Musing. About AI.
Ai can do beautiful things. Granted.
It can create junk as well. Ah, but so can humans, one can say.
True. With the proper inputs, directions, and human perseverance, AI can create something beyond what we can do in a drastically shorter amount of time.
I don’t question that – I am not questioning using technology to further original human creativity or to enhance an already created project, or to provide technological assistance (science, advanced math, …).
But what about those who use AI to create and produce the work from the beginning – leaving AI to take on the whole creative process?
There is a possibility that this can be done without being damaging, with some standards of aesthetics, principles, and ideas held intact. I am sure that it may be possible and perhaps it has been done, effectively, already. But it’s slim.
Think of all the trash books and trash art that are out there – written exclusively by AI, perhaps from a human prompt at most. Works that don’t hold a light to any standard.
These AI creations, the trash books and art, are pushing the books and art, created by human hand & fueled by human emotion and thought, off the shelves and into oblivion.
If we must use AI, (I still wonder about the if and why we must), shouldn’t there be limits and standards?
Shouldn’t quality be a standard?
Imagine trying to assess what 'quality' standards could exist in literature and art in a time like ours, when people are beginning to lose the ability to communicate effectively and when the appreciation of the arts is waning.
Who can judge quality today - what constitutes a good read or great art, when there are no contemporary universal 'standards' to go by in a world that demands to be entertained audio-visually with the least effort and consumes 'brainless' entertainment passively? So, books and art in that kind of world? Difficult indeed.
I am not talking about liking a style or personally relating to a genre. I am not talking about ‘tastes’ and preferences as a means to determine quality standards.
sosanni
I am talking about being able to distinguish a book or a piece of art for its ability to relay a message, provoke thought, and stir emotion, regardless of what that might be. That should be a standard.
This isn’t about personal preference or experience – it is about recognizing the fact that being able to use a pen or brush to effectively express an idea, regardless of whether or not others agree with the idea, is a standard of quality.
Does the book or artwork (story, poem or sculpture – painting, prose or music) provoke thoughts or feelings?
So many young people today have not read a book yet that ‘moved’ them – that made them think – that made them feel.
And AI is creating more and more of these cold, sterile products masked as art and literature.
Ugh. Everything seems to be AI today. Everything. I have grown accustomed to using AI, even using an image here and there when I need to find something ‘contemporary’. I use it and cringe.
But to sacrifice art and beauty for convenience?
Humans, exclusively, bear the innate, glorious, and unique creative ability to construct works fueled by emotion, driven by instinct, and colored by experience.
And to sacrifice this for mass-produced mechanical mimicry?
MImicry devoid of emotion, moral codes, and principles, without instinct, experience, or memories.
How can this empty mimicry pass for art or literature?
What about simple grammar checks and scans for errors (syntax and the like)? Isn’t that AI? It flies into our faces when we write the simplest email, eager to put the words into our mouths.
There is no right or wrong here – there is no way to draw lines and justify that AI is good for this and bad for that.
One truth is coming out of all this, and that is AI is here to stay.
When we ‘create’ as humans, investing our memories, emotions, and cultural nuance in the process, regardless of it being art, literature or music, AI is there pushing these works aside before they can be seen.
Because in minutes, they can provide a human creative with their version, a substitute for something that may take a person a year to create.
Their version? Constructed by
- learned patterns of language
- learned descriptors of emotional response
- learned patterns of dialogue
- plots without nuance
- without depth
- without moral code
- without any respect for what is sacred to a human.
Because belief, morality, principles, decency, nuance, depth, and the sacred are concepts that these ‘machines’ can recognize in code but will never feel or understand.
And so here we are. The last of the writers and readers.
The ones that can endure paragraphs at a time.
A series of paragraphs to the younger generations is tl;dr.
The younger generations? Raised in the digital age.
The digital age. The age of ‘progress and promise’.
Characterized by
- shortened attention spans.
- Diminished vocabulary.
- Little or no exposure to cultural heritage in the arts.
- Lack of critical thinking skills.
My take?…
I think we all need to read more, write more, share more, express more, feel more, think more, muse more, rant more…Just be more.
Let’s all do more. Maybe we can hold on to whatever culture is left untouched by technology a bit longer before it fades into oblivion.