The thumbnail for this article is AI-generated. Would you have noticed if I had not started the article with this sentence? Maybe you clicked on this article only after seeing the thumbnail. Maybe the colours or perhaps the contours of shading fascinated you? But does it matter? Just by clicking on the image or even reading the article, you have become part of the debate (or problem, as some like to think of it). The ever-rampant flow of machines in art has reached a stage where it is not just about art anymore; it’s about the concept of creativity itself.
For as long as humankind has known itself, we have built around the fantasy that art is born out of emotion- from pain and suffering so deep that the ineffaceable nature of putting brush or pen to paper is the only way to express those humanistic toilings. Art is often thought of as the melancholic coalescent of the human experience- anxiety, struggle, dread, euphoria, even madness. To the artist, their artistic endeavours are an extension of their soul- a first-hand description of every single experience that has shaped their being.
But when it comes to machines, they do not have emotion, trauma, or existential dread (at least not yet). No haunting dreams that never bore fruit, no capitulated love stories, no regrets or failures that inspire greatness. While their job to simulate human art may seem simple, how can they accurately do that without every aspect of emotionality that defines human beings? And yet, in the silent hum of night, these ‘generators’ trample on, tricking the world as they move to create a new definition of the word creativity. For all you know, even this article could be generated by some software, alarmingly oblivious of the threat it aims to appropriate.
And yet, the conflict lies herein- the more seemingly ‘accurate’ this cacophony of generators becomes, the further we stray away from the human endeavour of creation. Have a look at the thumbnail again. Does it really scream AI-generated to you? Would you have figured it out by yourself? But then again, does it matter if it has already reached the stage where I must ask? Filmmakers, writers, artists, advertisers, and God knows who else has begun incorporating AI generators into their work.
The paradox of AI is close to reaching a haunting decision. The question we must ask ourselves is whether we want to step foot into a future where a large majority of our decision-making is controlled by a soulless server operating millions of miles away from us (it can be argued that that is already the case, but that’s a debate for another day).
You may already be familiar with the ‘death of the author.’ It is a theory that argues that interpretations of a given work are not based on what the author meant but on what the reader sees and thinks. While this theory comes from a primarily literary context, as we sit at the turn of a century that is all but set to be dominated by artificial intelligence, perhaps it is fated that the death of the author happens in a way that is more literal.
The question is not if AI can produce indelible pieces of work but whether we humans truly care where the art comes from. And if we collectively decide that we do not, an asphodelian tide is inescapable.
The thumbnail remains. The debate rages on.
Let us know your thoughts in the comments below. If you have burning thoughts or opinions to express, please feel free to reach out to us at larra@globalindiannetwork.com.
