakura-Con’s stance on whether or not it will accept AI art in the Artist Alley and programming. Attendees, artists, and vendors need to know if Sakura-Con is supporting AI art in any way.
   
   • Anime NYC and Animé Los Angeles declared they would not allow AI art at their respective conventions.
   • Kumoricon had updated its website, as of May 6, 2023, to include changes to its FAQ that AI art would not be allowed to be sold, displayed, or distributed in KumoriMarket, which includes their Artist Alley.
2. A call to revise the criteria for accepting panels. Today, Sakura-Con accepts any panels that simply "did not violate convention policy or any laws."
   • Define higher standards for accepting or rejecting panel submissions. Standards may include but are not limited to being absent of conflicts of interest, stating clear objectives, and targeting topics relevant to an anime convention.
   • Add an additional layer of review for approving panels that specifically involves artists from Artist Alley as part of a more diverse set of stakeholders. The additional reviewers have the authority to decline any panel submission that does not meet the higher standards described in 2(a). This action intends to address the lack of diverse perspectives in Programming in 2023. That nobody across the existing structure of review had a pulse on how artists would feel about an AI art panel at Sakura-Con is a failure in diversity at multiple levels.
   • If Sakura-Con would accept a panel on AI art again, allow attendees to record video and/or audio of the panel for accountability. Allowing documentation of AI panels can keep Sakura-Con from legal actions depending on how the laws end up settling. Furthermore, attendees and artists (who would be boothing and unable to attend) should have the right to know if the presentation of the panel actually aligns with its description or if the panel is undermining artists. 
3. A call to uphold the same level of commitment to removing AI art on the convention floor as Sakura-Con does with fanart or copyrighted art in the Exhibit Hall. The intention is if the convention can police the Exhibit Hall, then why not apply the same policing policy for AI panels that may undermine artists?
   
   • Add an explicit clause in the Sakura-Con FAQs for Exhibitors and Artist Alley that forbids artwork and merchandise that is mostly or entirely made by AI.
   • If there are any reports of AI art existing at the convention, Sakura-Con staff should devise a plan for immediate response. An effective and immediate response by Sakura-Con is important because by removing AI content or booths, Sakura-Con would be showing they are protecting artists, vendors, and attendees.
4. A call to hire an independent auditor to investigate any conflict of interests between Sakura-Con Programming, the panelist, and AI art corporations.
   • Investigate how the AI art panel was initially accepted at a convention with an Artist Alley and why it was allowed to proceed.
   • Report the findings publicly.
5. A call to respond to each demand listed above with a statement of what actions ANCEA will take.

Context
Ten days before Sakura-Con 2023, the schedule was released on the website. This included an AI art panel with the following description:

"Robots are generating award winning artwork! Now you can too! Learn a Primer on A.I. Art generation and how to get started."

There is no denying that the panel would have been about the proliferation and celebration of AI art (‘you can too’ and ‘how to get started’). Sakura-Con promptly received enough pushback that they asked the panelist to revise the description. By Tuesday, April 4, three days before the start of the convention, a new description that took a 180-degree turn appeared in the app and website:

"Join us for a thought-provoking discussion on AI Art and its ethical implications within the anime community. Our expert speaker will explore the various types and applications of AI Art and will delve into the ethics surrounding this emerging technology. The audience will have the opportunity to ask questions and voice their opinions during the Q&A session.

Whether you're a seasoned anime fan or new to the world of AI Art, this panel is for you. Learn about the technology behind AI-generated art and discover its potential applications in the anime industry. We'll also explore the ethical considerations of using AI in the creation of art, such as ownership and authorship rights.

Our goal for this panel is to educate our audience on the basics of AI Art technology and to hold an open and honest discussion on the ethics of AI Art. Join us for an engaging conversation on the intersection of art and technology, and leave with a deeper understanding of the impact AI is having on the art world."

The revised description still contained the same positive bias towards AI art as the original description. Inviting an ‘expert speaker’ on the topic would have implied that the panelist was an active user of the AI art technologies. And if this were to be a panel truly about the ethics of AI art, then ‘discovering its potential applications in the anime industry’ would not be a relevant topic to highlight, but rather a promotion. New planets are ‘discovered’; medical treatments are ‘discovered’. Combined with the positive connotation of ‘potential’, these were red flags that the panel would proceed with the bias and direction of the original description.

Sakura-Con staff denied that the panel would be biased and insisted the verbiage was neutral. Furthermore, they held that "after review, the content of the panel does not violate any convention policy or laws, therefore the panel will not be pulled." Their only objection was that they "found out the description did not align with the content."

When challenged that the bias of the new description did not align with the content that the staff expected, Sakura-Con’s very own standards, staff did not press the panelist to revise the description a second time. Sakura-Con staff also ignored a request to run the new description by artists to get their feedback.

At 9:15am on Day 1, Sakura-Con enabled the following content during the AI art panel at their convention:

On personal usage

• "If you want to know, I like Midjourney the most because they’re the leader in AI."
• "I mentioned Midjourney. I do support them quite heavily because they’re the leader in privacy and they’re also the leader in developing this."
• "But the number one thing that can be done is we can try to move toward the way of coexisting with AI."
• "And I need to generate like 100 [NPCs] a month. That would cost me like $5000 if I wanted to get a visual aid for NPCs for my friends."
• "That would usually cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars just to do 1 NPC and I did like 100 a month."
• "AI art is the ultimate commissioned worker."
• "This is crazy for productivity."
• "I’m terrible at drawing. I only started drawing because my first high school sweetheart was. And I was terrible and I’m like, "Ugh she won’t love me if I don’t go to art school with her." And soon I found out I don’t have to do the same thing she did. So I give it to computers. Now this is a dream come true."

