Some insightful reflections here. To throw in my two cents, I really just see AI as a tool like a hammer - I can use it to build incredible things... or I can use it to bludgeon people to death in an incredibly anti-human capacity. The difference here is in the intent of the user. If the intent of a piece of AI is truly to decrease the ability of humans to flourish or control our societies according to one vision of what is "good", then I can't say I'm particularly keen. But, a visual to accompany one of my poems when I'm not in a position to reciprocate an artist for the time they put in to one of their pieces, so that my piece may make its way to the light of day when it wouldn't do so otherwise? Sure. I even find myself using AI tools to generate suggestions for phrases or sentences for my written works if I'm finding myself in a writer's block. Here, I'm not giving all my agency over to the AI - I'm creating a space where the AI can do what it does best, but in a way that is fundamentally in service of my human flourishing and capabilities.
Thanks for sharing some counterpoints! I think that the description of image generation AI as a tool has become a bit of a Trojan horse, a way to keep us locked in debating definitions. This is an over exaggeration of course, but the ring in Lord of the Rings kind of covers how I see the issue. Sure, the ring has some practical application, especially for competent users, but it is a corrupting power at its core. Some can resist it (playing by ethical rules), yet the majority cannot. It is only by the refusal to use it, and shared knowledge of its dangers, that doom is averted. By giving credence to these systems and actively using them, they are validated, which isn't arbitrary; I've seen much of the art community swayed by YouTubers who have encouraged them to use the art for inspiration and speeding up the process. And then I've heard these views parroted by non-artists, suddenly convinced of the morality of these systems, based on a brief interaction with those same creators. I won't deny the utility of the current iterations of this technology and I do think your approach to AI strikes a happy balance, in a vacuum. However, seeing artists with 20 years of experience, suddenly forced to return to the jobs that they find soul sucking is too great a negative for me to ignore. I try not to get too embroiled in the technical side, but the unethical sourcing of data and artists' work also leaves a bad taste.
In terms of the ability for small creators to make their content more known, I see this as probably the most positive aspect of this technology and where I'm most inclined to agree with you. The ability to diminish the monopoly that large companies have on professionality, simply through individual empowerment, is definitely positive. Though I think much of my conclusion will depend on the value that those AI pieces are adding, for example with your poetry: is there a marked increase in the traffic to your poetry when you use AI art instead of royalty free stock images?
"seeing artists with 20 years of experience, suddenly forced to return to the jobs that they find soul sucking is too great a negative for me to ignore"
There's a few factors going on here, not all AI related. A world where computers are cheaper to employ than people because of taxation certainly influences the ability to remain in employment, but there is also the fact that, to some degree, these people are choosing to go back in to jobs they find soul-sucking. The "I don't have a choice if I want to pay the bills" argument doesn't sit with me - there is always a choice. Yes, some routes are going to be more challenging than others, but in my mind, is it not a price ultimately worth paying to be settled in something far more meaningful? I strongly suspect there are other factors in society far more likely to destroy an artist's ability to create well before AI may ever truly get to that point.
There will always be a demand for human-created art, because we want people who can say something poignant about the human condition and speak to its beauty in a way that only humans go. AI can only go so far to speak to this purely because it is devoid of soul and spirit. Also don't forget that, while AIs can generate their own creations, they rely on human-created and human-picked resources to train themselves up.
It also doesn't mean we have to take anything generated by AI as a final product - we can always go back in and edit it to our liking, or use it to simply generate ideas for our own pieces - perhaps in visual arts, what sorts of angles and scenes we'd like to depict etc.
And, in terms of the engagement, it doesn't seem to make much difference!
I'm going to address a lot of these points in an upcoming post. Especially the ability for humans to deliver something that AI can't.
The ability to choose is an interesting one and I think it has to come down to a case by case basis. For one, there are sometimes family responsibilities, where people must factor in supporting their children. There is also the factor of poor health from a lack of nutrition, financial stress etc. Which can be soul-sucking in itself. I agree that as an ideal, people ought to fight for their desired pursuit, but the line has to be drawn somewhere imho.
I agree. While there is still a choice, picking the more soul-crushing route is far more manageable for a lot of people in that scenario.Looking forward to reading more of your thoughts!
