May 12, 2025
My View is a series of opinion articles written by Bricklynites. Today, Richard B. Saunders, Professor of Communications at Bricklyn University, weighs in on some criticism recently leveled against The Bricklyn Eagle.
Several Outland critics have scolded the Bricklyn Eagle for its use of the Dall-E artificial intelligence (AI) program for generating images. Their claim is that the newspaper’s use of AI for “photos” is both “unethical” and “wasteful,” and that the resulting images are “a pile of s**t.”
The first charge includes allegations that AI results in the loss of work opportunities by “real” artists and designers, as well as a generalized belief that AI “undermines human creativity.”
The second charge, that AI is wasteful, is based on the allegedly steep energy costs inherent in using image generating AI and its resulting negative environmental impacts.
I’ll leave the third charge about the images being “a pile of s**t” to Bricklyn Eagle readers to decide for themselves.
How The Bricklyn Eagle Has Responded
Bricklyn Eagle Publisher & CEO Jeff Brickzos recently stated, “The Bricklyn Eagle takes these allegations seriously. We believe we currently abide by artificial intelligence use guidelines adopted by the Federal Council of the Realm of Bricklyn, but will ask for their feedback on how we use AI for images. It may well be necessary for The Federal Council to take a fresh look at this issue.”
➤ Note: For current Federal Council policy on the use of AI see “Preliminary Guidance on the Use of Generative AI by Media & Government Agencies.”
The two primary policies set out by the Federal Council are:
(1) the need “to carefully double- check the accuracy of any sources identified in the use of AI to prevent fake news,” and
(2) the need “to identify in articles, press releases, or broadcasts” whenever content [being used or displayed] is based in whole or in part on generative AI.”
Does it enhance your reading experience to see an AI “approximation” of Walt Brickman (above left) receiving a coveted Brickitzer Prize for his interview of American astronaut Neil Armstrong? You can compare this to an actual photo of Walt Brickman (above right) standing in front of The Bricklyn Eagle offices.
Bricklyn Eagle Editor Brickman has said that “many subscribers have told us they’ve found that AI-assisted photos and graphics enhance their experience in reading The Eagle,” adding that “Outlanders should also realize that Bricklyn law prohibits our publication of photos of those portions of Bricklyn outside the Great Wall of Bricklyn, as well as of interiors of buildings anywhere in the Realm.”
The Bricklyn Eagle’s use of AI for rendering approximations of otherwise prohibited images appears to take advantage of what some might term a loophole in Bricklyn law.
According to Editor Brickman: “The Federal Council guidelines — which we follow — do not permit the publication of photos taken in areas outside the Great Wall or in building interiors anywhere within the Realm of Bricklyn. Our lawyers have told us that AI renderings that may approximate the look of actual buildings or people in these areas can be shown on The Bricklyn Eagle as they do not impinge on reasonable privacy concerns.”
Above left: photo of The Bricklyn Excchange Building, located inside The Great Wall of Bricklyn (NOT AI generated). Above right: AI assisted approximation / rendering of interior of the Bricklyn Public Library on second floor of The Excchange Building.
It is interesting to note that complaints concerning AI have primarily come from Outlanders, not from Bricklynites or other Inlanders. As Brickzos tells it, “Outlanders critical of our practices need to be aware that when it comes to something like regulating AI, it is Bricklyn, not Outland, law and policy that apply. Having said that, we obviously have much in common with the Outland world, and many of our readers are Outlanders.”
Putting aside for the moment ethical or environmental concerns, which I will address shortly, The Bricklyn Eagle’s use of AI seems, at least for now, to stand on solid legal grounds.
Does The Bricklyn Eagle’s Use of AI Stifle Creativity?
One of the claims made by those critics who call the The Bricklyn Eagle’s use AI images unethical is that it stifles creativity andI takes away from the enjoyment individuals get from building LEGO structures or creations.
While at first blush this sounds plausible, the sentiment appears to be based on a human-centric view of the role and use of LEGO, where piecing together LEGO models is viewed as a hobby or project. It also ignores that fact that most LEGO builders, whether Inlanders or Outlanders, follow clearly spelled out instructions — an enjoyable, but hardly creative, exercise.
