SOME THOUGHTS ON AI

I'm not sure what the longterm impact of AI in our lives will be, but as someone who dabbles in all the arts and considers herself a writer, I'm alarmed at the possibilities.

For now, most notable literary publications warn those seeking to have their writing featured in their pages not to submit AI-generated work. For now the tone is offended, defensive. For now. But of course, with enough presence and repetition, even the unimaginable tends to creep into our lives.

A former classmate who writes scientific articles claims AI is really helpful with first drafts. I imagine it could be. But as regards art, the role of AI is dubious at best.

Personally, I'm not aware of having read any AI generated fiction, although of course it's possible, given that it's already so much a part of our lives, and has been, even before many of us realized it, I am told. A well-known poet on my Facebook page posted an AI-generated poem written in her style. The AI version was ridiculously bad. So bad, no one was particularly bothered by it, least of all the author whose work had been duped--the attempt was so laughable.

The concept of AI goes way, way back, but gained traction in the 1950s, when Alan Turing developed the Turing Test, a theoretical method of distinguishing between human and artificial intelligence, and when ideas about what could be done with thinking machines began to propagate. Interest in it is peaking now, as is criticism, even from those working in the field. 

Proponents of AI claim it's amazing, we won't be able to tell the real deal from facsimile. Which is the problem, and reason why in the art world, to name one sphere, it's so dangerous. At best, AI can only be a duplicate of what an artist or writer creates. It doesn't come from human experience or feelings, or evolve in the way a human might process feelings and experience, only in the ways in which it has been programmed to interpret what we see, hear and feel. A copy is a copy is a copy.

If you ask AI online whether it will replace human jobs, it will say, no, only "augment them." But who runs AI, ultimately, who will be pulling its strings? As long as humanity exists, there will be greed, and greed often dominates humanity's best interests and intentions. 

Recognizing that AI is here to stay and following the European Union's creation of the AI Act in June 2023 to establish rules to regulate AI, last October President Biden signed an executive order (EO) demanding that developers of AI that might pose any kind of risk to human life, the economy, public health and safety or national security, submit test results to the U.S. government before going public. Further, the order called on the Dept. of Commerce to label AI-generated stuff in order to guard against fraud and deception. The EO calls for safeguards to protect Americans in various ways. 

These are positive, necessary steps for which we should all be grateful. But who will set limitations in the art world? And how important is it that art in general remain as untainted as possible by AI?

Art is based on what humans have made of history, reality and experience. Tech can emulate that, but never ever effectively replace it--unless we allow AI to take over, erase our own realities in favor of a tech one. In which case inspiration will become like a pill we take to feel better, but not the real thing that sustains us.

                                                                                    Photo by Arya F. Jenkins