“The forces of evolution act upon a man’s tools as well as upon man himself “
A.C. Littleton (1926, P.12)
Welcome to the tale of an Accounting Academic who transformed into an Accounting Technologist, Accounting Historian, Accounting Anthropologist and a pretty decent knitter…
Dr. Lesley Niezynski is an early career interdisciplinary accounting researcher specialising in accounting technology, history and humanity. Lesley’s research centres on the interconnectivity between accounting, humanity, and technology.
Lesley has recently completed her PhD, a project centred upon the interconnectivity between humanity, accounting and technology through a study of Maritime Technology, Accounting and Merchants in Early Modern England.
Prior to accounting, Lesley’s interest in boundary blurring, human-centric research formed in her studies in Architecture, with studies in the interconnectivity of Architecture, Fashion, and Health.
What is she up to right at this very moment? Find out here.
I’m now on Substack! Find me at https://accountingforhumanity.substack.com/
-
Goldilocks and the three research conundrums
As I find myself now nearly 8 months out from my PhD (or the viva anyway), I am becoming ever more aware of the difficulty in choosing direction.
For me it feels like there is a mysterious dilemma in research, there is this line somewhere that, one one side, you stay centred and become an “expert”, but on the other side, you go “rogue” and become the dreaded “Jack of all trades, master of none”. I know this is an early career interpretation, maybe in time I will indeed learn to take ownership of said line. However, for now, it very much feels like my path has suddenly splits into 3; the “too much of the same/boring”, the “all over the place no focus/expertise”, and then there is this one in the middle that’s “just right”. The choice seems obvious right? There is a problem though; this 3rd path is incredibly difficult to traverse.
Post PhD – Imposter Syndrome
I admit I was very lucky to not have experienced imposter syndrome during my PhD but, once the clarity of the PhD fell away leaving me free to run off into the world, I learned that this freedom comes with a price.
I can research whatever I wish now, every whim can become a project, a paper, a thought piece. But, if I seamlessly flit from one place to another, will I be taken seriously as a researcher? Should I “pick a lane” and stay in it, does that help gain me entry into research circles? How do I know what exactly my “lane” is?
The idea for my thesis was never for it to be a “one and done”, I very much view it as the beginning of a collective body of research however again I face another dilemma, what stops a collective/expertise from becoming a “one trick pony”?
On top of all of this is my interdisciplinary background. I carry art/architecture and accounting thinking in my blood; they are inseparable, I cannot remove design thinking from social sciences critical thing. Now I fully view this as strength, my mind exists in two powerfully critical and interpretive worlds but, this can mean that I forever live with the question; is this “accounting” enough to be accepted?
The Silver-ish Lin(e)ing?
Part of me very much wants to embrace the Edward Gorey approach and proclaim “GUFFAW!” to the norm, but I also know that Gorey had to create his own publishing house to give many of his works a home, and even with this, it is mostly is externally published works that he best remembered for.
So as I fine myself battling with this line or 3-part path (side thought: maybe the line is the 3rd “just right” path?) there is one helping hand; history.
My PhD was a work of accounting history, and history is a vast field. Therefore, if select my “central field” wisely, I can give myself the needed tools to traverse that 3rd path. The key however, will be making sure that foundation block is solid.
Accounting for Humanity after all?
As my thesis and I move into this next phase of life, we have collected a crew of outcasts to join us. My interests have delved into death and funerary research, Scottish business and banking history, social and state power, the Scottish Witch Hunts, and of course, the impact of technology remains central.
Looking at this though, something does stand out. There is a thread running through all of this: Humans. In the early days of my thesis, and of this blog, I often spoke of the desire to be an “accounting anthropologist”, and I think that is coming to the fore as I embark on new projects and papers.
I cannot say if this “is it accounting enough” issue will ever subside, I may forever be struggling against this phantom research line, but I cannot ignore that accounting exists because humans made it so. Accounting is so deeply engrained in our societies that, once you find a connection, you see it everywhere; and I think that is something worth a second look.
Where is this going?
If/when I read this post back, I will undoubtedly see a plethora of non-sensical, contradictory thoughts and ideas. However, the act of committing these confused thoughts to “paper” does make them seem less confusing.
