What AI risks

The idea of AI-generated “creative” writing always made me a bit sad. How to account for this sadness?

I knew something vital was taken from the “writer” who relies on generative AI. Now an article from The Atlantic has helped put my misgivings into words.

In using AI, the writer does not gain, but loses. A writer should make all decisions relating to their work. If you use AI, decisions are made for you. You lose your independence, and your competency.

Rather than enable, AI disables. It wrests “core human activities from human control” and it atrophies the basic capabilities of “being able to imagine, to think, and to reason.”

What was once the sole province of human beings, now bows to algorithmic assistance. They can’t teach us how to be human. That’s what good writing does.

Here are some quotes from the article that say it better than I could:

THE BIG AI RISK NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE ARE SEEING

 

No joke, we've got a creativity crisis going on. According to the Child Creativity Lab:

And at the same time:

Howe do you figure generative AI will fit into all of this?

 

I consider a chronic lack of boredom to be immensely more damaging to psyche/society than generative tools.

 

Do you think that's caused by too much screen time?

 

ChatGPT's creative writing is not something I take seriously anymore. It's a joke in terms of quality and it doesn't really deserve my time and attention. I read an excerpt from that thing recently and it made me laugh.

There are other models now that specialize in creative writing. I imagine these are better in the sense that the writing won't be hilariously bad. But I don't know to what extent.

In any case, AI is just a pattern-based algorithm and creativity is the opposite of repetitive patterns. I won't repeat the same stuff I've said in other threats but I don't consider AI capable of surpassing the really good writers.

There is realistically nothing we can do about ChatGPT and the ethically hollow CEOs that blast ahead in innovation with little regard for the consequences, so our sadness for the situation can only be accounted for internally. For me personally, I write because of a sense of fulfilment and happiness, not because I want to make money or participate in the professional scene. ChatGPT doesn't really affect that in any way because I have the ability to keep it out of my creative life.

But others will have different concerns, and that of course requires different internal reasoning. It seems you are also concerned about negative effects on the broader population. I think this stems from kindness but you also need to remember that there is nothing you can do to help it. You'll have to trust that the newer generations who grow up with AI tools will find healthy ways to co-exist with ChatGPT and future models because that's just our reality now.

 

Probably. More games and endless brain-dead TikTok content means less thinking and less creativity. But I find boredom to be hardly helpful. Reading and watching great stories gave me more inspiration than boredom ever could. Every time I experience a great story, I admire the minds behind it so much. I think, "How did they come up with all these things? I need to try harder."

I'm part of the spectrum though so my experiences might not align with most of the population

 

Excellent point. That makes originality and ground-breaking work out of reach of AI.

That seems to be the point often made by those who embrace it - it's coming, and there's nothing we can do about it, so may as well accept it.

I can't imagine that the psychological experience of writing a story all by yourself, and with the use of generative AI, are the same. It's the difference between creating something new and paint-by-numbers.

But there are things schools can do. Move away from standardized tests, rote learning, and stigmatizing mistakes, and let kids explore.

 

I'm all in for that! I've got a lot of bad things to say about the public education system, especially the Greek one. Greek High Schools (Lyceums and Gymnasiums) bombard students with a type of learning we in Greece call "parroting". That's because you have to memorize everything like a parrot and spit it all out in a big yearly test. Fail the yearly tests and you are not allowed to move on to the next academic year. It's a sad reality.

In England, things are slightly better because you are allowed to forgo traditional high school learning after 16 and take courses of your choosing to explore the subjects you like from age 16 to 18. That's great in concept, but the execution was terrible and that system has a myriad of problems. The current prime minister is going to completely abolish it and replace it with the "Advanced British Standard", which takes away a lot of choice from students. I do not agree with this at all, by the way.

But I do think its true that high schools will play a key role in how AI is used in the lives of the youth. Honestly, given my experience with the system, I don't think I can trust them to get it right. Hopefully they will better themselves.

 

That pretty much sums up my attitude. I'm not even curious to try out ai because it has no relevance to what I'm interested in or trying to accomplish. Others may well do so, maybe even find innovative ways to foster some creative expression, but my money's on the lazy, uninterested and uninteresting vomiting whatever might get them noticed or money.

For a long while my take is that the industry has been driving tech developments rather than the market driving them. HD and blu and smarter-than-me phones have all been developed, after which the demand was generated, skillfully manipulating us into realising we couldn't conceive of life without whatever product is coming next off the conveyor belt. Lots of these devices have served to separate us from other people. ai, by wedging itself into creative, artistic expression, is the industry's effort to separate us from ourselves. The industry seems to be winning.

 

I'm making a lot of effort to keep out manipulative technology from my life. I've been wanting to get rid of my smartphone for a long time now but it is quite hard because our social infrastructures are now designed after them. I am making baby steps though. I got rid of all social media. Now I'm slowly pushing Google out of my life. I still use some of their services, but they are kept inside a virtual sandbox and they have zero control over my phone. In regular circumstances, Google has full control over your phone and you have no real say, which is really concerning but not shockingly so because it's normalized.

My ultimate goal is to rid myself of Big Tech and use only free, open-source technology developed by communities or non-profits like Mozilla (not Big Tech!). Big Tech are the ones who create the manipulative stuff.

AI is not something I like, yes, but it is also true that it's going to benefit the medical field a lot. I suspect AI will play a vital role in the discovery of new anti-biotic molecules, which is super important in the fight against superbugs.

At the end, AI is a tool and it's nothing more than that. It will be used in both good and bad ways. I'm not sure what the proportions will be though. I hope it's not mostly bad.

