Maybe AI can save us (by accident)

Given the rapid growth of generative AI and society’s addiction to manipulative, corporately controlled online platforms, you might think this is the end of skilled creativity. If anyone can make a film or a song or a novel in seconds, what’s left for skilled artists and craftspeople? 

Well, quite a lot, I think. 

Yes, we need to fight tooth and nail against the wholesale theft of our work by tech corporations, the loss of livelihoods, and the flooding of culture with soulless, vacuous simulacrums of creativity. Let alone the ecological damage and data harvesting. But I keep thinking about how MP3s and file sharing were going to kill live music, which has, in fact, flourished. At the time, it felt that, after the initial excitement waned, the ubiquity of downloads ended up increasing the value of in-person experience. 

AI is now a spectacle in both the everyday and Debordian senses of the word. But as it is revealed as a kind centripetal force, pushing culture into smooth unoriginality, it will, I believe, remind us of our profound need for human community and connection, and for originality, creativity and craft. It will increase the cultural value of things evidently made by humans, using their skill and expressing something original, meaningful and authentic. It will help us appreciate the rough edges – the grit in the oyster – which allow art to take us to new and challenging places; places we didn’t expect to go.

That is good in itself and gives me hope for the creative sector, both professional and participatory, whether it’s live performance, art manifestly made by human hands, author readings and book signings, craft workshops, communal music-making and dancing… All the myriad points of creative connection that help hold society together.

But I have another hope, too; that if more and more people step away from the circus of corporate spectacle, see the atomised, narcissistic and easily exploitable society it fosters, and seek meaning and fulfilment through human creativity – especially co-creativity – we may also find we’re nurturing the conditions needed for meaningful, radical political change.

Lost in Improvement: a Quick Postcript to My Previous Post

Further to my thoughts on the dangers of generative AI not just to our livelihoods but to how we relate to Nature in its broadest sense, I also want to flag up a smaller issue I have with this new technology. The biggest impact of AI in my working life so far has been improved captioning, and spelling and grammar checks. They’re still quite* inaccurate, but as someone who learned to do a lot of things the long way because there were no other options (or no other affordable options), I appreciate how hugely time-saving they are. I appreciate how much they’re improving. The inaccuracy matters, though.

Most generative AI suggestions are great reminders that fundamentally, what this tech is doing is taking an input, comparing it to other similar things, and suggesting an option that’s closer to commonly used patterns. You end up with a grammatically correct piece of text that, at best, has had its individuality sanded away and, at worst, means something entirely in contradiction to what you’re trying to say. In the case of Grammarly, for example, it offers to ‘improve’ your text, but really, it’s a kind of normalisation.

For transparency, I should say that I use Grammarly regularly, and its spelling and grammar checks are the best I’ve found, though I reckon I only accept 75-80% of the suggestions, and I’ve never been happy with the generative AI suggestions.

It’s the latter I want to highlight. I tried re-writing a paragraph from my previous post with Grammarly’s generative AI. Here’s the original:

Continue reading Lost in Improvement: a Quick Postcript to My Previous Post