The thing about it is, that “AI slop” effect it’s only an extension of what we’ve been encouraging people to do manually for the last 30-40 years. The ownership of the film and music industries by massive money-driven mega corporations has restricted the market to only those things that most directly satisfy it. We’ve been training young artists to analyse market trends and deliver exactly the product the market expects, and withhold their artistic individuality, and the effect of it over time has been homogenising, neutralising, blandifying. We need to encourage more artistic risk and freedom, beyond AI, which means we need to tolerate and support experiments, including unsuccessful ones.
Supporting alternative/independent/local is a great way to go and I also agree that physical media have a lot in their favour.
Whenever I see posts that start with “I’m not anti-AI, I’m pro-human” (or some equally noble-sounding declaration), it often comes across as fear dressed up as virtue. Fear of change. Fear of being outpaced. Fear of irrelevance.
This isn’t about being “pro-human.” It’s about resisting disruption. History is full of examples where progress was met with resistance - not because it was bad for humanity, but because it threatened the established way of doing things. Here are five:
1. Cars vs. Horse-Drawn Carts
When automobiles arrived, they weren’t welcomed with open arms. The horse-drawn cart industry decried cars as dangerous and unreliable. But the real issue? Cars were disrupting their livelihood. Progress doesn’t stop. Cars won, and transportation was revolutionized.
2. The Printing Press
Scribes and monks resisted Gutenberg’s printing press, claiming it devalued literature and cheapened the written word. Their real fear? Losing control over the laborious process of copying manuscripts. Instead, the printing press democratized knowledge and launched the Renaissance.
3. Electricity vs. Gas Lighting
Gas companies resisted the rise of electricity, warning it was dangerous and unnecessary. But their resistance wasn’t about safety - it was about losing their dominance. Electricity didn’t just replace gas lighting; it powered an entirely new era of innovation.
4. Photography vs. Painting
When photography emerged, many painters dismissed it as “not real art.” Beneath the criticism was a fear that photography would render their work obsolete. Instead, photography opened the door to new artistic movements, like Impressionism and Modernism.
5. Streaming vs. Cinema
When streaming platforms like Netflix entered the scene, traditional film studios and cinemas resisted, declaring it would ruin the film industry. Instead, streaming reshaped the way we consume content, creating new opportunities for filmmakers and audiences alike.
Progress Always Wins
Resistance to progress often stems from self-interest. And while it’s easy to frame this resistance as being about protecting humanity, history shows it’s usually about protecting the status quo.
AI is no different. It’s not here to replace creativity or humanity - it’s a tool that expands what’s possible. Like the printing press, the camera, or the car, it changes how we create and interact with the world. Those who see it as a threat often fear the change it demands.
Sure, there’ll be some misuse of AI in creative arts - plagiarism, lazy imitations, or questionable ethics. So what? Who cares? And if an artist suffers measurable loss from such misuses - that's what law courts are for. Just as they have been long before AI came on the scene.
Don't agree? So what are we to do? Throw the baby out with the bathwater because a minority of people misuse a tool? History is full of examples of technologies being misused - printing presses spread propaganda, cars caused accidents, cameras invaded privacy. Yet, no one argues we should have abandoned those innovations entirely. The same applies here. The potential for misuse doesn’t outweigh the transformative possibilities AI brings to creativity. I say no to throwing out the baby and yes to seeing the bigger picture.
For anyone holding onto an anti-AI stance under the guise of being “pro-human,” consider this: what defines humanity is adaptability. Fear might slow progress, but it will never stop it. And history makes one thing clear: those who evolve will always thrive.
Hey Mike, thanks for thoughtful comment (though the 'ho hum' was a little mean 😥).
There is fear present in my post but not the way you think. In my current job, I'd be much better of embracing AI or positioning myself as some sort of expert and I smell fear on the many middle-aged marketers on LinkedIn trying to do exactly that. Going in a somewhat opposite direction takes more courage than going with the flow.
As I have stated many times, I have no issue with the use of AI to improve diagnostic medicine, test cancer vaccines, work on solutions to climate change - it's an incredible breakthrough. I also appreciate AI helping me when it comes to transcribing interviews or scanning my expenses. My issue is with the illusion that AI can somehow replace or improve upon human creativity, I simply don't think it has any role in that sphere and degrades the quality and purpose of writing, painting, music, etc.
My feelings on AI, like most things, are not binary, which is why I am not anti-tech, I am just pro-human, because I don't think it's sensible to be wholly for or against anything, one must always maintain a degree of skepticism.
I also disagree that progress always wins, there are lots of examples of progress being stopped in it's tracks; take for example the Metaverse or Apple Vision as two very recent examples.
Also, I don't believe progress is a synonym for good. Take cars for example; every 24 seconds one person dies in a road accident. That's 1.35 million people per year. Globally, over 500 children under the age of 18 are killed on the road EACH DAY. Road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death among young people aged 15 to 29 years (UN). In 2022 cars and vans worldwide emitted 3.53 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide accounting for around 10% of global emissions (Statista) and goodness knows how many respiratory illnesses. Then there's the fact that the thirst for petrol in developed countries keeps questionable regimes in power with appalling human rights records in developing countries.
Bearing all this in mind, is it possible that the car was maybe NOT the most progressive option when it came to improving transportation and that investment into public transport could have served us all better?
With regards to what we should do about AI, well, the same as we do with every emerging technology; monitor and regulate. We have never wholly accepted any technology as an unalloyed good; everything from electricity to x-rays to nuclear power stations and, now, social media in Australia, is regulated to protect the public. Why should I only be allowed to drive 90kmh in my car which can do 200kmh? Because of laws put in place to protect the public from misuse of the internal combustion engine as a technology. All of this is a form of adaptation but I don't think this is the defining aspect of humanity, I think it's empathy - the ability to understand how another human may be impacted by your actions, to empathise with that and take further action to mitigate those effects.
