I agree that ChatGPT is a threat. I agree that it "can easily alienate us from our innate creative power". I agree that "If I no longer have to exercise my imagination, won't it start atrophying, just like any other muscle?"
But I think that the possibility of human atrophying is not limited to ChatGPT. I think it is also true of other tools like GPS and Alexa and Siri, which have been accepted with little or no resistance.
And I think AI in general is a possible threat to human existence, either by making us totally incompetent by letting AI do everything, or even by AI taking control. Those concepts are familiar to any one who has read enough science fiction. Consider the Matrix and R.U.R.. The latter by Karel Čapek.
I think a lot of our problems are due to humans having faith in the benefits of progress and being unaware of the concepts of progress trap and precautionary principle.
I could say more, but I have already strayed from the point of your article.
I think you are right to be concerned and right to resist.
Yes, the writers' strike was certainly motivated at least in part by fear of being replaced by AI. What a disaster that would be. We already live in a cybernetic environment ruled by algorithms that figure out what we want and give us more of THAT--reducing the diversity of voices and visions we are exposed to, and eliminating chance and surprise. I want to write about the value of surprise. In our current fear-laden social environment, surprise is often seen as too risky. I know I have become much more cautious (and hence, at least to myself, boring) as a teacher in the last decade. We are all feeling self-protective these days. And going with whatever pap AI can spoon-feed us is so much safer than really letting our imaginations rip and roar!
Gerry, I think your comment about Alexa etc. can be extended even farther: how many of us alive now actually know how to eke a living from the earth (ie farm)? How many among us know how to farm regeneratively so we may continue to do so for eons to come? How many can survive in the “Wilderness” (itself a construct of human control)?
The answers to these questions are precious few and dwindling...and I think this has been part of the source of the very environmental problems that threaten our existence.
That said, I don’t feel so worried about AI killing authors. AI doesn’t exist in the same space as authors who are imaginative and creative in a way AI isn’t when it’s disconnected from humans, because AI is only drawing from the past. Imagination lies beyond that which exists (though can be informed by it).
Some writing tasks AI can take on are those that probably should be outsourced- those that are pat or rote in some way and perfunctory.
I do wonder where AI could be an author on steroids-- not the “death of.” Where might a creative might plug in a unique prompt and then, with AI, produce something that might be called art or literature. I suspect there are those - especially among the younger set - that are open to the idea of CREATING art with AI where it’s like a different type of paintbrush or pen. Although I’m not sure how I feel about it all, I’m also not convinced AI is the death of authors.
Where I do feel concerned is about the death of our planet as each new technology seems to get us farther away from living in harmony with it. I’m not a total Luddite (writing this on a smartphone) - and I do wonder how abstract -- artificial-- living has become and what role AI will play in that. That’s a death that keeps me up at night.
For sure, AI is a tool like a paintbrush or a pen. It is already proving to be very useful. My concern is, as I said in the post, in the stunting or distorting of young people's imaginative facilities. And that DOES affect our relation with the planet, because we urgently need new thinking to move us beyond the paradigm that has brought us to the Sixth Great Extinction, and the collapse of the current (unsustainable) civilization. As a professor of media arts, I am finding that most young people, when asked to create, draw upon what they have already seen/heard, existing storylines from imaginations that are saturated (we might use the word colonized) by the mainstream media. This, to me, is a clear and present danger, which the ease of AI storytelling is only going to exacerbate. Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Becca, I appreciate this chance to exchange ideas!
Yes. 100%. We need to be able to imagine and connect with more-than-human nature to move beyond the many things that have brought us to our current environmental crises.
I hope AI storytelling can lead to innovation -- and I hear you on your concerns that you're seeing play out in your role as a professor. All worth some thoughtful responses and deliberation, which isn't really how we could characterize the roll-out of AI chatbots to date...
Isaac Asimov wrote a story in which the "professional" were "educated" by some device transferring knowledge directly into the brain. They were more or less good at their jobs, but they were not innovative. True creativity came the hard way, through old fashioned reading:
I agree that ChatGPT is a threat. I agree that it "can easily alienate us from our innate creative power". I agree that "If I no longer have to exercise my imagination, won't it start atrophying, just like any other muscle?"
