March 29, 2023

A few weeks back, famous short fiction publisher Clarkesworld closed to submissions because of the unprecedented flood of spam AI submissions, and the topic of AI has remained in the headlines, especially in the SF/F community, ever since. Most of us are, rightly, concerned about the legal implications, the issues with copyright and compensation, and the over-saturation of an industry with already low resources.

All of that concerns and frustrates me, and I want to state that I do not support the use of copyrighted works as fodder for an AI. Artists must be paid for their work, and any use of their work to teach or inspire or whatever an algorithm without the artist’s knowledge or consent or compensation is stealing and therefore illegal. I am not worried about AI as a new technology. I write science fiction. I think AI is cool. I think it should be explored, and I think it can benefit our world enormously. But technology without boundaries and rules will only harm us. I think that point has been made very clear.

So what I want to talk about is not the legal side of AI, but the philosophical side–how AI is shaping our view of people, ourselves, and artists specficially. That has me concerned.

When AI first started hitting the scene and everyone was getting excited about what it could do, I remember thinking one thing: why? Someone would point out that AI art can create a painting of a waterfall in less than five minutes. Okay, why? Another person said ChatGPT could write their blog posts for them. Cool, but why? Why use AI? Why create with it? Why that and not your own work?

I had no judgment in my question. I legitimately wanted to understand. I, for example, write and create stories for a multitude of reasons, some simple like I enjoy it, some complex like it helps me process the difficult experiences of this life. I would fulfill neither of those needs if I just plugged some directions into an algorithm. So why use it?

For the most part, I got the following responses to my question: Because it is fast, easy, and cheap. Basic hallmarks of capitalism, true, but generally we want something faster because it being slow is a problem, easier because difficulty prevents the thing from being done, cheaper because, well hell, everything is just too expensive nowadays. Everyone spoke as though AI were solving a problem with art and story, but what was the problem?

The answer: AI did what these people felt they could not. 

I can’t draw, so I use AI to draw for me. I get writer’s block staring at a blank page, so I had ChatGPT write my first draft for me. I don’t have time to do this thing, so I had an algorithm do it instead.

What all these reasons and excuses had in common was that they were all about the end result, the product. All the can’ts and don’ts dismissed the human being and their capabilities and shifted the focus, the value, onto the thing needed/wanted.

The problem isn’t that people can’t and AI can. The problem is we’re choosing products over people and mixing up which is which in the process. It’s reducing an artist down to what they can provide, how quick they can provide it, and how much it is going to cost. It’s that we’re even comparing AI to people in the first place!

Maybe you can’t draw–yet. Maybe writer’s block is a huge problem for you–right now. Maybe you don’t have the time–at the moment. Learn to draw, practice techniques to overcome writer’s block, take a second look at your schedule and priorities. Will it be hard? Absolutely. Will it be impossible during some seasons of life? I guarantee it. But using AI for fast, easy, and cheap reasons is like trying to play a game without learning the rules, trying to gain something without knowing why you even want it. It’s seeking to get to a destination without making the journey.

AI isn’t human is the cry I hear most often against AI being used. I agree, and I think we all know that. The inverse is also true: humans aren’t AI. We cannot and should not compare AI creations to human creations. We cannot and should not hold one to the standard of the other. We cannot and should not mix the two, but call the result by the name of only one. We cannot and should not mistake a person for a product. 

AI isn’t better than people. People are not better than AI. People are human. AI is a product. Humans are creators; products are tools. The two are not comparable. This muddling I see between people and AI dismisses and devalues people, especially artists, reducing them to things and elevating things to their former status.

AI is just another tool that human beings are capable of creating and using. It is not a person. It is, currently, not even intelligent. It’s a glorified search engine that spits out amalgamations of real people’s work. If used right, AI can be an excellent tool, a great product, a useful thing. 

But it isn’t an artist and it cannot replace artists because an artist isn’t a thing.

Read more about AI from the perspective of SFWA members HERE