I’m still standing before this 3-pronged fork in the road, but I am slowly figuring out the tools I need to tackle the path I want to take. The thing is, none of these paths are wrong, but I do need to make sure I am well equipped to handle the one I choose.
So for now, I am not going anywhere it seems (anti-climatic I know), but I am building up to it. At some point I will have every thing I need and I will take off running into the future. But for now I will, as the old song goes, “pack up my troubles in an old kit bag and smile” as who knows what tomorrow may bring…
(A vastly appropriate book to represent this post I think…)
-
Getting to Grips with Engagement
From the beginning of my PhD, I noticed the word “engagement” getting thrown around a lot in the university (and in a number of other academic events I would attend). My initial reaction to this was abject fear as I pictured me trying to do research with children (while I have learned that I do actually really enjoy teaching in Higher Education, children still frighten me), in short all I could see was chaos and terror.
As I have now gone through and emerged from the other side of the PhD, I see now that engagement is far more than reading to children (I really have no idea where I got this idea from but it cemented itself in there at some point). Over the last two months in particular, I have even gotten to try out “engagement” and I have to say, I really rather enjoy it too.
Making a real difference: cliché? I think not
My first foray into “engagement” fell on Halloween of all days, arguable on theme with the terror idea but then, I rather like Halloween. I took part in my first public talk with Remembering the Accused Witches of Scotland (RAWS), forming part of trio discussing the history of the Scottish Witch Hunts. This was the first time I had actually spoken to an audience who were neither of the academic conference nor lecture students association. I wasn’t nervous, quite excited in fact to be speaking without the burden of critical appraisal. As hoped, the talk went well and I was met with enthusiasm and questions. Reflecting on the event afterward, I noticed my primary impression was a huge feeling of reward. Firstly, it was hugely gratifying to be speaking to people who (voluntarily) signed up to listen to you. Second, there was a great sense of joy in knowing you had made people happy and/or enthused about a subject. It was this sense of enthusiasm and interest that struck me, as it was something that I just haven’t felt so strongly in an academic setting.
That is not to say that academic audiences aren’t engaged/interested (quite the contrary), but it is a more “clinical” setting if you will. Usually the audience is there for reasons in addition to pure enjoyment and interest, usually learning course material/providing peer assessment/feedback of research. A public audience in contrast is there purely out of the enjoyment of learning, a “non-captive” captive audience in a way.
I followed this event up 8 days later with RAWS first in-person conference, “Remembering the Forgotten Voices of the Accused” in Glasgow. Again, I presented here with my fellow RAWS trustee, sharing our recent exploratory research of witch trial memorials. This too provided the same rush of enthusiasm, reward, and joy from the audience. This too stemmed from this lightened sense that you’ve been able to give knowledge to people without expectation; you aren’t there to get publication tips from them, they aren’t there to meet a regulated learning criteria.
I should highlight that the key observation here is that this conference was a “public” conference, not an academic one. Returning to the idea of the academic conference and why it feels different; for academia there is perhaps more of a transactional sense to a conference; I very much enjoy them yes but, I am sharing my work with you from a perspective of very much expecting some sort of review in return. This transaction can still be positive yes, but primarily it is to be useful rather that emotionally uplifting, it’s intent is fulfilling a career development goal. Therefore, in a way, the academic conference is almost selfish (not in a bad way, but in the sense that you are there to help yourself) whereas public engagement is about being their for someone else.
Image courtesy of RAWS Another foray into the land of engagement has been joining the Friends of Greyfriars Kirkyard (FOGK) committee. This spawned from volunteering at their “Doors Open Day” in September and again finding the opportunity to share history with the public to be a thoroughly enjoyable experience. While I admit there is a degree of selfish/self-indulgence here (any chance to talk about history for me is worthwhile), there was still something utterly wonderful in giving people an insight into the past. Not only was this (as noted) a chance to talk about history to people wanting to listen, this was advocating for the preservation of a significant site in Edinburgh while simultaneously introducing people to the rich history of Edinburgh itself.
Ok so let’s do both then
Now fully aware of the reward you can gain from engagement (and very importantly for my strange delusions, does not have to involve reading to children), there is the question of how then do I do research that can encapsulate all of the above? How do I do the career developing stuff in conjunction with the reciprocal pursuit of “giving back through knowledge”?