 

I can't imagine the headaches it is causing for teachers and administrators alike. Teaching has changed a lot just in the few years that I have been retired.

 

Well said. That Atlantic article quoted in the OP was actually about online dating and how it has taken a human process, previously conducted pretty well by humans, and subjected it to the supposed "superiority" of algorithms, which just makes the entire process less humanlike.

 

But AI can't be trusted just yet. Today's models may appear to be impressive but they are very much subject to several risks, including sounding really weird and making all kinds of mistakes. For AI to be used right now, there must at least be some supervison or else things are bound to go south.

I can certainly tell when someone here uses AI to make posts without using a detection tool. AI writes in such a robotically monotone way, it's super easy to tell. The same goes with speech. It's not quite like in the movies where robots speak in one tone, but they do have trouble varying it to the same degree that humans do. I recently watched an AI deep fake of the Greek prime minister singing a vulgar version of a children's song. It was really funny because he did it with a flat tone—almost like speaking it instead of singing it. But I quickly realized that this wasn't intentional; it was just a limitation of whatever they used to make the video.

In the future, things are bound to change. How much remains a mystery.

 

I recently saw a video that seemed to be Quentin Tarantino talking about Dirty Harry. It sounded just like him, enough to fool me, except after a while I noticed it wasn't hyper enough to be Tarantino. It used a flat even tone the whole way through, which Tarantino never does. I mean—like, right? Right? Here's the link in fact: Quentin Tarantino on Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry | Cinema Speculation. That channel has several of these, with "Quentin" reading from his recent book about movies. It's really bizarre hearing him speak in a monotone, like he's on quaaludes or something.

And honestly, the voice doesn't sound all that monotone. Only compared to Tarantino. Otherwise I might have been fooled.

 

Edited for clarity:
It is because of my interactions with individuals on this board that I do not believe AI will destroy human creativity. Even though in many other places I speak to many people are willing to give everything over to AI, however many on this board refuse to do that.

I am not arguing that one side is right and one side is wrong, I see issues on both.

But 'sadness' that creativity is dying and AI will quicken its death, seems unlikely to me because of the statements I've seen on this board.

 

Not if they're trained out of it. If you're raised in a world surrounded by mostly AI art, then art made by artists will feel strange and possibly frightening. Just like if you're raised in an environment where all you hear are ASMR sounds (everything soft and whispery and quiet), then normal sounds will frighten you or make you very anxious.

 

Sidenote: AI is extremely new, any current studies showing a decline in human creative is likely NOT directly related to AI.

As I working in education I would assume the drop in creative is likely from the fact that most education focus praises STEM over Arts dramatically. I am not judging it, but tons more money are thrown at STEM programs than art programs. NYC colleges for several years paid for students STEM classes over the Summer, not Art, not Music, not even English Comp, but any Math or Science program got tons of dollars.

In the lower grades art, music and any creative class are ALWAYS the first cut. So kids have less time to focus on those creative endeavors or even get reinforcement that it matters.

Again I am NOT saying STEM is bad, it is very important, it's why we have lights and computers and medicine, but if you spend 20 years telling kids don't waste time with ARTS, liberal arts degrees in college are stupid, focus on the Sciences or Math... yeah there will probably be a drop off in 'creativity'

 

They will only be raised in a world surrounded by mostly AI art if current humans are willing to accept AI art over human art.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm saying WE (society) get to decide this, not the AI.

It has been argued that our society could give in to AI art... but those views have been LOUDLY shouted down by the majority of people on this site. Has the wind shifted? Do people now fear that humans will choose books written by ChatGPT over human hands? In this very topic several of people have said that they can tell the difference between AI and human writing.

Okay so the way we get the next generation to NOT be surrounded by AI art, is to NOT surround them with AI art. Even if they are exposed to SOME make sure they are exposed to the superior human art.

It is once again a case of, the future we get is the future we build. AI only takes over art and destroys human creativity if we let it.

 

I largely agree with that, but also cell phones, the internet, and video games. Kids don't learn to use their imagination anymore. Also the fact that they aren't allowed to go anywhere anymore exept with adult guardians. The massive changes in the way children are raised over the last two or three decades has changed everything for the younger generations. It's filling them with anxieties and issues. If you're raised in a soft cell, the outside world will be terrifying, and anxious people aren't very creative. You need stimulation that comes from getting out and doing things, from developing courage, and the confidence to be able to navigate the world under your own recognizance. And from interacting with other kids without any adults around.

 

Actually it's not society, but the techlords forcing AI onto us on every front. We don't have any say in the matter. Your arguments are very strange and don't make any sense. I still can't see what it is you're really arguing for. Or why a few people on this site qualify as the vast majority to you. I've only seen six or seven people trash talking AI in here. But of course it does make sense we wouldn't like AI—we're writers. Why would we want a technology that destroys our potential careers?

 

Oh yeah... that's fair, I'm not blaming STEM, I love STEM, just something I saw in education.

There are a ton of factors, here's another one for current generation, at my school (I work at a college), the kids graduating this year are largely COVID kids, they didn't even have in person graduations in high school. And their first possibly second year of college was mostly online. A whole generation of students did a massive part of their education on a screen, and many are super uncomfortable now when they HAVE to take a class in person.

I don't know where I'm going with this... mostly world is weird, there are a ton of reasons we're all ****'d up.

 

I don't think anybody on this site or any other art-related site would disagree with this. I certainly don't.

 

Well since you agreed with my argument, I guess it wasn't that strange.