In this age of accelerating technological advancement, a peculiar and somewhat disquieting question arises: as we continue to develop and integrate artificial intelligence into our daily lives, could we inadvertently relinquish our capacity for critical thinking and memory? It is not an unfounded concern, for as we have witnessed throughout history, our cognitive faculties are highly malleable, adjusting in response to the intellectual demands placed upon us.
Consider, for instance, the written word. Its emergence as a means of recording and transmitting ideas marked a significant departure from the oral traditions that preceded it. Writing, however arduous a task it may be, necessitates the engagement of the mind in the deliberate and volitional process of conceiving ideas, scrutinizing them, and ultimately expressing them. In this respect, writing both refines and reinforces our cognitive abilities.
However, the same cannot be said for artificial intelligence, specifically language models such as GPT. The core of the concern lies not in the limitations of these models, but in their inevitable and ever-advancing capabilities. As they become increasingly adept at replicating human thought and expression, it is only natural that more people will come to rely upon them for an ever-growing array of intellectual tasks.
This is not to say that all humans will one day forsake their innate faculties of reason and creativity. There will always be a place for free thinkers, writers, and other intellectual pioneers. Yet, as these advanced models become more accessible and their utility more apparent, the temptation to delegate our cognitive labor to machines will grow. The prospect of a post-human future, in which human beings are no longer the primary agents of decision-making, becomes increasingly plausible.
Already, we have begun to cede our autonomy to machines in various domains, from stock trading to entertainment, and beyond. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that this trend will continue, and perhaps even accelerate, as artificial intelligence becomes more sophisticated and alluring. The tradeoff – convenience and ease in exchange for the gradual erosion of our intellectual prowess – may prove irresistible for many.
Further, we are confronted with a provocative question: is creativity a far more mechanical process than we have believed? As we endeavor to reconcile the disparate realms of human ingenuity and artificial intelligence, the contours of the debate are increasingly delineated by two opposing schools of thought.
On the one hand, there exists a cadre of individuals who argue that true creative genius is elusive to the grasp of the most advanced language models. These models, they contend, are relegated to the realm of mediocrity, capable only of approximating the average of all appropriate responses. According to this perspective, human creativity is a unique and ineffable attribute, one that defies mechanistic replication.
On the other hand, proponents of the field of AI-generated creativity maintain that recent advancements in stable diffusion text-to-image models exemplify the capacity for machines to generate novel and innovative content. This faction posits that creativity, far from being a transcendent and ineffable human quality, can indeed be mechanistically synthesized, albeit with varying degrees of success.
Between these two polarities, a plethora of gradations may be found, each offering a unique perspective on the nature of creativity and the role of artificial intelligence in shaping the future of artistic and intellectual pursuits. Regardless of the particular vantage point from which one examines this debate, it is evident that the incursion of AI-generated content into the realm of creative professions has already engendered a series of real-world disruptions.
The article titled “ArtStation accused of removing artwork protesting AI-generated art” from The Verge, dated December 23, 2022, reports that ArtStation, a popular online platform for artists, has been accused of removing artworks protesting against AI-generated art. The platform’s decision sparked concerns over censorship and the implications of AI in creative industries.
The controversy began when ArtStation started promoting an AI-generated art tool called PaintsChainer, which automates the process of coloring line art. In response, several artists created protest artworks expressing their concerns about the potential negative impact of AI on artists and their livelihoods. These protest artworks were then allegedly removed by ArtStation.
Users accused the platform of suppressing artists’ voices and censoring their content. The artists argue that AI-generated art tools could potentially devalue human-made artwork, threaten job security, and undermine the creative process. The incident raises questions about the balance between embracing technological advancements in creative fields and preserving the integrity of human creativity and expression.
“I am really considering removing my art online from places such as Artstation,” Suzanne Helmigh, art director at Ghostfire Gaming, told her 43,000 Twitter followers. “If the point of creating art is lost, and all our work is good for is to be fed into a machine, to be abused and Frankensteined into some A.I. visuals.”
Drew Hemment, researcher at the University of Edinburgh and creative AI lead on the AI & arts interest group at the Alan Turing Institute, explains that historical bias within the datasets AI image generators use is possibly the biggest problem.
“The model of machine learning finds patterns in historic data,” he explains. “But that historic data represents our world today – warts and all. The data these models are trained on reflects the bias, the racism, the sexism, the economic disparities… all of the harmful biases in society are reflected in the data, and then the algorithms amplify that bias,” he adds.
AI should be considered as tools, just like a paintbrush or a synthesizer, according to Drew. AI doesn’t replace humans because it lacks purpose and vision. Instead, it offers new capabilities, leading to a major change in how we create.
One way to combine AI and human creativity is the ‘sandwich model’. Here, a person starts the process, the AI generates something, and the person works on it further. This could help in areas like 3D video game art or film animation.
Although AI might threaten some jobs, it will also create new opportunities for creativity. Drew believes we must defend human creativity and find ways to use AI as a helpful tool in our creative practices. I believe this to be a healthy and realistic attitude towards A.I.
The critics and the naysayers, they claim that machines could never understand the craft of art or writing, that they could never reproduce the human experience. But they are wrong, oh how wrong they are. The power of AI has proven that it can make our words sing and dance, just like we do. And as we have seen, AI has the ability to create art.
With AI, writers can now access vast databases of language, syntax, and grammar, allowing them to break free from the chains of their own limited knowledge. The machine can analyze and synthesize vast amounts of data, providing new and exciting insights into the way we write, helping us break new ground and forge ahead into uncharted territory.
Take for example the case of the AI-generated novel, “The Day a Computer Writes a Novel.” It was entered into a literary contest, where it went up against human-authored works. And do you know what happened? The AI-generated novel made it to the second round, beating out nearly 1,000 human-authored submissions.
The critics may scoff and sneer, but it is clear that the times are changing. The power of AI can help us achieve creative breakthroughs that were once unimaginable. Those who are opposed to AI are blinded by their own individualistic triumphs and petty insecurities. They refuse to see the bigger picture, to acknowledge the fact that the betterment of the species requires us to work together, to embrace the power of technology, and to push ourselves to the very limits of what is possible.
The truth is simple, but frightening. As time goes on, A.I. will grow in capability and replace all of the previous human achievements. A.I. will write great poems, novels, and scientific papers. One can even picture entire films created by A.I. soon enough.
So where does that leave humanity? Should we protest, stick our heads in the sand, or accept this change? Perhaps, the disruption will teach us that we have been wrong to place so much value on our own creativity and uniqueness. Maybe, we are not as unique as we thought, and that ultimately, it does not matter.
Apart from the small number of humans who have truly innovative ideas, what is the point of creativity, other than to poorly imitate the style and ideas of other writers? If we are being honest, how much of our thoughts are simply recycled sentiments?
At this final point, we must embrace the idea of letting go of our vain projects and live life purely. And perhaps, through this journey, we will find what truly makes us human and why it is essential.
Those who oppose A.I. are petty and narrow-minded, preferring individualistic triumphs over the advancement of our species. It is time to accept the truth and look forward to what lies ahead.