But I think that the possibility of human atrophying is not limited to ChatGPT. I think it is also true of other tools like GPS and Alexa and Siri, which have been accepted with little or no resistance.
And I think AI in general is a possible threat to human existence, either by making us totally incompetent by letting AI do everything, or even by AI taking control. Those concepts are familiar to any one who has read enough science fiction. Consider the Matrix and R.U.R.. The latter by Karel Čapek.
I think a lot of our problems are due to humans having faith in the benefits of progress and being unaware of the concepts of progress trap and precautionary principle.
I could say more, but I have already strayed from the point of your article.
I think you are right to be concerned and right to resist.
Isn't that part of the writer's strike?
Yes, the writers' strike was certainly motivated at least in part by fear of being replaced by AI. What a disaster that would be. We already live in a cybernetic environment ruled by algorithms that figure out what we want and give us more of THAT--reducing the diversity of voices and visions we are exposed to, and eliminating chance and surprise. I want to write about the value of surprise. In our current fear-laden social environment, surprise is often seen as too risky. I know I have become much more cautious (and hence, at least to myself, boring) as a teacher in the last decade. We are all feeling self-protective these days. And going with whatever pap AI can spoon-feed us is so much safer than really letting our imaginations rip and roar!
Thanks for this provocation Jennifer.
Gerry, I think your comment about Alexa etc. can be extended even farther: how many of us alive now actually know how to eke a living from the earth (ie farm)? How many among us know how to farm regeneratively so we may continue to do so for eons to come? How many can survive in the “Wilderness” (itself a construct of human control)?
The answers to these questions are precious few and dwindling...and I think this has been part of the source of the very environmental problems that threaten our existence.
That said, I don’t feel so worried about AI killing authors. AI doesn’t exist in the same space as authors who are imaginative and creative in a way AI isn’t when it’s disconnected from humans, because AI is only drawing from the past. Imagination lies beyond that which exists (though can be informed by it).
Some writing tasks AI can take on are those that probably should be outsourced- those that are pat or rote in some way and perfunctory.
I do wonder where AI could be an author on steroids-- not the “death of.” Where might a creative might plug in a unique prompt and then, with AI, produce something that might be called art or literature. I suspect there are those - especially among the younger set - that are open to the idea of CREATING art with AI where it’s like a different type of paintbrush or pen. Although I’m not sure how I feel about it all, I’m also not convinced AI is the death of authors.
Where I do feel concerned is about the death of our planet as each new technology seems to get us farther away from living in harmony with it. I’m not a total Luddite (writing this on a smartphone) - and I do wonder how abstract -- artificial-- living has become and what role AI will play in that. That’s a death that keeps me up at night.
For sure, AI is a tool like a paintbrush or a pen. It is already proving to be very useful. My concern is, as I said in the post, in the stunting or distorting of young people's imaginative facilities. And that DOES affect our relation with the planet, because we urgently need new thinking to move us beyond the paradigm that has brought us to the Sixth Great Extinction, and the collapse of the current (unsustainable) civilization. As a professor of media arts, I am finding that most young people, when asked to create, draw upon what they have already seen/heard, existing storylines from imaginations that are saturated (we might use the word colonized) by the mainstream media. This, to me, is a clear and present danger, which the ease of AI storytelling is only going to exacerbate. Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Becca, I appreciate this chance to exchange ideas!
Yes. 100%. We need to be able to imagine and connect with more-than-human nature to move beyond the many things that have brought us to our current environmental crises.
I hope AI storytelling can lead to innovation -- and I hear you on your concerns that you're seeing play out in your role as a professor. All worth some thoughtful responses and deliberation, which isn't really how we could characterize the roll-out of AI chatbots to date...
I’d love to share this with you. It’s an exploration of the disconnect from reality that I think AI will hasten: https://open.substack.com/pub/beccakatz/p/aldo-leopold?r=1ji450&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
I think this is relevant. You decide.
Isaac Asimov wrote a story in which the "professional" were "educated" by some device transferring knowledge directly into the brain. They were more or less good at their jobs, but they were not innovative. True creativity came the hard way, through old fashioned reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profession_(novella)