“There’s no work anymore, there are just apps. You have a job and it becomes an app on Thursday…”
~ Dylan Moran
The future used to be so optimistic. As a kid I was promised hoverboards, and friendly computers you could talk to, and entire libraries of books and music and films available on tablets at the touch of a button.
In reality, ‘Hoverboard’ became a brand name for a toy that – notably – does not hover; the smart devices and assistants in the home, ostensibly there to help, turn out to be eavesdropping on private conversations and utterances for the benefit of multi-billion-dollar corporations. And the books, music, and films and TV shows that are available on tablets can be removed without warning by the providers or copyright owners. The internet has become like a library where other people have paid to have the books replaced with their own adverts.
As a result I’ve gone from being one of the forward-looking kids of the 20th century anticipating all the shiny technology, to one of those curmudgeonly old bastard characters that appeared on science fiction shows who were determined to hang onto their physical books no matter how impractical they seemed in outer space.
The prospect of having smart machines doing the drudge work while humans could go off and be free and creative and sociable sounded very appealing in science fiction stories and glossy TV shows and films.
Instead, the 21st century has the prospect of artificial intelligence writing stories and creating art, whilst creatively-inclined humans are reduced to scrabbling for low-paid drudge work.
What’s making things go …so wrong?
Why is highly-skilled and valuable creativity being automated, but low-paid drudge work kept going? Maybe the late George Carlin was onto something when he railed against the ‘owners’ in each country who are happy to decimate livelihoods and industries as long as they themselves remain rich.
As an example of this, freelance concept artist, illustrator and creative director @_Dofresh_ described how an advertising company he’d done work for contacted him to ask for urgent concept art only because “…their in house AI technician was too busy, and they therefore had no choice but to find an artist. It is the first time I can see a concrete effect of those AI generative software packages on the available jobs.”
“Within a few years, art will probably be a hobby for wealthy people, and definitely won’t be able to make a living. I realized now that as we are speaking, hundreds of movies, video games and commercials are using AI in their creation process. It is probably kept confidential (for legal or “ethical”reasons) but it is already a major piece of their workflow. They will never go backward.”
@_Dofresh_
In contrast, another user @arkephi pointed out that artists using AI to generate concept art could become more productive, and still have the advantages of training that unskilled users lack:
“You can now produce art 10x or even 100x faster using these tools. … It absolutely requires a deep knowledge of the language and vocabulary of visual arts in order to steer the model to produce the best output.”
@arkephi
There are those who experience creativity as a pasttime and those who see it as a source of income; many of the latter (artists and writers) live in penury because the urge to be creative outweighs everything else. The tension is between creatives who see the purpose of creating art is about the passion of creating something unique from nothing, that will never be repeated, versus those whose working lives depend on efficiency and quantity, where passion and skill aren’t enough – they have to deliver on time too.
Centuries ago, artists used to make their own paints before doing the actual business of painting; in the modern age, they can buy what they need ready-made. A whole step – or rather, process – has been removed, allowing them to focus their skills and creativity and save time. Will far-future creatives see ever AI in the same way?
Most companies don’t care about the ‘purpose’ of creativity; they’re just looking for the most efficient way to increase profits. And from the examples above in concept art (and further down, the film industry), it looks as though AI is going to take over (see also the strikes in Hollywood in 2023 over the future of writers, and the potential use of film and TV extras’ computer-scanned likenesses being used to replace them).
“Great poets imitate and improve, whereas small ones steal and spoil.”
W H Davenport Adams, 1892 (often misquoted and misattributed to Picasso)
Artists have already had their work ‘stolen’ – used to ‘train’ the AI models intended to replace them (there are belated ways artists can fight back). Websites where artists could share their work (such as Deviantart) which allowed AI models to train on users’ work soon lost the trust of their users; and other sites (such as Artstation) have seen protests against hosting AI-generated images.
There’s always going to be a need for traditional artists and creatives though.
Part 5 of Light and Magic, a documentary about George Lucas’ special effects company ILM, showed the impact of computer-generated images replacing traditional models, optical effects, puppetry, painted backdrops, and other practical arts. It was devastating for many, especially those who were unwilling or unable to adapt to the new technology.
Stop-motion animator Phil Tippett found his entire career had become obsolete overnight, right in the middle of working on Jurassic Park. Watching the documentary you just want to give the guy a hug. (And if you’ve ever seen his film Mad God, you can see he needs one.)
However, he had the knowledge from his career – a lifetime of observing animal behaviour that allowed him to include little tics and nuanced movements that could make his puppets seem more lifelike. He ended up guiding the computer effects programmers on how to make CGI dinosaurs ‘feel’ more realistic. It has only been occasionally since then when his stop-motion skills were called upon.
The prospect of AI eventually creating entire films or TV shows threatens the livelihoods of hundreds or thousands of people who would otherwise work on them, as this Twitter exchange demonstrates:
“We won’t need actors, so no costume and no hair and make-up. No sets, so no scaffolders, no carpenters, no decorators, no lighting, no sound, no extras no catering no drivers no workshop no lot no studio site. But it’s just a tool.”
@CalumAWatt
“No writers either. No directors because there’s no one to direct. Or producers, since they don’t need to produce anything now. The executives could write it all themselves. They know how to run a business, so they obviously know how to tell a story by writing a prompt.”
“oh yeah, it takes a village. not to mention all the service industries. but let us not stop progress.”
In one reply, there was an attempt to point out potential benefits to this, perhaps disrupting a creatively bankrupt system that’s been churning out substandard franchise films for the past 10-15 years:
“Double edged sword. It empowers many to create who otherwise would never have the means. It breaks a studio model that is failing to produce films of quality, which is lamented by actors/directors/writers and audiences alike. It won’t replace actual filmmaking any time soon, but it will break down the models that aren’t working and inject innovation and creativity into a stagnant industry. Disruption is always messy.”
