I have nothing, in principle, about using AI as one of the tools in your arsenal.
I am not a slack-jawed luddite who fears for their job or place in the world because some supposed guru on Linkedin decided we’re all replaceable in the next 5 years.
So the caveat here is that I am obviously talking about LLMs and generative AI in the case of creative and artistic work here, and not the use cases for AI that absolutely totally make sense, such as analysing gargantuan data sets, assisting with image analysis, pattern recognition, assisting with diagnoses, and so on.
But, if you’re the type of tool who believes that knowledge, competence, experience, all play second and third fiddle to you ham-fistedly typing a prompt into GPT, and that you can beat human brilliance with some AI prompt cheatsheet or vibe-coded hot mess, I have news for you.
No, you didn’t do that, and no, AI didn’t do it either.
“Actually I did that.”
This is a phrase we need to tattoo on our foreheads.
This is something all of us creators have to start being much more vocal about – that the plagiarism machine didn’t create a thing.
It was a person who lived the experience and wrote the script, and a person who set up the shot and their camera just the right way and photographed that, filmed that.
A person who played and acted out that role.
A person who sat down and walked around and strained their brain and imagined that.
A person who visualised that. A person who planned that. A person made that happen.
It was a person who thought of that, who wrote that, who invented that, who designed that, who patented that, who coded that.
A person fought for that to come into existence.
All you did was to take my finished product, or that person’s finished product, feed it into the sausage machine, and asked it for a remix.
And that’s all you got – a remix.
In the infinitely sage words of Trent Reznor, just a copy of a copy of a copy.
Refine with Gemini or rewrite with AI all you like – your AI doesn’t have the power of my actual eye, and it can’t read the room.
It can’t make anything truly original. It can only remix. It is, by its very nature, and by its very name “generative”, meaning, completely derivative.
Which is fine sometimes, and just great for some, even many, use cases, sure.
But don’t pretend you created anything special when you clearly just requested a remix.
Stolen, and then remixed
And, in addition, be aware, that the AI model has almost certainly been trained on stolen content – meaning that no one got paid when the machine got trained on someone’s life work, or the life’s work of entire teams and companies.
For the last ten to fifteen years, the tech industry has done little except:
- find novel ways to charge you for subscriptions instead of licenses,
- and find out how to get around the law, city by city if you’re an Uber or Airbnb, country by country if you’re an OpenAI
Disruption is just another way of saying “circumventing the law to increase shareholder value”, which in the case of generative AI, isn’t even the case because these companies have done nothing except burn cash and fossil fuels to allow average Joes to type prompts and create average, junk content that no one wanted or asked for.
The latest iterations of this crap are the Studio Ghibli theft and the ‘make me an action figure’ craze, and let’s add the furry logo bollocks too.
All great examples of the plagiarism machine at work, giving you silly results that are vaguely different to everyone else’s, getting the AI trained from your submitted data and prompts, and basically distilling the life’s work of people into cheap, junk content that no one really wanted and no one ever asked for.
Katy Perry took a ride on a spaceship, and you made yourself into an action figure, and both of those lasted about 10 minutes and were supremely wasteful, and entirely worthless endeavours.
What can I do?
So, start being a little cynical, and questioning a little.
Give human creators the credit they deserve.
And don’t listen to billionaires who built empires on the back of intellectual property and now say we ought to delete all IP law.
When the planet burns, which it will faster if we keep spiking energy demand by prompting the plagiarism machine to generate an image of a cat sipping a cocktail in Studi Ghibli style, the billionaires will all have spaceships to catch, but you and your kids won’t.
You slack-jawed luddite! Jk! Glad to see you still active and punchy, my friend! Guess who is transcribing my words and leaving a reply? My personal AI assistant, as I am no longer physically able to anymore. Being very much on the receiving end of the gifts of AI, I can’t help but see things from a lot of perspectives.
