How Artificial Intelligence Destroys Creativity 

Thanks, Eigil!

I really appreciate the support, thanks! Unfortunately, technology has three main goals which are necessary to accomplish in order to subjugate humans, and one of the main ones is taking away our creative expression.

You are absolutely right. That is why I said "first step". I will explain later in another production how to oppose it. But briefly, you are right: we need public opinion, mass opposition, and it might even require revolution :)

That is absolutely true. Moreover, we could say that the inability to control our input has caused technology to manufacture drugs to compensate for the psychological distress. And, just as this has occurred, no doubt that techology will provide us with some other drug to compensate for the psychological distress of losing our ability to control output. Actually, even without AI, this inability is already present on RU-vid and other places -- only AI enhances that and is like the lock on the chains that will prevent us from opening the gate to freedom.

@@WildEarthPhoto it is good to see that you are well Jason, we went to the same high school in Ottawa.

You too!

I must caution against thinking about AI tools as "some are good, some are bad". AI is basically a single entity, that moves forward precisely because people support the "good" tools, whereas the ULTIMATE aim is to replace you entirely. It is the same as a person inviting you over to dinner before they abduct you as a prisoner and kill you. Of course, the dinner tastes good, but is it worth being abducted and killed? You may think that is an exaggeration, but it is not: we are just so well brainwashed by our consumerist society that we tend to evaluate technologically atomically, rather than holistically. The analogy to mushrooms you make is a bit misleading and here's why: with mushrooms, you can pick and choose the good from the bad. More importantly, ALL of society will avoid the bad mushrooms. And, mushrooms don't evolve to take the place of humans eventually and they don't take over creative tasks. With AI, some people WILL choose to use the "bad" tools for short-term gain and thus that will irrevocably change the industry for the worse. Therefore, one cannot view AI as a collection of "good" and "bad" tools: one must understand AI as a whole and fight against it.

@@WildEarthPhoto Very interesting point of view. Basically the mushrooms example was a joke from me but you made it the root of your thinking. BRAVO! Yes as I said several times we need to remain extremely vigilant when choosing using AI. But as you stated, chances are that many people will choose the wrong option :( That's the problem. It s a bit the same as the threat posed by an authoritarian regime. Anyway i don't agree to think AI as a whole bad thing. That's my point of view and I can figure out you think differently. Unfortunately i don't think it s the right place here to develop our thinking. Anyway big thank you for your feedback :)

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate your comments. It was a very interesting discussion. In any case, I believe our difference of opinion in some respects may be due to the fundamental axioms we take as the basis for a better world. But nevertheless, I think it's very good we are having a critical discussion about AI, rather than embracing it unconditionally.

Well, what "art" is has always been subjective. However, I wouldn't call it a misconception, it's my opinion. My opinion is often different than what the mainstream is, but it's certainly not a meek "on the fence" position like that of some people. For instance, I reject outright that technology is just a tool that we can choose to use as we please. I would say that that sort of position is far more of a misconception than anything I have said.

@@WildEarthPhoto Rejecting "that technology" is what I mean in terms of misconception. Where do you draw the line of what technology you mean? What is the bad "AI" and what machine learning is OK to use. None? Then stop using a lot of things. In the end it's all statistics and much of this has existed for quite a while. It's just much more accessible now. One could also argue everything in art is a derivative based on consumed experiences. So how is generative AI different? (Not my position - but one could argue) I am not sure your stance is just for the clicks, but if feels a little more complex than your portrayal IMO. As said, I do share you pessimism of what some of it might bring to society and art. I just find the line you draw a little odd. Things in life are rarely that pure and have their shades of grey. Anyway - already more than I wanted to write as comment :) Always good to question things. I leave it at that.

Where do I draw the line? Well that's a detailed discussion -- but there is a meaningful line to be drawn, just as the Amish do it. They consider each technology individually. For example, for me, ChatGPT, and all generative AI should be destroyed. My stance has nothing to do with clicks. None of my anti-tech stuff ever becomes popular. NOR do I want it to be popular. And of course, I write in more detail elsewhere. My only goal is to convince a few that are willing to take action against certain modern technologies. I don't want to gain the attention of people who are on the fence or not serious about stopping these technologies -- they are of not much help. Regarding all art being derivative -- it's not the derivative part that matters, but the fact that art for me is about effective communication of a person's emotions. Whether it's derivative is not the problem. The fact that AI does not represent any human position is. I categorically reject it just based on that, but of course there are other reasons.

Not exactly right, I'm afraid. Intellectual property rights will evolve according to global capitalism and the big players will definitely benefit from it. It is truly cancerous, and cannot be stopped with laws, only mitigated temporarily. Judges will side with big tech almost surely, except for "token cases" that appear good but are just to appease artists. The only way to stop it is to oppose it from outside the system.