The other day, I spent most of my morning shower debating with myself over the use of AI. Even though it, AI, has infiltrated almost every corner of life, I avoid it. By which I mean, I don’t use it to write or create anything and I try to ignore the AI summaries in my Google searches. For one, I don’t trust it. AI presents information authoritatively, but often gets things wrong. It is the kid who didn’t read the book but gives a convincing presentation as though he did. Also, it’s pretty terrible for the environment. Somewhere in the depths of my drafts folder, I have a long rant about this.
But accuracy and environmental costs were not the debates I was having. I was prepping for an interview with an arts education nonprofit and was trying to answer/anticipate the question, “what’s your stance on AI in the classroom, or what’s your stance on AI generated art?” I struggled to move beyond my visceral “No!, Just no!” response. I could easily anticipate the push back I might receive to my “AI can fuck all the way off” answer. I would expect an educator or education-based organization to suggest that by not using AI or not teaching how to use AI, we would be doing our young people a disservice, we would be failing to prepare them for the world they will inherit. Grrr. The only counter-argument I have to that line of reasoning, is that students are going to use it regardless – I could support trying to teach ethics around its use, but I don’t know that we have to waste valuable instruction time teaching how to use it.
I began my argument with: art, the ability and desire to create something that has little utilitarian value, is what separates humans from most other animals. Sure, I suspect there have been instances of crows decorating their nests with baubles and various primates creating art. There are elephants in Thailand that paint, etc. But humans do this all the time. It’s as though creating art, of some form, is essential to who we are and how we function. Why would we want a computer to do one of the few things that makes us human? I countered my argument with, “but if the purpose of art is to get your ideas and visions out into the world, what’s wrong with having a computer help you get there?” I kept imagining someone who may have a brilliant vision, but lacks the technical capabilities to execute. Any response I could muster seemed elitist or ableist or exclusionary or some naive version of saying the struggle is part of the reward or the process matters more than the end result. I found myself saying – maybe not every idea or vision should be put out into the world? I found myself wanting to make an argument for originality and trying to create against the entire backdrop of human history. I briefly went down the path (it was a long shower) of music sampling – is that art? Hip Hop certainly is. Or photography compared to painting – is one a more “true” artistic endeavor because it doesn’t use a machine or takes longer?
I had stumped myself. I began to think about craft and skill and execution and how a thing tends to be devalued once it’s mass produced. In Ways of Seeing, the philosopher John Berger put forth the argument that much art (famous art) derives its value from being unique. At some point in time, the Mona Lisa became more than the structural work and physical painting and became famous for being famous. Is it rarity or authenticity that gives art value? What does a world look like when everyone can “create” a Caravaggio? Wouldn’t we be better off, collectively, if everyone had the beauty of their own vision at their finger tips? And what of beauty? With the exception of what nature can do, the blue orange contrast of fading light will always look good regardless of the delivery mechanism. If it has all of the elements of beauty, can we argue that AI art is less beautiful?
What I really found myself bristling over is the in-authenticity of generative AI. The idea of a bunch of posers (which in my head is always some bro) trying to pass of AI art as their own creation gets under my skin. I had a Facebook friend who recently “wrote” and self published a book. I read one or two of the snippets he shared – he suddenly seemed more eloquent and articulate than he had ever seemed. Suddenly this person who sometimes struggled to string words together seemed cogent. I often imagine one of these people who scoffed at taking humanities classes now using AI to pass themself off as a “creator.”
Long after the shower, I was still thinking about these things (though thankfully it never came up in the interview). If there’s one place where I suspect the world is already passing me by and rendering me an archaic and useless fool, it’s in the realm of using AI. I’m sure that as it advances and as it is forced on us in ever increasing and maddening ways, I will succumb. In the meantime, I hope we at least begin to regulate it. I hope we pass some sort of law that requires AI content be labeled as such – much in the same way we handled food labeling and genetically modified crops. In the meantime, I’ll probably continue to have long debates in the shower about the nature and purpose of art while trying to justify being an unmovable stick in the mud.