Accounting for Humanity

Over the last 7(ish) years, I have both researched and observed our growing relationship with AI.

Now, while I have not extended the particular observations I am about to discuss in any official or robust research capacity (hence it is in my unpublished ponderings), I have become increasingly aware that that a big problem with AI is that it is being partially corrupted into a vanity project.

What on earth do I mean by that? Well, allow me to waffle/explain…

For the past few weeks, every social media platform has been flooded with “Action Figures”. I have borne witness to almost every conceivable, known and unknown, contact being transformed into a little fantasy wrapped in a plastic prison.

Putting aside the challenges and discussions about how much resource and energy we are putting toward such frivolous activity (something I had not even thought of myself), there is something strangely contradictory about seeing AI being used in this way.

ARTificial Creativity

Note: when I say “art” I am referring to an individual creating art, as I do acknowledge “art” as in “fine art collecting” is a hugely inaccessible community for most of us.

Staying with the action figure onslaught, the main grumble/observation is how inhibiting AI appears to be on creativity despite apparently making it more “freeing”.

My first observation stems from a meme (because where else does one acquire credible information?) that highlighted the argument of AI making art “accessible” to all, whilst simultaneously pointing out that a pencil and paper are considerably less expensive in monetary and energy terms.

So when we say we’re making art “accessible” what do we actually mean? Well arguably we mean we are making forgery and falsehood more accessible.

Everyone can create art. Everyone is creative. Art is subjective. Picasso is evidence that art is not about creating photo-realistic representations of reality. So when describe AI as “making the ability to create art accessible”, it is not. Art was already accessible.

If however, your definition is based on “I want to have a machine create an image I could never produce on my own without any input from me other than a single prompt” then yes, AI is making this accessible to you but, this is not creating art, this is a glorified Google search.

That being said, that is not to say that you cannot actively engage an AI to craft a unique image (i.e., you are using AI as a “brush”, with you making all of the decisions and guiding and instructing it through every step of the entire process) this is human using an AI as their medium to create art. It is an act of self expression performed through AI, creativity is still present.

Artificial Individuality, Accessible Monotony

The next issue arises in how quickly people can use AI to eradicate creativity through monotony. The perfect example are the action figures. As my eyes were burning from the AI action figure assault, hundreds and hundreds of the same little computerised human, BUT THIS ONE HAS A HAT! (Simpsons reference for those old enough to remember the Malibu Stacey episode). Just as I was about to completely lose the will to scroll, I was saved by those who adopted the “anti-AI action figures”.

These “Lisa Lionhearts” (again with the Simpsons) have challenged the trend by opting to draw/create their own version of the action figure, and while it is yet more action figures, what is immediately apparent is the variety. Every drawing style is unique to its creator, making them truly personalised by the fact that you can see the artists unique creative style in the image (for those I follow, I recognised them by drawing style rather than their action figures accessories).

This, I have always felt, is the crux of generative AI (when used in this context, I imagine there is value to be found in this ability). It strips us of individuality, we are shoehorned into a “sameness” that undermines our value and contribution as people. AI seems to encourage the need to present yourself as a “perfect” confirmative image with diversity plundered by the algorithm of AI trends.

This plays into (and is probably born of) the social media problem of living up to a fictional image of value and worth. We know what we see is not real, however, while before this falsehood lay in the filtering process, both adding filters to images to enhance them and filtering in the sense of only showing what facilitated the “image” of ourselves and out lives that we were trying to project. Now however, a large portion of what we see now, is not an altered reality, it is something that never existed at all (much of what appears on my own social media feeds now is some form of AI generated thing). While the first iterations of these AI generations seem interesting, as they multiply, they transform into a swarm of the mundane.

The more AI action figures we see, the less interesting they become yet, they persist because they become a badge of “fitting in”. The real issue here is not so much in AI action figures, energy cost aside they are fairly harmless, but in other content such as literature. Imagine if we all used AI to write our research papers, our assignments, our novels, our news reports and work related reports/writings? The thought of reading hundreds of the exact same thing (differentiated by the writing equivalent of action figure “accessories”) is enough to drive the utmost despair.

Well why not just use AI to read it then? and therein lies the next issue.

If we all use AI, what’s the point in any of it?

One paper that stays with me from my dissertation days was one wherein the effect of Google AI assistant on humans was being discussed. The AI was advanced enough to trick humans into believing that they were talking to a human trying to book appointments/reservations (a discussion for another time) but the concept arose where what if the AI ended up speaking to another AI, the job of the AI is to fulfil a task (the reservation) not to have a conversation so, if both companies used an AI why not just eradicate the conversational bit altogether and let the AI’s ‘speak’ to each other systematically?

And this is the principal point for me, if we are all going to use AI i.e., if AI writes my paper and another AI reads/reviews it, what is the point of any of it happening at all? The point it seems is vanity.

If I put my name to AI generated content, we can assume I did so because I want some sort of recognition for that AI’s work. Sure maybe it was me that asked the AI to write the paper but, if I asked you to go to the supermarket for something, I do not proceed to tell everyone that I got that item myself.

I do not turn myself into an action figure to see what I would look like as a toy (I know myself well enough to visualise that in my own mind), I do it because I want to be involved in a trend to show that I belong, that I am part of the trend.

“stop being grumpy, it’s just a bit of fun” you say. But here is the final issue…

Fun vs. Functional

AI is an amazing thing and it will change the world. Think of the medical advancements already made with AI, of the scientific developments. There is an ever-growing list of incredible things that AI will do to make our lives better, safer, longer.

But are those things a Ghibli filter or seeing your Gran as an action figure?

No.

The final thought goes to the above filter wherein any image/photo cold be transformed into Ghibli-esque cartoon. Studio Ghibli co-founder Hayao Miyazaki has in the past rejected the notion of artificially generated/automated animation and observers were swift to highlight the issues with artificially replicating an artists personal style.

Again many adopted the “its just a bit fun, don’t be so dramatic” approach but, imagine that was your life’s work, your identify being ripped-off and demeaned into a passing trend just “for fun”?

The AI conversation is completely dominated by the “job stealing” narrative and it is unlikely we would interpret it to be “harmless fun” if we came into the office on Monday to discover that an AI was replicating our contribution in the office (right down to the conversations about the weather). Suddenly everything you have worked towards, dedicated your effort to has been cheapened into gimmick. In fact, the value you added is so easily replicated that you are not really needed at all now. It is not quite so funny when it is your livelihood being threatened now is it?

A large part of this falls into the way we as a society view the arts and creative industries, with many holding an unfounded viewpoint that these creative institutions are somehow frivolous and less important than the “professions”. A strange scenario given that (for the moment) true creativity and self expression might be all we have left in the age of AI.

So what was the point of this rambling?

The true trouble with AI is not actually AI, it is people. It was people who created AI. It is people who will choose to replace other people with AI in workplaces. It is people that will choose to devalue human contribution. It is people who manipulate AI, who train AI to fulfil their own wants and needs, to marginalise others to enrich themselves. AI does not care about people, AI did not choose to focus its potential on stealing (sorry, “emulating”) Studio Ghibli’s aesthetic.

AI is not good, AI is not bad, AI is just AI. The true issue starts when AI is introduced to people.

Yes we need policy and frameworks to safely and sensibly introduce AI into our societies but we also need to acknowledge that we need this protection not to protect us from AI, but to protect us from it being placed in the wrong human hands…