Post PhD can often feel a little like being adrift at sea. Where once there were set goals/objectives/purposes, now your somewhat left entirely to your own devices. You’ve set sail, but where are you actually going?
Yet, through this engagement work I have found direction. For me this has indeed formed quite naturally through these ventures with RAWS and FOGK. I see now that I can pursue projects that can actually deliver insight and meaning to these groups that I have joined. I can shift from “where are the gaps in the research” to “what can I do to help these endeavours succeed”? Further still, I find myself directing attention and other research ideas toward “what can I do engage the wider world with this” in addition to “can I get a publication out of this”.
Sadly I know that vicious publication cycle will never go away, everyday it feels more like the “get a job for experience, but you need experience to get a job” loop. However, now I feel like I can look a little wider, I can see that there is impact and reward to be had beyond publication metrics. It is incredibly cheesy but, growing up (and even now) I always wanted to make some kind of difference and impact in the world, and now I feel that, through engagement, I might just be able to do that.
-
Seeing your life flash before your eyes…in an Edward Gorey story
On my quest to make an acceptable dent in my “TBR” (“to be read” for those peculiar creatures that have read all that they own) list, I finally made my way to Amphigorey: Fifteen books by Edward Gorey. All fifteen tales were magnificent however, it was the first, The Unstrung Harp, where I found myself reading a frighteningly familiar tale.
The story follows Mr Earbrass and the journey that is writing his next novel. As we move through we find Mr Earbrass sailing through and excitedly thinking up characters and plot lines to suddenly being hit with the notion that his work is terrible. In addition, we are presented with the woes of publisher edits, cover designs we hate but feel compelled to accept and the inevitable “numbing” acceptance of the fate poor Mr Earbrass finds himself in.
Taken from Amphigorey: Fifteen Books by Edward Gorey I accept there is an obvious overlap in the world of book (fiction and non-fiction) and academic publication writing however, the plight of Mr Earbrass felt horribly profound to me. This is process is exactly what writing papers feels like.
Recently I worked my way through my first paper. I felt I was onto to something great’ novel, unique, quirky yet “translatable” to academia. I enjoyed writing it and really got into it but there came a point where I started to fail to see or understand what I was doing. The paper had become a conflation of my idea with some contortion of an idea that I thought would be more palatable. Like Mr Earbrass, I thought some clever moving around and minor tweaks would be the solution but I swiftly learned this effort was in vain.
The paper was rejected (first rejection of my career, so now I am bona fide academic) and, like Mr Earbrass, went over the suggestions with excitement and disgust only to realise that I would never be able to keep the necessary changes to within the said pecuniary limits. And so, unlike Mr Earbrass, I cast it into the pile/chasm of “the forgotten works in progress”. While this sounds defeatist, part of me stands by the decision to part with the paper before reaching that level of numbness reflected by the dejected Mr Earbrass. If the feeling isn’t right, sometimes you just have to let it go.
Now my rejection was a few months ago but I am again in the process of developing papers. I am trying to find my feet as a writer and there is something wholly comforting about learning that these odd conflicting emotions are normal. At times there is a sense of writing being a love/hate relationship. I go from feeling strongly in my “forging my own path”/”this is going great” to “oh my God what am I even doing”/”this is awful no one will publish this” multiple times a week. There is a view that I need to find some peculiar balance between what I am as a writer/researcher and what is expected of me as a writer/researcher. However, I wonder if in fact this belief is what holds me back…
I have noted before that I am a huge admirer of Gorey. He developed his aesthetic/style (sinister cozy in case you are wondering) and he stuck by it. When his work was rejected, he saw this as an indicator that he had not yet found the right home for his creations and, if he could not find a home, he made his own; creating a publishing company to house it himself. On the other hand, when Gorey’s work was accepted, he embraced the opportunity it brought and flourished under the eyes of his fellow minds/weirdos (I mean “weirdos” as the highest possible compliment).
The Unstrung Harp and Mr Earbrass’s painful endeavour is thus perhaps a reminder of many important lessons. Here are a few I picked up, I expect there are many more and that they will come to me in time.
- Writing is not easy. Ever.
