(Un)righteous Uses of AI in the Arts

Hayley: I know it’s unlikely to make a jot of difference, but I still feel compelled to share my opinion about generative AI with you on the off chance you might reconsider your use of generative AI (even for tongue-in-cheek zany output): I don’t like it. I still very much like the rest of your creative output from your minds. Over and out ✌🏼

Chris: Noted! My feeling right now, in terms of creative applications, is that it’s fine to use for exercises that are inherently “age of AI” — ie the thing simply wouldn’t have been done in the past — AND that require/facilitate human creativity. Bonus if the use of AI is the point, & part of the discussion (the opposite of hidden). The brightline, I believe, is that AI be a tool (like a paintbrush), not a “co-author.”

In terms of non-artistic applications — maybe not what you’re talking about — I have experienced several hugely beneficial uses (medicine, law) that I’m loathe to condemn simply because their existence may be a stepping stone to eventual ruin. We should be capable as a society of separating the wheat from the chaff (or wheat from the POISON WHEAT). I appreciate that the dispiriting state of affairs would seem to suggest we are NOT capable of that, but I’m dubious of any philosophy that requires us to paternalistically handicap humanity. Of course, it may not work out. [❤️ed by Hayley]

H: I’m with you on the latter for sure. It’s the LLMs that are trained on stolen art that I’m opposed to on a cellular level.

Imo, AI should be used for mass analysis to aid humanity, not for mass ingesting and regurgitatation that will set us back intellectually and creatively. But the two, sadly, seem to be inextricably interwoven.

C: I get that, and I find it persuasive but not completely convincing. Like I think it’s similar to what, eg, Photoshop allowed people to do?

H: Yeah I know, like also, digital music production? And there was a pushback against that.

But...

C: Yeah

H: With all of that tech, we could simply choose not to use it. And we could revert back to other techniques if we wanted to.

Right now we are at real risk at losing entry level jobs that will help people develop skills for non-AI creation.

C: [replying to “With all of that tech…”] As many artists are doing in music — and many listeners are following them

H: Sure, but are they making money?

I can’t actually make a living as an author anymore.

C: Well… we did lose those jobs in music, I guess. The benefits of digital creation are many, though

H: The ability of AI to make decisions without human input is ultimately the problem.

C: The music economy changed before AI, obvs. Certainly there had been some big dislocations in writing as well — my wife worked in magazines in the 90s. [❤️ed by Hayley]

I agree that what AI is doing to writing is crazy, though I wonder whether there will be some sort of correction. Not clear what shape it will take. But it wouldn’t get us back to 1995 in any case.

[replying to “The ability of AI to make decisions…”] Agree with this in the arts. Kinda remains to be seen in other arenas! Are we sure AI wouldn’t be a better, more impartial judge than the asshole racist judge trying your case? Or the MP who’s in big pharma’s pocket? Dangerous talk, I know!

H: I am very conscious that I sit an extreme end of the spectrum when it comes to this debate, but society always needs naysayers and, in this case, I appear to have been designated one and always feel absolutely compelled to have these conversations.

[replying to “Agree with this in the arts…”] It's already been used in warfare. Autonomous weapons. It's very grim. Profiling populations based on data we all provide the LLMs with.

C: Autonomous weapons are scary, for sure. I’m not tooootally sure the real problem wasn’t when we stopped having to shoot each other face to face, like 50 years ago. Firebombing in Laos, eg. Or Hiroshima.

H: [replying to “Agree with this in the arts…”] Also, AI is inherently biased because of the dudes who have built it.

[replying to “Autonomous weapons are scary…”] Ha, yeah. I know. But humans fear repercussions. You can’t try autonomous drones at The Hague!

C: But so are humans. And AI can be tuned to a shared understanding of, eg, Justice, without secret biases or hidden loyalties.

H: In theory. Sure. I will concede that 😝

But that’s not the current state of play.

Right now it’s about money and not much else.

If we refuse to use the current tools and the bubble bursts, the tech will still exist and could be steered towards more meaningful use.

C: [replying to “Ha, yeah. I know…”] I mean… the guys in charge already escape repercussion. Only the poor idiot who loses the war goes to The Hague. We have a radically unfair status quo — I’m not being glib when I say it may not be possible for it to become less fair.

H: I am of the view that it won’t make things more fair in its current form.

And therefore I reject the current form 🫣

C: [replying to “If we refuse to use the current tools…”] Or the people who refuse to use it will be sidelined and the dickheads will be left to decide how everything will run

[replying to “And therefore I reject the current form…”] But it’s not going to stay in its current form. That’s basically a certainly. So who will shape it? That’s the operative question.

H: I think it has more chance of becoming a useful tool if we let the bubble burst.

But I am basing this on vibes 🤪

C: You’re vibe coding!

H: Stop it 🤣

C: welcome to the fold