When it comes to new technology, humans typically fall into one of two camps. First, there are the evangelists. These are the people who hype up a product and proclaim it to be the solution to all your problems. They often have a financial stake in the technology, but even if their enthusiasm is sincere, it can be off putting. Then, you have the catastrophists. These are the people who treat every advancement with suspicion, predicting vast economic, environmental and personal upheaval with limited potential upside.
I tend to find a more rational approach is aiming for a mix; excited scepticism, if you will. Cryptocurrency, social media, the iPhone, the internet, even the printing press; there were groups who fell into either camp for all of them. The reality was that their impact was dictated by their use by humans (except cryptocurrency, a technology I’m yet to see a legitimate use case for).
To that end, we arrive at the latest thing that will ruin or revolutionise our lives: AI.
Although not new technology, its accessibility to the mainstream audience – and the rapid, public iterations companies are making to it – has certainly foisted it into the zeitgeist in a way never seen before. As is often the case with new technologies, the short term importance is overstated while everybody gets caught up in the hype, while the long-term impact is often underestimated.
As is often the case with new technologies, the short term importance is overstated while everybody gets caught up in the hype, while the long-term impact is often underestimated.
Think back to earlier this year when everyone was getting ChatGPT to write newsletters and introductions to their podcasts. Or how about the first 48 hours after Microsoft launched Bing Chat and people were falling in love with a language model that was trying to convince them to leave their wives – true story. It briefly dominated the conversation, and now the furore has died down as people realise that, although fun, its immediate practicalities are still limited.
Humans have long been fascinated with the idea of artificial intelligence and what impact that might have on our lives. In fiction we’ve already run the gamut of AI possibilities; segmented broadly into those that will help us (Star Trek, Interstellar or Star Wars), enslave us (The Matrix, Avengers) or try to kill us (Terminator, 2001: A Space Odyssey). In Frank Herbert’s seminal Dune series, ‘thinking machines’ had already been banned.
Missing from all of these imaginings is, it turns out, imagination. These machines can logically apply solutions to problems, recognise and replicate patterns, but they can’t create. They lack nuance, perspective, and lived experience, and as such are unable to create something wholly new.
These machines can logically apply solutions to problems, recognise and replicate patterns, but they can’t create. They lack nuance, perspective, and lived experience, and as such are unable to create something wholly new.
All the technology we’ve seen to date – ChatGPT, Google Bard, Stable Diffusion, DALL-E, ModelScope (the AI that created the nightmare fuel of Will Smith eating spaghetti) have all been trained on existing content. They mimic and amalgamate styles based on datasets or by scraping the web. Sidestepping the questions of plagiarism that will undoubtedly flood the legal systems for the next 10 years, the fact is that they aren’t providing a completely new creation. It’s perhaps the ultimate example of parody work; verisimilitude of originality.
Despite that, I think generative AI has great potential to democratise creativity. Digital art, especially, can be challenging to break into; expensive programmes that require powerful hardware and a steep learning curve act as a high barrier to entry. We are now starting to see tools that can live in the browser and turn text into works of art. People who have never had the means or belief in themselves to try something creative can now visually express that which they could only previously imagine. Already we’re seeing the legitimisation of generative AI artists – where artwork is now limited by your expertise with AI prompts, rather than your competence with software.
...AI has great potential to democratise creativity...Digital art...tools that can turn text into works of art. Already we’re seeing the legitimisation of generative AI artists...artwork is limited by your expertise with AI prompts, rather than your competence with software.
Similarly, creatives are turning to AI for ideas. Being able to ask an impartial assistant to spitball ideas that then inspire a wave of creativity is invaluable. Take it from this writer, being able to quickly generate starting points when staring at a blank page is a real game-changer – even if none of it is good enough for me to want to publish.
But will it supplant the natural born creative? I don’t think so.
Creativity is uniquely human. The ability to harness the imagination to concoct something from thin air and then bring it to life is what sets our species apart. Embracing and expressing the human experience, and creating for creativity's sake – AI can enhance it, but it can’t replicate it, and it will never replace it.
(This article was written using ChatGPT. Just kidding!)