On artists

• "Why would I go up to Artist Alley, pay $500 to generate all my NPCs, when I'm gonna use them once and I can do it for $40."
• "I have enough Sakimi-chan work. I don't need to commission Sakimi-chan to make anything. I can just make stuff in her style now. I just made a Sakimi-chan robot."
• "It’s a losing battle. There’s no way an artist here can say ‘Okay, I can match the machine.’ It’s like the canvas painter trying to match the printer. You can’t do it. You can’t paint pictures as fast a printer can print them out. It’s just a fact."
• "But when thinking about artist compensation, there’s also some other points. You have to think about, ‘What can I offer that the machine can’t do as an artist.’ That’s the real important question here. I know that’s a really hard question, and that’s like it almost feels like a slap on the face."

On Glaze and Sakura-Con staff’s involvement

• "Now does anybody know what this is? This is something that was kind of requested by the convention." [Glaze Project] "This project does not work." 

On privacy

• "Unfortunately the first one filed against Stable Diffusion, in my opinion, is pretty... should be dropped."
• "Copyright law is really boring. It is really stupid."
• "There’s no possible way that I can think of that I can share my work and sell it, but also not share it with the AI. It’s a choice. That’s the choice. I’ve made the choice as an artist to share my work."

We urge readers to judge for themselves the merits of the panel and how well it aligns with the description and the neutrality alleged by staff.

Takeaways
It would be fair to say that some ethics of AI art were indeed discussed as the panel description suggested, but it would be an incomplete portrayal. If it is not clear from the quotes, the presentation favored Midjourney AI. One attendee commenting on Twitter even mistook the speaker as a representative of the company because of his praise and support for the platform. The panelist only raised ethics to throw some AI platforms under the bus while elevating Midjourney. The panel was effectively a free advertisement for Midjourney and a case for artists to surrender and coexist with AI art. 

Two weeks after Sakura-Con 2023, we asked staff these followup questions based on points raised in our previous discussions:

1. Were there any statements that stood out to you for any reason?
2. Did you notice any kind of bias?
3. Having seen this panel, is it something you would want to have again at Sakura-Con in 2024?
4. Have you or any of the staff seen or heard the recent response from the community regarding this panel after Sakura-Con?

Sakura-Con staff avoided directly answering questions 1 and 2 and instead made observational statements such as "the presentation was PowerPoint lecture with Q&A" and "the panel room was only roughly ⅓ full." Their reply came 29 minutes after our email and felt like a cold, prepared corporate statement. Sakura-Con’s email response was disappointing because they did not acknowledge the speaker’s unapologetic endorsement of Midjourney.

Regarding question 4, Sakura-Con staff was oblivious about how artists and attendees felt about AI art, saying, "We have gotten very little feedback direct to us after the panel was held and the majority has been from people wanting to reach out to the panelist for more information on the presentation." Sakura-Con staff claimed they did not receive much feedback in the days before the convention either, and that is easy to explain for anyone who attends conventions:

• Cosplayers are con-crunching.
• Artists are packing up their goods, and few, if any, would look at the schedule since they are boothing.
• Sending an email about AI art takes significant emotional energy and time.

Sakura-Con staff explained on the panelist’s behalf that part of their desire "to run the presentation at art-centric conventions was to get direct feedback from the artist communities about their concerns regarding AI Art and to better bring those concerns to other IT professionals." One internet search will reveal how artists feel about AI art. One instagram poll will reveal how followers feel about AI art. One email to all registered members in the database will reveal how everyone feels about AI art. The answers were there, but they were not sought.

When prompted to share additional perspectives from others on staff who also attended the panel, we received no response. Over two weeks have since elapsed and counting. For the same reason that the AI art panel was accepted despite poor writing and being in direct conflict with Artist Alley both financially and ethically, the Programming committee at Sakura-Con is lacking in diversity of perspectives. That not one person felt comfortable to share their own opinion on the same panel also indicates an organizational culture of control and obfuscation, not one of transparency and honesty.

Finally, regarding question 3, Sakura-Con staff responded this way: "This isn't a matter of "want", our panel submission policy is that we accept panels so long as they do not violate convention policy, and the panel subject or content itself is not illegal. If the panelist choses to submit the panel again next year they have not violated any policies or laws so their panel will be reviewed just like any other panelist." 

Despite being informed about why AI art is a conflict of interest at a convention with an Artist Alley, despite being warned that the panel content would be biased in favor of AI art and not aligned with its description, and despite attending the panel and witnessing the biased content for themselves including all of the quotes above, Sakura-Con staff would accept this panel again in 2024.

We had reached out to Sakura-Con to solve a problem. That requires that all parties involved acknowledge how problematic an AI art panel is at one of the largest anime conventions in the Pacific Northwest. But we have been met with denial after denial. We share the full context of what transpired not to shame any one individual, but to escalate our demands for greater action, honesty, and transparency.

Please sign this petition to acknowledge the conflict of interest of having an AI art panel at Sakura-Con and to make the demands of ANCEA listed at the top.