My opinion is that all this fearmongering on AI taking jobs is a load of bull. As you correctly implied, AI is a great tool to have in your arsenal. But as with every new technology, it entails a learning curve and requires adaptability. You cannot compare a creator with a user who uses AI for entertainment purposes. Cause that’s precisely what Studio Ghiblification, action figures, nanoblocks, and other crazes are for: fun! And fun is not a worthless endeavor; at its worst, it brings a smile, and at its best, it’s one of the primary sparks of creativity itself.
Regarding licensing, it should fall under fair use, like memes. As regards the training of the plagiarism machine, you are 100% right. The developers need to purchase rights for the data they feed their little monsters. This is in line with The New York Times’ 2023 lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI for copyright infringement. But how about the little guys, the solo creators? I suppose some form of cooperative needs to be established that protects and enforces infringement of creator rights. How does this tie in with the fear of losing jobs?
The fulcrum of the issue is that powers with hidden agendas target trends and spread fears for political purposes. For example, Hayao Miyazaki, renowned for pushing the boundaries and limits of animation, views AI as an insult to himself and his work. Ain’t this the pot calling the kettle black? Miyazaki’s anti-AI stance dismisses its role in shaping new dreams, like his own past visions created mecha and supercomputers. AI isn’t the issue – it’s about how, by whom, and why it’s used. Masters should support, not scorn, the next generation’s dreams.
So why do this? (leaving licensing aside) Because they feel too old to adapt! They don’t like having new blood easily succeed them with the help of AI. That’s where the fear is originating. In today’s rapidly changing world, you need to be flexible, ready to adapt, and, if necessary, reorient yourself. You never stop learning; it has always been the key to success. Those who don’t will be at risk of losing their jobs. This is similar to how programmers had to transition from functional to object-oriented to visual programming. For certain, AI will make life easier and render certain jobs redundant, but it will also create new ones.
The dominion of AI won’t happen too soon. To get a decent image, you need to creatively write a prose, not a prompt, and tweak and rerun it tens of times. Articles? lol speculations and hallucinations run supreme. You need to double-check every single fact, place, and date. So, what about the creators? Those who embrace the technology and adapt will supposedly be less bound by time constraints and free to imagine and create more. If a Tool can produce something by ham-fistedly typing a prompt into GPT, then what will a real creator with knowledge, competence, and experience be able to do?
There are always two faces to a coin 😉
Keep posting, I enjoy it!
Trevor! So good to hear from you — and I’m really glad to hear you’ve got your own AI assistant working with you; that’s incredible, and a fantastic and heartening use case. You’re right: AI can be a profound tool, especially when it’s meeting real human needs.
I’m with you on nearly all points. There is tremendous potential in these tools, and I agree that the discourse should make room for nuance, not panic.
That said, I can’t quite agree with the point about licensing and fair use. This isn’t just a case of needing to adapt or embrace new tools. What’s at stake here is the wholesale appropriation of creative work. This isn’t about being able and willing to adapt – it’s about LLMs having been trained on stolen data and about billionaires who made their fortunes off of IP regimes, turning around and saying we should delete all IP laws because it suddenly suits them.
Twenty years ago teenagers were getting sued for sharing copies of Metallica’s St Anger, and today, the biggest companies in the world are a-okay with stealing EVERYONE’S IP rights to train their plagiarism machines. That’s not about ‘fun’, even if the result is as benign and banal as the action figure yourself trend.
Still, I appreciate your viewpoint on this, and I appreciate that you’re coming from a place of actual experience, not just abstraction. Keep sharing your thoughts, it’s always been great to hear them, and keep well my friend.
Haha, perhaps I wasn’t clear, after all, I got an AI for copywriter 😛 I meant licensing should fall under fair use for entertainment purposes, such as Studio Ghiblification and anime figures. As regards the training of the plagiarism machine, you are 100% right. That’s why I suggested the need for a cooperative that enforces infringement of individual creator rights. Unlike the New York Times, the little guy cannot afford big lawsuits. Guess it got lost in translation. 🙂