Some insightful reflections here. To throw in my two cents, I really just see AI as a tool like a hammer - I can use it to build incredible things... or I can use it to bludgeon people to death in an incredibly anti-human capacity. The difference here is in the intent of the user. If the intent of a piece of AI is truly to decrease the ability of humans to flourish or control our societies according to one vision of what is "good", then I can't say I'm particularly keen. But, a visual to accompany one of my poems when I'm not in a position to reciprocate an artist for the time they put in to one of their pieces, so that my piece may make its way to the light of day when it wouldn't do so otherwise? Sure. I even find myself using AI tools to generate suggestions for phrases or sentences for my written works if I'm finding myself in a writer's block. Here, I'm not giving all my agency over to the AI - I'm creating a space where the AI can do what it does best, but in a way that is fundamentally in service of my human flourishing and capabilities.
Thanks for sharing some counterpoints! I think that the description of image generation AI as a tool has become a bit of a Trojan horse, a way to keep us locked in debating definitions. This is an over exaggeration of course, but the ring in Lord of the Rings kind of covers how I see the issue. Sure, the ring has some practical application, especially for competent users, but it is a corrupting power at its core. Some can resist it (playing by ethical rules), yet the majority cannot. It is only by the refusal to use it, and shared knowledge of its dangers, that doom is averted. By giving credence to these systems and actively using them, they are validated, which isn't arbitrary; I've seen much of the art community swayed by YouTubers who have encouraged them to use the art for inspiration and speeding up the process. And then I've heard these views parroted by non-artists, suddenly convinced of the morality of these systems, based on a brief interaction with those same creators. I won't deny the utility of the current iterations of this technology and I do think your approach to AI strikes a happy balance, in a vacuum. However, seeing artists with 20 years of experience, suddenly forced to return to the jobs that they find soul sucking is too great a negative for me to ignore. I try not to get too embroiled in the technical side, but the unethical sourcing of data and artists' work also leaves a bad taste.
In terms of the ability for small creators to make their content more known, I see this as probably the most positive aspect of this technology and where I'm most inclined to agree with you. The ability to diminish the monopoly that large companies have on professionality, simply through individual empowerment, is definitely positive. Though I think much of my conclusion will depend on the value that those AI pieces are adding, for example with your poetry: is there a marked increase in the traffic to your poetry when you use AI art instead of royalty free stock images?
"seeing artists with 20 years of experience, suddenly forced to return to the jobs that they find soul sucking is too great a negative for me to ignore"
There's a few factors going on here, not all AI related. A world where computers are cheaper to employ than people because of taxation certainly influences the ability to remain in employment, but there is also the fact that, to some degree, these people are choosing to go back in to jobs they find soul-sucking. The "I don't have a choice if I want to pay the bills" argument doesn't sit with me - there is always a choice. Yes, some routes are going to be more challenging than others, but in my mind, is it not a price ultimately worth paying to be settled in something far more meaningful? I strongly suspect there are other factors in society far more likely to destroy an artist's ability to create well before AI may ever truly get to that point.
There will always be a demand for human-created art, because we want people who can say something poignant about the human condition and speak to its beauty in a way that only humans go. AI can only go so far to speak to this purely because it is devoid of soul and spirit. Also don't forget that, while AIs can generate their own creations, they rely on human-created and human-picked resources to train themselves up.
It also doesn't mean we have to take anything generated by AI as a final product - we can always go back in and edit it to our liking, or use it to simply generate ideas for our own pieces - perhaps in visual arts, what sorts of angles and scenes we'd like to depict etc.
And, in terms of the engagement, it doesn't seem to make much difference!
I'm going to address a lot of these points in an upcoming post. Especially the ability for humans to deliver something that AI can't.
The ability to choose is an interesting one and I think it has to come down to a case by case basis. For one, there are sometimes family responsibilities, where people must factor in supporting their children. There is also the factor of poor health from a lack of nutrition, financial stress etc. Which can be soul-sucking in itself. I agree that as an ideal, people ought to fight for their desired pursuit, but the line has to be drawn somewhere imho.
I agree. While there is still a choice, picking the more soul-crushing route is far more manageable for a lot of people in that scenario.Looking forward to reading more of your thoughts!