- There is a choice to follow your path to the end or to step off onto someone else’s path, it is your choice
- If you truly believe in something, stick with it, sometimes you just haven’t found the right home for your ideas yet
- Maybe controversial but: Sometimes the end goal is more important than the vision (i.e., do you need money/publications more than vision), and if it is then it might be best to “numb” yourself to avoid becoming too precious over your work
-
Recent (self) publications
I always struggled with my plans for this part of the website. It feels important to have the blog but, as a self publishing platform it felt “messy”. I have always wanted a place designed for reading articles of literary pursuits whilst having a less formal area for all of the other adventures that occupy my life.
In the beginning, I certainly tried to have them coexist here in the blog but I never liked the result, I wanted my more formal writing together and separate from these more em… “unhinged” thoughts.
So when I discovered Substack my writing dreams were met. It is a platform designed to create short to long-form written content and it offered a neatly “all in one place” location for my publishing.
So, while I will occasionally post publishing updates here (as I am doing now), I can now centre the blog on less formal writing (reflections of events/experiences etc) and Substack will be my self-publishing repository.
So with that in mind, here’s a breakdown of my recent Substacking.
My thoughts on why AI will not end accounting
My first foray into Substack is an opinion piece on why accounting will survive AI. While discussing the future of accounting as a human profession, it is interesting to also consider that the research that prompted this opinion would not have been possible without historical information. Keep that in mind the next time someone tries to claim that history is not valuable…
An (over)thought Piece on Star Trek and Society
I shall be honest, it is probably better to read this one than ask me to recount it!
Finding Accountants in the land of the dead
This is one of what will be many pieces expanding into my Taphophile project. I do hope/aim to generate some “peer-reviewed” publications in this project but, at this stage I am focusing on self-publishing to allow me (and my readers) to fully explore those very intangible ideas without being confined by the boundaries and structure of peer-reviewed works. These “bite-sized” articles will introduce some of my thoughts, reflections and discoveries as I peek beyond the veil of the living and the dead.
The Dream project: Taphophile’s work of Academic Fiction
This is something very special to me. This I admit grew from my first academic paper rejection. My feedback told me that 1. I did not make my “vision” clear enough and 2. the reviewers pretty much HATED my work. This made me realise that if I really wanted to freely create something that embodied the manner in which my mind combines art and academia, I needed to do it myself (i.e., self publish). It is not intended as a self indulgent or embittered “no one gets me or is good enough to see my vision”, honestly I felt the feedback for my rejected paper was fair. What this is though is a recognition that, if I take such a passion project through a peer-review process, I will emerge deeply hurt and lose the passion that drives this idea. I am too early in the academic career process to do something like this formally.
Therefore, “The Ledger of Death” combines my undying want to write a story and share my research into accounting’s influence on life, death, and death’s architecture. The tale follow’s the journey of a newly minted soul, looking to understand what on earth accounting has to do with getting to afterlife. Guided by Charon the ferryman, we will answer the question of how does accounting connect life and death?
The Weird idea of Gender Identity: Book Review
After a particularly interesting/though provoking issue of the British Library’s “Tales of the Weird” I got to pondering how society perceives what it is to be a woman in the Victorian Era (and how that links to a recent paper I read on women in accounting)
Last, but not least, a quick ponder on an unexpected discovery in the Archives
If you are short on time, then this quick little entry makes yet another connection between accounting and death.
-
New (first) Article on my new Substack
-
Your (artificial) mind or mine? Is AI making us stupid, or are we making AI stupid?
This is a brief thought (maybe, I say that a lot an then write an essay) that quite regularly passes in and out of my mind. When we talk about Artificial Intelligence, how intelligent are we actually talking?
Now, as a disclaimer, I am not referring to the highly advanced, technical wizardry type AI’s that do in-depth data/statistical analysis. I am looking at this more “public” AI that is seeping into our everyday lives (I swear EVERY software I use now has an AI assistant that has somehow managed to make itself more annoying than Clippy). I am also not suggesting that I am an expert on the inner workings of AI (I am undoubtedly, and ironically, misinformed to some degree about how it works), but my basic understanding of how we as as society are using or interpreting it is a valid opinion.
Stupid is as Stupid does
My (currently) passive concern is the reliance and belief society is building that AI is infallible, perfect, superior. We seem to overlook that GenAI or these public open access variants do most of their learning by trawling the internet. The same internet laden with misinformation, conspiracy theories and harmful discourses/narratives.
