<
https://freedium.cfd/https://rushkoff.medium.com/artificial-creativity-74d49181eabe>
'I hinted at some thoughts about AI in my last
Team Human monologue, and
those generated as many emails as the main subject — which was learning to
disengage from the pace of the internet. These ideas are related, of course:
making a conscious, human choice about whether and how we use AI requires the
same application of agency as disengaging from the pace of digital
industrialism.
But understanding the reasons and complications, and history, are pretty
specific in the case of AI.
I just had the pleasure and honor of speaking at a wonderful music industry
program at Eastern Tennessee State University. They wanted a talk about how AI
would impact the creative industries, and specifically music. And as I looked
out at the bright young faces, I couldn't help but begin with "First they came
for the cab drivers, and I said nothing because I am not a cab driver…"
Of course, only two older professors knew the reference I was talking about — a
poem by Pastor Martin Neimoller, a one-time nazi supporter after his liberation
from Dachau. I wasn't trying to equate AIs with Nazis so much as to suggest
that the way to come to an understanding of how AI may someday impact whatever
we do is to look at the people it is impacting today.
It's no crime against humanity to replace most cab drivers with autonomous
vehicles. That's because the vast majority of Uber drivers are not doing it for
the fun of it, but for the money. They'd rather be out playing softball or
making music. If we really could substitute for our labor with machines — ones
that don't pollute or create even more work — it wouldn't be a problem, as long
as we all felt okay about letting people live and enjoy the bounty of a
high-tech society without necessarily contributing to the industrial economy.
Having more than enough of everything shouldn't be a problem, and if technology
really could make that a reality it's not up to the tech bros to design the
post-work economy.
The creative industries are different, though. Or more to the point, creativity
is different from the creative industries — as different as music is from the
music business. AI's are fine for industry. They're a product of industrial age
thinking, and reinforce its values. They do not create, they model. That's what
"large language models" means. Just like computers "model" a typewriter as a
word processor, or a complex weather system in order to predict the future, AIs
model writing or composing by looking at all the texts and songs and generating
an approximate average. They model the most typical version of something
possible.
Now that's fine for certain forms of entertainment. Maybe a Marvel movie or,
better, a roller coaster. An AI can look at all the successful roller coasters
out there, measure the effects on riders, and come up with increasingly
idealized combinations of drops and loops and spirals. Aristotle considered
"spectacle" the lowest priority in drama, kind of like cheating when compared
with character or plot. Like Las Vegas fireworks instead of a Shakespeare
soliloquy. But it has its place, particularly in an entertainment industry
where formula is more important than personal expression or audience insight.
It's more like porn than a human relationship.
This industrial approach to the arts is what brought us autotuning of
vocalists, and an aesthetic that would condemn James Brown's reaching up to a
note as a form of noise, not signal. Technology removes the soul from human
performance in order to make it more compatible with industry. Perfect. Not
art, but idealized product.'
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
