Op-Ed: Artistic paranoia vs AI — Useless and achieving nothing

A California bill seeks to regulate the development of AI models though critics say the measure can threaten innovation in the nascent field – Copyright AFP/File Kirill KUDRYAVTSEV

The world is a screen. As far as anyone knows, it always will be. People’s minds pan from scene to scene. It’s instant ADHD. If something scary shows up on the screen, it’s a cue for a sector-wide meltdown. AI in the arts is a classic example.

To quote Socrates, Aristotle, Confucius, and probably some other overzealous sports commentators:

Meh.

What’s interesting (and it’s barely anything) about the commentary on AI in the arts is the almost total lack of objectivity and forward thinking.

“We’s all bees a-doomedsies!”

“Saddle up the chickens!”

Maybe not the most constructive response? Face it – You’re bitching about AI, but you’re not really doing anything about it.

There are perfectly legitimate gripes, like the SAG AFTRA video games performers strike, where personal skills are basically being stolen.  

What’s supposedly being overlooked on a monotonous basis is the usefulness of AI as a production tool. It’s not actually being overlooked. In a daring bit of honesty, we have this gem: “52% of musicians will conceal AI use in their art over fears of losing authenticity”.

Well, hardy har har. Plagiarism Inc, aka the music industry and the last word in artistic fakery, is worried about looking fake? How about that?

You’re not losing authenticity, you’re losing your minds, and small loss it is.

Consider, bozos – You glue together some tone-deaf patches and tweak a few tracks. What’s the difference? If you condescend to play a musical instrument, you egalitarian saint, you, you swipe other people’s licks. So does AI music. Again, what’s the difference?

The dumbness here may need to be explained. If you can play, you can do stuff in seconds that no large language model has ever known. You can work faster than the AI, with more creative insight. The problem is that you don’t.

The visual arts are equally unambiguous.  Check out these AI images. If you know anything at all about visual arts, you should know where these images come from. What’s the big deal? Ai is trained pretty much the same way as people.

In terms of writing, AI is actually pretty competent. The New York Times op-ed guy Curtis Sittenfeld wrote a piece where he and Chat GPT wrote two stories using the same storyline parameters. He challenged readers to tell which piece was written by him.  

What you’ll notice is that the AI can write a decent standalone story. I was looking for style issues. There weren’t any. Every writer has a “tonal” character, which is what people actually read. The AI survived that scrutiny quite well.

If it hadn’t been for the seemingly inescapable Americanisms in the text of both stories, I might have guessed who wrote what. I don’t actually break out in a rash, but it feels like it.

Anyhow, the style was fine.

Is that a threat to you as a writer?

It shouldn’t be.

As with all the other arts, it’s a question of what people want to see.

To take your place on The Great Two-Dimensional Screen of Life, that’s the issue.

Not AI.

People don’t have to watch, listen, or read anything. The challenge is to get attention.

Now stop whining and get on with it.

________________________________________________

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.