In the real world of Bricklyn, LEGO is generally not viewed as a hobby. In fact, as the Eagle has reported many Bricklyn youngsters actually prefer playing with Lincoln Logs, instead of with the LEGO bricks that surround them.
Indeed, for many Bricklynites AI provides a way to re-engage with LEGO design in creative ways, allowing for the design of elaborate imaginary structures, or, in the case of The Eagle, approximations of actual Bricklyn architectural treasures. Should this be viewed as wrong-headed or unethical?
It is also worth noting that the LEGO Group [the privately held company that owns LEGO] has recently used AI images of LEGO minifigures in its advertising. While backtracking after some LEGO users complained, the LEGO Group has apparently not ruled out future use of AI generated images. See “LEGO OFFICIALLY Used AI Generated Art” (YouTube).
Energy Impacts of AI and LEGO Use
Another claim made by opponents of using generative AI is that it requires substantial quantities of energy to render the images. What’s more, it is argued, energy consumption will likely increase with the development of AI-generated videos. When asked about this, Bricklyn Eagle Editor Brickman did not deny that AI can be an “energy hog,” but did note that “the Bricklyn Eagle has not used energy intensive AI videos, and has no plans to.”
Of course, absent regulation, tomorrow’s competitive pressures may change today’s verbal commitments.
Energy consumption concerns have also been a focus of LEGO. According to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, “The LEGO Group has made major strides in reducing energy drawn from fossil fuels. … The output from the investments [in offshore wind projects] now exceeds the consumption from all of LEGO’s factories, stores and offices. … That represents a lot of energy. In 2016 the LEGO group used more than 360 gigawatt hours of electricity to produce 75 billion LEGO bricks.” See “LEGO goes 100% renewable and sets new world record” (ARENA Wire, June 24, 2019).
Bricklyn also primarily relies on renewable energy sources. There is abundant hydro power from the two generating plants along the Brickooski River, enough, according to the Office of the Federal Chancellor, to readily support projected 20 year energy needs. See “Bricklyn’s Energy Outlook: 2025-2045” (unpublished; available on request). Unless there is a dramatic spike in AI use in Bricklyn, energy consumption should not pose a significant problem. However, this is an area the Federal Council should further investigate.
Environmental concerns have long been raised about the disposal of LEGO bricks as they are still almost totally made of plastic. They can take hundreds of years to decompose, and pose an environmental threat.
As reported in ScienceNews (Mar. 19, 2020): “Earth’s oceans are littered with plastic of all kinds. … Andrew Turner, an environmental scientist at the University of Plymouth in England … and colleagues used an X-ray fluorescence spectrometer to measure the chemical compositions of washed-up Lego blocks, which had been collected by beach cleanup volunteers in Cornwall, England, since 2010. …
… the researchers used their X-ray fluorescence measurements to match weathered Legos with pristine versions of the same bricks kept in collections since the 1970s. Across 14 pairs of matching Legos, the weathered versions had 3 to 40 percent less mass than their mint-condition counterparts. Based on those measurements, it would take an estimated 100 to 1,300 years to completely break down a single Lego brick … .”
The LEGO Group has, to date, had limited success in changing the composition of LEGO bricks to make them more biodegradable. However, the company is making a push to end its heavy dependence on fossil-fuel based plastics. See, e.g., “Lego plans to replace oil-based bricks with renewable plastic as profits soar” (Fast Company, Aug. 30, 2024).
It is clear, however, that as of now use of AI to design virtual LEGO structures serves to reduce the need for physical LEGO bricks made of fossil fuels.
Financial Impacts
If The Bricklyn Eagle were not able to use AI for generating renderings of buildings and characters, it would face the expense of purchasing tens of thousands of LEGO bricks and minifigures, an insurmountable problem given the newspaper’s modest budget.
Does the use of AI by The Bricklyn Eagle take away work from artists and illustrators? “Not at all,” says Bricklyn Eagle Publisher Brickzos, noting that “if we couldn’t use AI images we would simply be running text-only stories when reporting on parts of Bricklyn outside The Great Wall where photos are not allowed. The real losers would be our readers.”
See also comments by Ben Cossy on why LEGO AI art is likely not taking away work from professional artists or illustrators (YouTube link). Cossy’s full YouTube post, “Is AI Art a Problem for The LEGO Community?” provides even-handed consideration of several issues related to today’s Bricklyn Eagle op-ed.
