Even before the controversial genesis of ChatGPT, artificial intelligence has been hard at work. In 2016, JWT, a leading advertising agency, used the capabilities of machine learning and generative AI to produce what they claimed to be a “new” Rembrandt. It is not only the classical arts that have faced an AI takeover in the last decade, however. Miquela Sousa or ‘Lil Miquela’ has two million followers on Instagram, making her an Instagram influencer. Miquela Sousa is, however, not a human influencer, but coded thoroughly with the latest CGI technologies.
And these are simply a few pins found in the allegorical hay stack. AI adoptions by companies, large and small alike, are on the rise. An McKinsey global survey informs that companies have resorted to invest in the artificial rather than the human, starting 2021.
AI and the Victory of the Capitalist
Where does this place us, then? There have been a number of proponents for this AI led invasion into creative spaces. AI software is economical, effective and accessible. This has disrupted the income source of the creatives who inhabit those spaces, with the Screen Actors Guild and Writers Guild of America going on strike consecutively after one another.
One of the main demands of the WGA was to keep AI out of the writing room. Responses to such varied from sympathetic to the ever increasing, yet eternal sentiment that writers, artists and the like should all strive to “get a real job”. If we all had learned to code, then we wouldn't have to fight to keep ourselves afloat once artificial intelligence took over. Disregarding how morose an outlook to life that is, where humans should be sitting at desks and typing in numbers while ChatGPT makes art, it is also singularly untrue.
When you support human unemployment in favor of machine generated content, you are also supporting the cause of the billionaire, and reiterating that the rich should get richer, and the poor, poorer. AI is not economical when the only economy that it benefits is the personal one of someone who is already at the top of the social order. It also becomes glaringly obvious then, that these corporations will not stop at writing jobs. With the mass understanding that the arts are an occupation without merit, it was simply the easiest way to enter the public’s perception and win the crowds over.
AI and the Victory of the Masses
However to condemn AI and move on would be an archaic and uninformed view as well. It is not without basis that those that harp about the ease and effectiveness of AI do so. It does have several valuable practical uses, and as companies report, is best as a behind-the-scenes worker. M&C Saatchi reported their use of AI in a 2015 ad campaign, where the software tracked how long and at which points of the advertisement people looked the longest at, giving invaluable feedback to the human creative team for their projects.
Life-threatening jobs, physically strenuous ones and ones that involve grunt work - these are the sectors that the AI overlords should be focusing on. Such endeavors may lead to the usage of machine learning in a way that is not anti-human. In fact, AI can be emphatically human when it replaces the need for underpaid labor, human exploitation, et cetera.
Why is it then, that companies like Shein, continue the operation of illegal sweatshops to mass produce clothes when the same clothes are produced through algorithmic fashion design ? Similarly, if AI is trustworthy, reliable and almost sentient, why has the stock market not replaced its analysts with artificial intelligence when it is simply a numbers game? Trader’s Market reported in 2020 that the AI takeover of the stock market is a mere fantasy. It is the same crowd of finance officers and programmers who swear by the fact that the next massive Netflix show may as well be written by ChatGPT or Gemini.
Does it boil down to the assumption, then, that those who advocate for the creative takeover of artificial intelligence are doing so only as long as they believe that it may replace jobs that are unworthy, and as long as it is not their own jobs? Is then, the current vehement usage of ChatGPT a statement against how the masses perceive artists and not how they perceive AI?
Mediating Between Spaces - AI and the Victory of the Human
The greatest singular legacy that humankind has are their stories. The statement that art has been on a decline in the last decade, that everything that comes out is either a prequel, sequel or remake is a common consensus given the fact that most people choose to watch media that is either a prequel, sequel or a remake. If looked even an inch beyond the surface, one may notice that there have been as many incredible creatives from the last decade as there have been for any other decade. Generative AIs are not one of those creatives. Even if it has the capacity to create, why do we want to watch content that has been produced from no human experience, emotion or epiphany?
People yearn to create as much as they wish to be able to pay their mortgage. People do not yearn to be exploited to mine in earthquake-prone zones, or calculate dozens of transactions with an outdated calculator, or work in underpaid, overworked sweatshops. When the debate is looked at with a humanist perspective, the answer falls right into our laps.
Comments