While I agree with you about the potential (and real) deficits of AI, especially in the area of creativity and art, which by its very existence are meant to express things uniquely human, I think we still must step back responsibly and assess the situation realistically.
Just three initial points I want to offer toward this discussion:
The first is regarding the question of accuracy in factual declarations and representations. AI is becoming increasingly more accurate, as it is capable of pulling from hundreds, if not thousands, of reputable sources in a matter of seconds. AI models, most currently notable being Perplexity, is especially looked to as (one of) the best for research. This is because it has been designed to not only offer accurate information, it offers the linked sources it uses to provide its responses.
I believe every writer/editor must still do our due diligence by checking into these sources ourselves, and even cross-checking with other sources. But we had to do this before AI. It was just less robust. Our research as fact writers was limited to what sources we thought to pull from. And before Google, that meant hoping we could find a few books on the topic of interest in the card catalog files of our local library. We were at the mercy of both the respective librarians overseeing our local branches and the guy who may or may not return the only copy of a text that is overdue.
With AI, not only are the reference books always stocked and accessible, but AI is able to give us different perspectives, and even take us on unexpected journeys into the topics that we likely never would have thought to explore; AND (continue to Point #2)
2. I am reminded of how—in my earlier years—I considered myself a Socialist (still do, but that's not the point here). I was working at a restaurant as a server, and often got into lively arguments with a line cook who identified as politically conservative (a Republican). One day I was schooling on the deadly scourge of climate change in between entering with bussed dishes and exiting with full plates. He chided me with, "Do you drive a car?"
"Of course I do."
"Well then don't be a hypocrite; stop driving your car to work!"
(I lived miles away).
I didn't know enough about our world or the answers to such challenges to effectively respond, but if the conversation took place today, I would point out that the driving cars are made necessary by the structure of this Capitalist society and the requirements to get more done faster and to get to more places more quickly.
These conditions of course are the byproducts of technologies that make tasks easier to accomplish in less time than for our ancestors. And besides, we don't have to stop driving our cars for the threats of climate change (from industrialization and other human causes) to nevertheless be true. Nor does our need to comply with basic societal norms nullify the facts that those norms should be reformed in order to save the health of all living things on our planet.
This story is to analogize the fact that AI is here. And it’s not going away. That a few of us artists, writers, and conscientious objectors may choose to boycott its use on principle, that won’t slow its booming integration.
“AI literacy" will continue to be more and more expected of employees, including rewarding those who find innovative new use cases for expanding it.
So—just as pay phones (which not so long ago could be found ubiquitously present on every street corner and within most businesses) have been effectively replaced with the expectation that everyone has a cell phone (and the skills to use it for communication and app functionality)—so too will it be expected that we all know what “prompts” are, and how to use them. It will become as expected by society as it is expected that we know how to “Google” for answers, and that we can get from Job #1 to Job #2 across town in fifteen minutes; AND (Continue to Point #3)
I've never spent much time on LinkedIn, but even I've noticed that the platform is now a graveyard for AI generated content. No small irony that your guest spends more time there than other platforms.
LinkedIn is a very weird place now (well, weirder than it used to be, which was pretty weird). Almost every surface you can interact with has a 'do it with AI' button, including doing basic status updates. They're doing everything they can to replace the entire experience and human interactions with AI talking to AI. It's very peculiar, and I imagine will be something they deeply regret implementing.
Indeed, I wasn't even thinking about that aspect, but yes, for using it as an employment and networking tool, it's AI all the way.
I was thinking about what people post, and the staggering level of engagement and enthusiasm for banal AI content.
I know I should feel something deeper than sad about this (ditto on Substack), but sad is inadequate. I can never quite identify what to think or feel. Much like a small child seeing something inappropriate, but not knowing what to make if it.
It’s very difficult not to have a snobbish reaction to it all, isn’t it? The truth may be that a lot of people have always been enthusiastic about banal, mediocre homogeneity, and AI offers a way to scale that up.
