Generative AI, no matter how marvelous it eventually gets, presents some well understood challenges, and another that nobody seems to be talking about. But first, let's recap…
Whether they're making text, images, music or movies, those models work by spawning plausible outcomes from a prompt and a very large body of existing work. Therein lies, of course, the first problem, which is that all that it creates is derivative, and in a certain sense, stolen work. There are people, living or dead, who made the original work the model is built on. They're not being rewarded or recognized for their work, whereas the "owners" of the model are laughing all the way to the bank. A lot has been written on the subject, legal action has been attempted, and some "ethical" models are starting to emerge, that rely on properly licensed work. Public perception of these IP issues remains low, however, and in the end, convenience usually trumps ethical behavior.
That's a big problem, but not the one I want to talk about today.
Then, there's the ecological impact of this technology. AI models are extremely expensive. They require the construction and operation of huge data centers that use enormous amounts of energy that are sure to dwarf the already problematic (but much less useful) crypto coin mining and other silly NFT scams. Big tech companies are even planning to build entire nuclear plants to address the requirements.
That's a huge problem, but not the one I want to talk about today.
As models are being fed the contents of an ever-growing Internet, which is more and more made of the output of previous AI and of uncurated click-baiting junk, as "engagement" continues to be the reigning metric against which all knowledge is measured, the signal to noise ratio will decline steadily. Eventually, the whole Internet will likely become an AI centipede of information, an ocean of shit where useful information is drowned and unretrievable. Ray Kurtzwell was wrong when he predicted the singularity would be an exponential growth of artificial intelligence: it will be a malignant growth of junk data.
That's a very concerning problem, but not the one I want to talk about today.
That artists will be more and more out of a job, as philistine patrons fail to discern a difference and prefer to buy junk AI art instead of commissioning real artists is, of course a very important issue, but you guessed it, not the one I'm going to talk about.
Enough preamble already. Here's the problem, and it's one that cannot be solved:
The reason we make art is not so that we have pretty things. For some people it may be, but definitely not for the artist. We make art because we like to create things. The process is why we do it, and it's precisely the part that AI "art" is doing away with.
The discourse over AI unfortunately has been focused on the consumer side, not on the producer side. Can the patron of the arts tell the difference, will they care? Increasingly not. The artist does, because AI alienates them from what makes them an artist. It attacks their very identity.
But there's intrinsic value in the act of creation. Why is society not recognizing it?
The reason is quite simple: the people selected by our capitalist society to lead the tech companies responsible for AI are essentially and by definition deeply uncreative people. They couldn't care less about the process to make things, they only care about results on a balance sheet. Will I make more profit next year? Can I continue for a little bit more the impossible quest for eternal growth? Those are the questions that matter to them.
On an individual level, most of us understand real non-monetary values such as the value of creation. On a systematic, societal level, we do not.
Here's my definition of art:
Art is work that is created with the intention to trigger an emotional response.
With that definition, there are two parties necessarily involved in the artistic process: the creator and the recipient. There's also the necessity of an intent. An AI doesn't intend anything. The value of art for society as a whole resides in that intentional relationship. It's a conversation, which a chatbot fails to provide for lack of purpose.
Art gives us a chance to feel another person's emotions, to know what we can never know: how it feels to be somebody else than ourselves. It's the ultimate communion between human souls. This is why there isn't and will never be real AI art.
Let's all try to recognize and understand why we do anything, why we want anything. Do we want to be the kind of people for whom money is the ultimate reference or will we recognize real values? Do we want to live in a world where all neighborhoods look the same, with a Starbucks, a Walmart and a McDonald's or do we want to live in one with local artists and artisans?
Have your own fun, don't let AI have it for you. Refuse AI "art".