Thus, two issues arise here. First, if we blindly believe what AI tells us, there is a good chance we will be living our lives hugely misinformed. Second, if we are thus living with half truths and fabrications, it is likely that any content we “create” (i.e., if we even create it at all or use another AI to do it for us), we further dilute the quality of information available to the AI to learn. So begins a downward cycle of Artificial Intelligence becoming Artificial Ignorance.
So…Are we the problem?
Before going any further here, lets recall Tay, the AI-powered Chatbot that went from a novel idea to a racist, antisemitic nightmare (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35902104). This highlights the problem that (attempting to give benefit of the doubt) there is a lacking awareness that plying AI’s with harmful or frivolous (deliberately false or comic information to confuse it) can lead to valuable and beneficial information being degraded if the volume of negative information is greater.
Think for example how children learn. At the moment AI is learning from us thus, we need to consider that we hold a degree of responsibility and accountability toward what we choose to teach it. Furthermore, there is also perhaps a need to reconsider how we view AI. It is the 21st century rendition of the printing press i.e., this a technology/tool to give us access to new sources of information to enhance our learning and knowledge NOT to supersede or replace it.
It’s a marriage not a war
So what is my point here? For lack of a better analogy, AI is not something we should fight against or seek to destroy but it also is not our knight in shining armour. We both need each other to do our best if we are going to succeed. As a human you possess the gift of critical thought, hold on to that, you are going to need it. Stop thinking that AI knows everything and (more importantly) that it is right about everything.
We are at a critical stage in our (and AI’s) life, we can work to make both of us reach the next level of knowledge or, our lack of self-worth can lead us done a dangerous path where we think all though extra limbs in the photo’s are real…
-
The Semester is Nigh
As a sign to my growing older, I can affirm that time is certainly moving too quickly. Out of nowhere another academic year has catapulted onto the shores of Lesley time (if my thesis taught me anything, it is clearly travelling via race-built galleon).
As a side note: This idea of time accelerating is something I personally (and coincidently) noticed when I started life as a university student. Time is split into these concentrated 12 week bursts, and before you know what’s going on, the degree was over. Annoyingly though, when I left university, time refused to return to its normal pace, and here we are 16 years later still trying to figure out what’s going on.
Returning to the main thought, another academic year swiftly approaches but, this one will not be like the others. This will be my first academic year without my thesis, which feel exceptionally odd. I doubt my schedule will change all that much, after all now I am feverishly working to make my name and place in this academic world, but technically when I am not teaching, I could be doing virtually anything. For someone like myself i.e., someone who absolutely expresses interest in too many things (see my Happening Now page), this is going to be difficult.
Thankfully, I believe my challenge is a good one to have. I am fortunate that although my thesis is done, my interest in it is not. I know for many the all-consuming nature of the PhD means that, once submitted, you never want to see it again. This can leave you a bit lost on where to go next, so I am thankful that I have managed to maintain a want to keep expanding my work. My hope is some thesis publications and a new “thesis-expansion pack” i.e., research project building on my PhD findings that I can get some funded support for.
Before, or alongside, all of that though is teaching. I’ve had one semester as a lecturer already thus, I am already actively building and developing my “lecturer persona” (or style, I am entirely unsure what to call it) to be someone students want to, and enjoy, learning from. On this note, for the first time in my 39 years of life I have an office (as in a proper room, not a desk on an open plan floor)!
As this is peak “fancy” for me, decorating the space has been a source of much amusement, so we shall end this very quick and random post with some of the additions to my office…
‘Tudor Ted’ – I crocheted Ted and made his delightful Tudor neck ruff 
Some of my “Halloween haul” finds at TK Maxx (since taking this I’ve also filled two shelves with books) -
What happened next…
It is just over one month since I passed my viva (1 month, 2 days but no one is counting obviously…) and it felt like a good time for a quick bit of pondering.
It is possible that it was just me, but a large part of the PhD was wondering what it would be like once it is over. I will admit, my thoughts involved a far healthier and prosperous job market (as someone who finished their undergrad as the 2008 credit crunch hit, I should have known better) but putting that aside, it is this immediate aftermath period that I never really considered.