The Relationship Between Technology and Art
Publisher Brickzos also points to the fascination Bricklynites have with the growing number of artists who themselves are making use of AI technology. As Brickzos notes, “last year’s ‘Boundless Perspectives’ exhibition at the Bricklyn Museum of Art featured a number of AI-generated works. Many visitors found these new forms of art thought-provoking. Of course, as with so much in the world of art, there was a wide range of passionately held opinions.”
Two of the AI assisted art works on display last year at The Bricklyn Museum of Art. On left, Bricks & Train, by Frances B. Ireland (aka The FBI). On right, Blindfolded, by Jonas Tiler Jones. For a review of these works and the exhibition.
Writing for nftNow, Eric James Beyer (in Fear vs. Ethics: Where AI Art Critics Go Wrong) says that, “To argue that AI art programs are unethical in that they draw from artists’ work out in the world betrays a misunderstanding and a denial of human nature and creative endeavors. An illustrator or a painter who creates an image does so by pulling from countless influences, including images they’ve seen over their lifetime.”
As Beyer also notes, “There are several other pernicious suggestions that underlie the anti-AI art claims proliferating online recently. Some of the more shameful ones imply that the people using these programs are somehow unworthy of possessing a tool that lets them create. The subtle but specious claim amounts to little more than this: only those who have dedicated their careers and lives to art are worthy of experimenting with such technology creatively.” Beyer concludes that “AI art tools are helping to democratize art.”
Whitman, for one, embraced photography. As University of Iowa Professor Ed Folsom explained, “Photography was one of those activities that came to seem to Whitman to be a perfect match for America … It was an invention suited for a democratic country, one of those technological developments that embodied a uniquely American sense of the world. Photography, after all, was the merging of sight and chemistry, of eye and machine, of organism and mechanism, much as America was …” “Whitman and the Visual Democracy of Photography” (The Mickle Street Review, Rutgers University, 1988).
Some commentators have also found generative AI to be comparable to the start of photography in the second half of the 19th century.
In a blog post titled, “In Defense of AI Art: History Repeats Itself, Again, Again, and Again,” fine art photographer Craig Boehman quotes an 1855 comment in the art magazine The Crayon arguing that ”Photography couldn’t qualify as an art in its own right … [because it lacks] something beyond mere mechanism at the bottom of it.” (The Crayon, Mar. 14, 1855; “However ingenious the processes or surprising the results of photography, it must be remembered that this art only aspires to copy, it cannot invent.”).
Journalist and critic Jordan G. Teicher in “When Photography Wasn’t Art” (JSTOR Daily, February 6, 2016) notes that: “When critics weren’t wringing their hands about photography, they were deriding it. They saw photography merely as a thoughtless mechanism for replication.” However, a growing number of Americans, including Walt Whitman (one of the most photographed persons of his time), were praising the merits of photography, as it integrated technology and art.
Scott Billings of the University of Oxford Museum of the History of Science notes that even before photography, “Draughtsman and painters would once have used a camera obscura … for making accurate, detailed sketches of scenes — like landscapes or architecture. It was particularly useful for capturing perspective — accurately representing the height, width, depth and relative position of what you can see in the 3D world on a 2D flat surface.”
“There is plenty of evidence,” says Billings, “that masters like Canaletto and Rembrandt used the camera obscura … [and] people still debate whether the Dutch painter Johannes Vermeer used a camera obscura to capture the incredible detail in his exquisite paintings of domestic scenes. Although there’s no written evidence to prove it either way, art historians think, on balance, that he probably did!”
In Italy, sculptors are now using robots to automate the drudge aspects of sculpting, allowing them to focus on those areas of a sculpture that call for their artistic skills. Is that much different than when teams of assistants and apprentices contributed to the work of a master artist?
Listen to Vermont sculptor Richard Erdman on his use of a robotic assistant in this clip from a CBS 60 minutes broadcast — note, the full 60 minutes episode features both friends and foes of how robotic technology is changing the art of sculpture.
New Technologies & People With Disabilities
According to Michael Mace, Manager of Assistive Technology and Accessibility Centers at Indiana University:
“Generative AI can help people with disabilities create content that expresses their ideas, emotions, and perspectives, and can do so in different modalities and formats. Imagine the possibilities for someone who yearns to create works of art but can’t use their arms. They now can use text-to-image generators like DALL-E to create visual art based on natural language descriptions. They can begin new works using the tools available to them — in this case, by simply using words.” The upsides of generative AI (The Connected Professor, Indiana University, Spring 2023).