While I agree with you about the potential (and real) deficits of AI, especially in the area of creativity and art, which by its very existence are meant to express things uniquely human, I think we still must step back responsibly and assess the situation realistically.
Just three initial points I want to offer toward this discussion:
The first is regarding the question of accuracy in factual declarations and representations. AI is becoming increasingly more accurate, as it is capable of pulling from hundreds, if not thousands, of reputable sources in a matter of seconds. AI models, most currently notable being Perplexity, is especially looked to as (one of) the best for research. This is because it has been designed to not only offer accurate information, it offers the linked sources it uses to provide its responses.
I believe every writer/editor must still do our due diligence by checking into these sources ourselves, and even cross-checking with other sources. But we had to do this before AI. It was just less robust. Our research as fact writers was limited to what sources we thought to pull from. And before Google, that meant hoping we could find a few books on the topic of interest in the card catalog files of our local library. We were at the mercy of both the respective librarians overseeing our local branches and the guy who may or may not return the only copy of a text that is overdue.
With AI, not only are the reference books always stocked and accessible, but AI is able to give us different perspectives, and even take us on unexpected journeys into the topics that we likely never would have thought to explore; AND (continue to Point #2)
2. I am reminded of how—in my earlier years—I considered myself a Socialist (still do, but that's not the point here). I was working at a restaurant as a server, and often got into lively arguments with a line cook who identified as politically conservative (a Republican). One day I was schooling on the deadly scourge of climate change in between entering with bussed dishes and exiting with full plates. He chided me with, "Do you drive a car?"
"Of course I do."
"Well then don't be a hypocrite; stop driving your car to work!"
(I lived miles away).
I didn't know enough about our world or the answers to such challenges to effectively respond, but if the conversation took place today, I would point out that the driving cars are made necessary by the structure of this Capitalist society and the requirements to get more done faster and to get to more places more quickly.
These conditions of course are the byproducts of technologies that make tasks easier to accomplish in less time than for our ancestors. And besides, we don't have to stop driving our cars for the threats of climate change (from industrialization and other human causes) to nevertheless be true. Nor does our need to comply with basic societal norms nullify the facts that those norms should be reformed in order to save the health of all living things on our planet.
This story is to analogize the fact that AI is here. And it’s not going away. That a few of us artists, writers, and conscientious objectors may choose to boycott its use on principle, that won’t slow its booming integration.
“AI literacy" will continue to be more and more expected of employees, including rewarding those who find innovative new use cases for expanding it.
So—just as pay phones (which not so long ago could be found ubiquitously present on every street corner and within most businesses) have been effectively replaced with the expectation that everyone has a cell phone (and the skills to use it for communication and app functionality)—so too will it be expected that we all know what “prompts” are, and how to use them. It will become as expected by society as it is expected that we know how to “Google” for answers, and that we can get from Job #1 to Job #2 across town in fifteen minutes; AND (Continue to Point #3)
I've never spent much time on LinkedIn, but even I've noticed that the platform is now a graveyard for AI generated content. No small irony that your guest spends more time there than other platforms.
LinkedIn is a very weird place now (well, weirder than it used to be, which was pretty weird). Almost every surface you can interact with has a 'do it with AI' button, including doing basic status updates. They're doing everything they can to replace the entire experience and human interactions with AI talking to AI. It's very peculiar, and I imagine will be something they deeply regret implementing.
Indeed, I wasn't even thinking about that aspect, but yes, for using it as an employment and networking tool, it's AI all the way.
I was thinking about what people post, and the staggering level of engagement and enthusiasm for banal AI content.
I know I should feel something deeper than sad about this (ditto on Substack), but sad is inadequate. I can never quite identify what to think or feel. Much like a small child seeing something inappropriate, but not knowing what to make if it.
It’s very difficult not to have a snobbish reaction to it all, isn’t it? The truth may be that a lot of people have always been enthusiastic about banal, mediocre homogeneity, and AI offers a way to scale that up.