It is often the case that I have more questions than answers on a given topic, but this week’s topic takes my question-to-answer ratio to another level. That’s because this week, I’d like to start a conversation about Artificial Intelligence (AI), humanity, and what it means for art. I say ‘start a conversation’ because I intend to ask a lot of questions I don’t have the answers to, and I’m hoping that you, dear reader, can help me fill in the blanks.
If you’ve been anywhere near social media, the Internet, or mainstream media recently, I can only assume you’ve seen or heard about the AI revolution. This has been quite a while in the making, a few decades at least. However, the latest instalment has especially brought a new deluge of fear, paranoia, and angst on one hand, coupled with a matching wave of excitement, wonder, and anticipation on the other hand.
This latest instalment I refer to was heralded by the release of ChatGPT. If you’re unaware or uninitiated, ChatGPT is simply an AI-powered chatbot, like those annoying dialogue box engines that can’t seem to follow simple instructions when you’re trying to cancel your online shopping order or request a refund. But unlike previous bots that have terrorised the Internet over the last decade, this one is truly revolutionary. It is a game changer in more ways than one, and this is perhaps why it has taken the world by storm in recent months.
ChatGPT can do things that previous chatbots couldn’t. It can author scientific papers that fool top scientists into thinking the papers were authored by their colleagues. It can create computer programs and write college essays that achieve excellent grades when scored by professors. It can compose insightful, humorous, even astounding poetry. It can do the type of work that would have been hitherto considered undoable by machines.
This ushers us into a world of never-before-explored possibilities, but it also raises some never-before-considered questions. If AI can fool scientists, what does it mean for the scientific publishing process and the pursuit of knowledge? If AI can write excellent essays and complete assignments with flying colours, what does it mean for the assessment of students’ progress in schools? And pertinent to this post, if AI can compose poetry and create art, what does this mean for artists and the creative process?
It is this last question that is most relevant to me and this blog, being a creative blog and all. Permit me to ask the question again: If AI can compose poetry and create art, what does this mean for artists and the creative process? What does it mean for people like me, budding, fledgeling, and established artists and creatives alike? What does it mean for the process of creating art? What does it mean for the practice of applying oneself to the pursuit of artistic endeavour? What does this mean for the evaluation of the output of said endeavour, i.e. a piece of art, be it poetry, music, stories, or paintings? What does it mean for the value of art? What becomes the point of art? What becomes of our relationship with art that is created by humans, and their machine counterparts? What becomes of our relationship with, and our consumption of art as a species?
I did say this post would be laden with questions and not enough answers. The first and last questions from the previous paragraph particularly require dwelling on for a moment. If AI can compose poetry and create art, what does this mean for artists and the creative process? And what becomes of our relationship with, and our consumption of art as a species?
I choose to dwell on the above questions because art is consumed, but it is also created. A preponderance of the populace consumes popular artworks, be it by watching blockbuster movies, listening to music by famous musicians, reading bestselling novels, visiting galleries that host classic paintings and sculptures, and so on. And while this is the case, only a sliver of the populace engages in the process of creating said art. Millions or billions of people may watch a new movie when it hits the cinema, but said movie may have been worked on by a few dozen people. Half of the world's population may have heard a piece of classical music, but it was likely written by one person and perhaps involved no more than a handful of collaborators. In most cases, there’s a mismatch in the creation and consumption process, as the number of consumers outstrips the number of creators, by several orders of magnitude. This, in my view, has the effect on our collective psyche of making us neglect, ignore, or relegate the creation process, and consequently, the creators.
As far as art is concerned, like most people, I’m a consumer. I watch movies, I listen to music, I read books, and I visit galleries. But I’m also a creator. I write and perform music, and I write essays, blog posts, stories, and books. Perhaps I’m biased in the position I take on this topic, and the perspective from which I approach it, but that’s just because of who I am - a creator and a consumer. And while I’ve come across a handful of discussions and opinion pieces on what the new wave of AI growth means for creatives, the impression I’m left with is that the majority of the conversations in the public discourse focus on the consumption process. The emphasis seems to be on how good and fitting for human consumption art can be if it is made by something that isn’t human, if it is made by machines.
These are valid and reasonable questions to ask, but we also need to ask more questions. Such as, is art still art if it is created by machines? Should human artists give up their artistic exploits if machines appear to make better and more fitting art than humans? Should humans pivot, as in, cease working on art itself and focus on creating machines that can churn out better art (however we choose to define ‘better’)? Should I, as a creative, give up my music and writing aspirations and exploits if machines can churn out essays, stories, books and songs in less time, with no friction or difficulty, and perhaps to a higher standard? Should I, as a creative, consider embracing AI as a replacement for my artistic creation, or as a collaborator or enhancer for my art?
Then there’s the ‘humanity’ aspect of it. What does it even mean to be human? What’s the role of humanity in the artistic process? What becomes of the ‘soul’ people refer to when a piece of music strikes a chord (excuse the pun), or when a painting takes their breath away, or when a poem resonates and speaks to them? If AI can create top-notch work – and by this point, there’s no doubt that it can – then what becomes the goal of artistic exploits? Should artists and creatives strive for excellence? Or should we all just relax, kick back, and see the creative process for what it may be, something to leisurely enjoy, and something to pass the fleeting time we have on this floating rock in space? I haven’t got a clue. Have you?
PS: Just a reminder that my latest record, All Behind is out now, everywhere. You can listen to it on several platforms. Please share it with a friend, share it with your social networks, and consider subscribing to the newsletter (below), my YouTube channel, or wherever else you listen to music.