Matt Levin, writing in Marketplace News, explains how generative AI programs have helped people with disabilities to express themselves.
One example Levin cites is of a woman with ALS. “Amie Thornburg was diagnosed with ALS 25 years ago. It’s sapped much of her voice, and she can’t really move any muscles below her head.Over Zoom, she showed me a digital image that looks like an eerie oil painting. In the foreground is a bright red poppy flower, with an ominous eyeball in the middle of the pistil. Thornburg used the AI art tool Fotor to create the image with software that followed her eye movements to type the prompts.” How AI helps some people with disabilities communicate (Jan. 2, 2024).
New technologies have also allowed a cartoonist in Alaska to continue working after coming down with Parkinson’s disease.
See also: Using AI, Steve Gleason creates art for first time since ALS diagnosis (Axios New Orleans, Apr 18, 2024).
Summing Up:
In My View, The Bricklyn Eagle’s use of AI technology appears appropriate.
Yes, some may find publication of AI generated renderings to be unethical or distasteful. But is it not ironic that fears of AI supplanting the fine arts, including photography, in some ways echo the fears in prior centuries of those disturbed by the use of photography or its predecessor, the camera obscura?
I also do not see adverse financial impacts on Bricklyn artists from the use of AI by The Bricklyn Eagle. In fact, a growing number of Bricklyn artists have been integrating AI into the creation of their works. At the same time, generative AI can make it feasible for people with certain disabilities to create works of art.
Most Bricklynites appear to have no objection to The Bricklyn Eagle’s use of AI generated images. The criticism comes almost exclusively from Outland readers. Of course, these individuals are free to complain, or to simply discontinue reading The Bricklyn Eagle if the use of AI images offends them.
Having said this, I do hope The Bricklyn Eagle will seek to balance its use of AI with its inclusion, where allowed by Bricklyn law, of more photographs of the actual structures and people of Bricklyn.
I also applaud The Eagle’s commitment not to publish AI generated films or videos, as those are likely to have much more significant energy impacts — and might well necessitate construction of a nuclear power plant along the Brickooski River, something the vast majority of Bricklynites (with certain exceptions) do not want to see.
Finally, I would recommend that the Bricklyn Federal Council assign David Bricks’s team in the Office of the Chief Prognosticator the lead role in developing mechanisms for monitoring the impacts of AI development. With AI technology changing so rapidly, it is essential to have thoughtful oversight of its implementation. For one model, we can look at what Canada, our friend to the North, has done. ✥
— Richard B. Saunders, Professor of Communications, Bricklyn University.
We welcome Letters to the Editor. Please email to: bricklynvt@gmail.com
To the Editor: Thanks to Professor Saunders for his thoughtful (though overlong) analysis of the pros and cons of using AI to generate images. In my own use of AI, I’ve found there is some level of skill needed in preparing the prompts used to generate effective images. It is, in its way, a collaborative process between humans/LEGO people and AI technology. At the same time, I can understand the frustration, and even anger, that artists have in dealing with a technology that is rapidly growing more sophisticated.
Perhaps an analogy can be drawn to the Chinese game of Go, where AI can defeat human Go masters, yet at the same time human (and LEGO) players are employing new strategies by learning from AI. — Maurice Tiler Morris, Bricklyn Jct., VT
To the Editor: Oh my! Bricklyn certainly has its share of controversies. I think the AI images are just fine. Walt: keep giving them hell. — Pat D., Vermont
To the Editor: What Professor Saunders only touches on at the very end of his article is the need for government action to set some controls on the too rapid development of AI technology. It is really out of control … and dangerous. This may be an issue not only appropriate for the Federal Council of Bricklyn to address, as Saunders suggests, but also for multi-nation organizations, like our League of Inland Cities or, for humans, the United Nations. In the meantime I urge your readers to set aside an hour and watch a 2024 interview of Yuval Noah Harari and Aza Raskin on the urgent need to slow down and better control the explosive growth of AI technology. — Suzanne Plater Russell, Bricklyn, VT