@Steve Skojec
I can see how once-widespread professions have now been reduced to artisanal skills – such as the swordsmith I met at the mediaeval fair at Linlithgow Palace.
More widely, mundane office jobs have become automated (eg typing, calculating, filing), but there is still a need for people who know what they’re doing, as anyone who’s seen a non-creative’s attempts at making presentations or designing things in Microsoft Word can attest.
Don’t like AI? You don’t want to be a Luddite, do you?
‘Luddite’ is understood as an insult, for someone who doesn’t like new technology or too stupid to learn how to use it; a conservative who wants to remain stuck in the ways of the past. When people think the world was better in the past (better for whom?), they’re really saying they found it easier to understand (because back then they had only a child’s understanding of it).
Historically, the Luddites were northern-English textile workers at the dawn of the industrial revolution, who would sneak into factories at night to destroy the machines threatening their jobs.
In Blood in the Machine (2023), Brian Merchant points out they were not against machines as such; many welcomed the equipment that made their work easier. What they opposed were the factory owners wanting to make large quantities of textiles faster and more cheaply by employing low-skilled, low-wage workers (even children), instead of skilled clothworkers with years of training. It was lower quality but so cheap and plentiful, the factory owners gained the profits.
“The Luddites correctly recognized that this shift was not only debasing their art and depressing their wages, but also changing the very nature of what it meant to work. … The Luddites saw that the winners from this technological “progress” would not be workers—neither the expert textile makers losing their jobs, nor the exploited children replacing them. The winners were the factory owners who, having found a new way to disempower their workers, were able to amass a greater share of the profits those workers generated.“
Billy Perrigo, “What the Luddites can teach us about artificial intelligence” (Time, 26 September 2023)
According to Merchant, Britain’s ruling classes popularized the definition of ‘Luddite’ as an insult to distract from the Luddites’ real warning: new technologies only lower wages and make the owners insanely wealthy as a result of their political choices. Increasing wealth inequality isn’t the inevitable result of technological progress.
AI will do to white-collar and creative jobs what machine automation did to blue-collar jobs. Unless we rethink how money and employment work, we’re all screwed…
Future unknown
One of my favourite TV shows is The Orville, set in a technological and social utopia in space. The third-season finale has a character from a culture similar to 21st-century Earth try to steal some futuristic gizmos because she hopes they’ll help turn her world into a social utopia. The futuristic space heroes have to tell her that it doesn’t work that way: you can only attain a utopia by figuring out your society first. If you get the shiny toys too soon, you’ll bugger things up.
And that’s how I feel a lot of technological progress has gone throughout history (especially in the modern era: we’ve gained abilities before we’ve really known how best to use them, hence leaded petrol, thalidomide, and in the 21st century, surveillance capitalism).
The 21st century techno-billionaires who grew up reading and watching science fiction stories have found ways to create the props and gadgets for real; but their purpose isn’t to make people’s lives easier or better – it’s to turn a profit. Smartphones get software updates that slow them down to “encourage” the users to buy new ones. ‘Smart home’ technology becomes obsolete. Workers in online shops are exploited. ‘Smart cars’ aren’t so smart, and fall apart or just plain burn up. Meanwhile, the company owners compete to launch space rockets, hoping to build the science fictiony future they dreamt of as kids, whilst ignoring the social changes that made life in these worlds so appealing.
And what of AI?
Chatbots are trained with each interaction they have. If obnoxious teenagers spend a lot of time talking to them then that’s probably about as smart as they’ll be. AI chatbots cannot tell if someone has mental ill health.
Where do we draw the line between the speed and efficiency of AI tools against the desire to make a human connection? In Guatemala, some of my fellow travellers used translation apps on their phones; but I preferred trying to talk to the locals and learn even a little of their language. For me, the awkwardness paid off in terms of gaining experiences and stories to tell.
If we come to rely on AI to write university essays or dating profiles, will we lose the ability to reason things through, express ourselves, or relate to each other? What is the point of a qualification if it isn’t the result of your own work? What is the point of online dating if it is simply going to connect two AI-generated profiles?
And what would be the point of skilled arts and creativity if we’re simply looking at something that was generated with the push of a button?
In Iain M Banks‘ Look To Windward (2000), a composer, Ziller, asks an artificial intelligence if it “Could write a piece – a symphony, say – that would appear, to the critical appraiser, to be by me, and which, when I heard it, I’d imagine being proud to have written?” When the AI confirms it could, Ziller replies “So what is the point of me or anybody else writing a symphony or anything else?” (The conversation then turns to the sense of achievement or accomplishment in these things, similar to climbing a mountain versus riding a helicopter to the top – or a train, if you’re in Wales.)
Conclusion (for now)
My own take is that AI is to creativity what microwave meals are to creating dinner from scratch. For people without the time or skills to do it themselves, or without access to (or money for) skilled professionals, its advantages are obvious. But if you did go out to pay money for a fancy meal, would you want something that’s been pre-packed and microwaved, or something prepared in a professional kitchen?
I cannot ignore the fact that – in this analogy – the microwave meal’s ingredients were stolen over the past few years. And nobody who uses it can consider themselves chefs!
Use AI if you must. But never pretend that you are now the professional whose job you have just replaced.
*Regarding the title of this blog post for any vocabulary pedants: yes I know the correct wording should be “avaricious intelligence” but I’m trying to kid myself that I’m being witty. Now piss off, you tiresome gnat.
Observaterry 