While PhD’s are “self taught” pursuits, there is still some structure around them, that being you are pretty much always working on your thesis thus, you know what you are planning for/working on. Post viva and corrections though, this “freedom” feels suspicious, like being left alone with a box of chocolates, you can technically take whatever you want but, you are waiting for someone to appear and tell you off for doing it (weird analogy yes, but I am currently sitting – unsupervised – with a box of chocolates).
I have a great and growing ideas and to-do list but, at the moment, the discipline to focus on building a plan for them is lacking. I suppose the natural thing in the immediate post-PhD stage should be to stop, relax, take a breath and get ready for the next stage but there is definitely a battle between this sensibility and being a “kid in a candy store” mentality here. I want to rest but I also want “to do all the things”.
So for now I am alternating between relaxing and planning/working on my ideas for publications and projects. But, to prove that I did take some time off, I include exhibit A: Steve the Capybara, who I purchased on holiday. Because, as you know, I am now a very mature post-PhD academic…
-
Which road will you choose Dr?
I am very pleased to report that 2 weeks ago today I emerged successful from my PhD viva (pause for celebration). But now, as you might expect from me (or if, not then I will tell you now that I cannot resist the opportunity to reflect), this is a milestone that induces much reflection.
“Discussion” or “Defence”?
The first thing that struck me about the viva was, how enjoyable it was… yes I really wrote that. For the past 4 years I have regularly encountered conversations that spoke of the viva being my “defending” of my thesis but, I was surprised to find my viva was very much a discussion about my work. Yes I was asked to explain why I chose certain methods or what I meant by certain statements, but this felt more like a “tell me more” rather than a “explain yourself” (you know, the phrase your parent/guardian let’s out when you know trouble is afoot). Now I expect the degree of defence will depend on the individual and the thesis and that I encountered a fortunate circumstance of having a panel that largely shared/agreed with my perspective but, I think there is also a recognition that if you know your work inside-out it comes through in your presentation.
I know that hearing the whole “no one knows your work better than you, you are the expert in your field” does start to sound like a cliché during the PhD, but there is something to be gained in the fact that you have lived and breathed this stuff for 3+ years. Sure you won’t possess all worldly knowledge in the field (I discovered that I actually should have included more literature about managment accounting since it did form a part of some of my observations) but, that does not mean that you are completely absent of knowledge. If you are confronted with something you didn’t think of, if you know your subject well enough, you will be able to see how it could (or couldn’t) fit with your research.
So yes, my thesis did not grant me the title of “fount of knowledge” in the field of accounting technology, but I have shown that I do have knowledge and I have laid a strong foundation for building expertise upon.
And on that note…what now?
So I have minor corrections but the PhD is virtually at its end. It has been a long (though it passed by far too quickly) and very interesting journey. The thing is though, this is not the end, I have simply reached the first checkpoint.
Admittedly, it is a difficult time in academia. Higher Education in the UK is facing extreme (and increasing) challenges. Costs are rising and AI is causing people to question what Higher Education actually contributes when technology can write you an essay in a few minutes (spoiler alert: it contributes a HUGE amount to your critical thinking and development, but more on that another time).
Putting the challenges aside for now (I have no control over that), the PhD taught me that research is something that brings me immeasurable joy. I think I always knew this, I have loved learning since childhood, but now realising that I can do this as a career means this is something I refuse to let go of. I have a temporary role for now and in this short time I hope I can get my “Early Career Researcher” title going strong.
Over the past 4 years I have been accumulating a research “wish list” and now I can finally get moving on it. I have 2 cross-disciplinary projects developing; Taphophile and a second I am currently pulling together to run over the next few years. Of course there is also publishing. I will try to record this experience as much as I can, I think there is a lack of visibility in this area at the early career stage so maybe by blogging this venture will be helpful to others at (and approaching) this stage.
And finally, here is my biggest (silly) regret about my viva…
This will sound ridiculous (because it is) but my viva stole all the thunder from another accomplishment shared on the same day, my first self-made waistcoat that I wore on the day. I am so proud of how it turned out that I wish I had shown it off earlier as it faded into the background the moment I heard “congratulations Dr Niezynski”.
So maybe now we can all take a moment to admire it!
-
Promethean ShAIme: Are people the problem with AI?
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…
Follow me on Bluesky
@lniezynski.bsky.social
Accounting for Humanity 