AI: Skipping To The Output
One of the plus points with artificial intelligence is how quick it is, how you enter a request and instantaneously gain an answer. With little thought about the process, isn't that a problem?
When I sit down and start a new Substack post, I have typically been running it through my mind for a few days, weeks even. By the time my fingers hit the keys, I have an idea of the introduction and what conclusions I want to make (though that may come as a surprise to some readers).
Apologies if you thought this was done in a flash, it seriously isn’t. There is an alternative and if I was to use ChatGPT, I could simply input a request with a few parameters and let it do all the hard work. The problem is, this entirely misses the point of creativity, how it remains a process and not an output.
Striving For Creativity
Looking back, there was not a single morning when I woke up and thought, ‘Right, I’m going to write a book’. My manuscript started with an urge to jot down some ramblings, some thoughts and memories before they vanished from my brain. These scribblings developed into a desire to create a piece of work that others would value, one that chronicles an important period in time in British music history.
Over months and years, I contacted musicians, promoters, fans, and other creatives. I worked out which questions to ask, listened to their answers, and picked out numerous threads. Over time, I worked this into something constructive; my manuscript.
At times, the manuscript failed to make sense. At one point, it was multiple books in one, and I’ve had to work at it. All these revisions and edits are conscious acts with a view to creating something that makes holistic sense to the reader. I’ve had a little bit of help along the way, all from humans, may I add. The output takes care of itself, over time.
A Rush Job
When anyone enters a request into an AI machine, you can expect a result in a split second (after a few litres of water have been used up). This response comes with a few caveats. Compare that to asking an artist or graphic designer to conjure up an image. Again, you have an idea of what you want and you can elect to have a back-and-forth with the individual to bounce back suggestions. You may even come up with an even better image than you initially envisaged.
AI machines skip all that. Vince Gilligan, the creator of the TV show ‘Breaking Bad’, called AI, “the world’s most expensive and energy-intensive plagiarism machine. I think there’s a very high possibility that this is all a bunch of horseshit. It’s basically a bunch of centibillionaires whose greatest life goal is to become the world’s first trillionaires. I think they’re selling a bag of vapour.”
You get what you asked for in seconds, fast-food ‘artistry’.
Throughout history, artists have been able to conjure up universes simply from their imaginations. A story. A piece of art. A symphony. Sure, oligarchs can conjure up fortunes, yet you do not amass such wealth without exploiting humans. By scraping existing media to train AI models, this is the closest they’ll get to creativity, and they’re still way off.
You cannot go back to an AI model and ask them about their ‘creation’. You cannot have a conversation about ‘what it means’ and ‘what it took to get there’. It’s the soulless slop you asked it to create. It’s inherently uncritical, which is a huge part of its appeal to its creators. The art is a regurgitation of what you asked for, however bizarre it is.
Skipping To The End
I try not to think of artificial intelligence as helpful. My scepticism means I question almost everything it produces. Trying to look beyond its capability to make my life easier, I wonder quite why it exists. For the investment, few companies have worked out where the requisite returns are. Indeed, a report from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology revealed that 95% of AI pilot programs were not producing a return on their investment inside two years.
Improvements? Yes.
Worthwhile returns? No.
Transformative improvements? Nowhere near.
Sure, I use some artificial intelligence in my daily routine, yet that’s simply asking Alexa to turn a light on or turning the radio on. These are remedial tasks that I’m grateful for. I draw the line at using AI to create something for me out of absolutely nothing.
My shopping list? I can do that, ta.
An email? Been doing them for decades.
A book edit? That’s all my responsibility.
A presentation? Nah, I’m taking the credit for that.
A holiday itinerary? If something goes wrong while we’re away, it’s on me.
Part of me wonders, of the people who do use ChatGPT, whether one day they’ll cease to be functioning humans. An overreliance on technology will render them useless, they’d already be emotionally, functionally hollow. If AI has created all that they use, what’s left of them? It’s the equivalent of cheating in an exam. You know the answer, but you’d fail to learn it as you don’t know how you got there. That’s what happens when you skip to the output.