I agree, Neal. The 'ho hum' was unnecessary. I apologize. I appreciate your reply - and it confirms for me the areas where you and I - on these issues - are poles apart. Thanks for the opportunity to share my opinions on your post. I look forward to your next posts - especially about acting.
This is basically my prediction! I was afraid I was being too optimistic.
The thing about it is, that “AI slop” effect it’s only an extension of what we’ve been encouraging people to do manually for the last 30-40 years. The ownership of the film and music industries by massive money-driven mega corporations has restricted the market to only those things that most directly satisfy it. We’ve been training young artists to analyse market trends and deliver exactly the product the market expects, and withhold their artistic individuality, and the effect of it over time has been homogenising, neutralising, blandifying. We need to encourage more artistic risk and freedom, beyond AI, which means we need to tolerate and support experiments, including unsuccessful ones.
Supporting alternative/independent/local is a great way to go and I also agree that physical media have a lot in their favour.
Ho-hum. I Smell Fear
Whenever I see posts that start with “I’m not anti-AI, I’m pro-human” (or some equally noble-sounding declaration), it often comes across as fear dressed up as virtue. Fear of change. Fear of being outpaced. Fear of irrelevance.
This isn’t about being “pro-human.” It’s about resisting disruption. History is full of examples where progress was met with resistance - not because it was bad for humanity, but because it threatened the established way of doing things. Here are five:
1. Cars vs. Horse-Drawn Carts
When automobiles arrived, they weren’t welcomed with open arms. The horse-drawn cart industry decried cars as dangerous and unreliable. But the real issue? Cars were disrupting their livelihood. Progress doesn’t stop. Cars won, and transportation was revolutionized.
2. The Printing Press
Scribes and monks resisted Gutenberg’s printing press, claiming it devalued literature and cheapened the written word. Their real fear? Losing control over the laborious process of copying manuscripts. Instead, the printing press democratized knowledge and launched the Renaissance.
3. Electricity vs. Gas Lighting
Gas companies resisted the rise of electricity, warning it was dangerous and unnecessary. But their resistance wasn’t about safety - it was about losing their dominance. Electricity didn’t just replace gas lighting; it powered an entirely new era of innovation.
4. Photography vs. Painting
When photography emerged, many painters dismissed it as “not real art.” Beneath the criticism was a fear that photography would render their work obsolete. Instead, photography opened the door to new artistic movements, like Impressionism and Modernism.
5. Streaming vs. Cinema
When streaming platforms like Netflix entered the scene, traditional film studios and cinemas resisted, declaring it would ruin the film industry. Instead, streaming reshaped the way we consume content, creating new opportunities for filmmakers and audiences alike.
Progress Always Wins
Resistance to progress often stems from self-interest. And while it’s easy to frame this resistance as being about protecting humanity, history shows it’s usually about protecting the status quo.
AI is no different. It’s not here to replace creativity or humanity - it’s a tool that expands what’s possible. Like the printing press, the camera, or the car, it changes how we create and interact with the world. Those who see it as a threat often fear the change it demands.
Sure, there’ll be some misuse of AI in creative arts - plagiarism, lazy imitations, or questionable ethics. So what? Who cares? And if an artist suffers measurable loss from such misuses - that's what law courts are for. Just as they have been long before AI came on the scene.
Don't agree? So what are we to do? Throw the baby out with the bathwater because a minority of people misuse a tool? History is full of examples of technologies being misused - printing presses spread propaganda, cars caused accidents, cameras invaded privacy. Yet, no one argues we should have abandoned those innovations entirely. The same applies here. The potential for misuse doesn’t outweigh the transformative possibilities AI brings to creativity. I say no to throwing out the baby and yes to seeing the bigger picture.
For anyone holding onto an anti-AI stance under the guise of being “pro-human,” consider this: what defines humanity is adaptability. Fear might slow progress, but it will never stop it. And history makes one thing clear: those who evolve will always thrive.
Hey Mike, thanks for thoughtful comment (though the 'ho hum' was a little mean 😥).
There is fear present in my post but not the way you think. In my current job, I'd be much better of embracing AI or positioning myself as some sort of expert and I smell fear on the many middle-aged marketers on LinkedIn trying to do exactly that. Going in a somewhat opposite direction takes more courage than going with the flow.
As I have stated many times, I have no issue with the use of AI to improve diagnostic medicine, test cancer vaccines, work on solutions to climate change - it's an incredible breakthrough. I also appreciate AI helping me when it comes to transcribing interviews or scanning my expenses. My issue is with the illusion that AI can somehow replace or improve upon human creativity, I simply don't think it has any role in that sphere and degrades the quality and purpose of writing, painting, music, etc.
My feelings on AI, like most things, are not binary, which is why I am not anti-tech, I am just pro-human, because I don't think it's sensible to be wholly for or against anything, one must always maintain a degree of skepticism.
I also disagree that progress always wins, there are lots of examples of progress being stopped in it's tracks; take for example the Metaverse or Apple Vision as two very recent examples.
Also, I don't believe progress is a synonym for good. Take cars for example; every 24 seconds one person dies in a road accident. That's 1.35 million people per year. Globally, over 500 children under the age of 18 are killed on the road EACH DAY. Road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death among young people aged 15 to 29 years (UN). In 2022 cars and vans worldwide emitted 3.53 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide accounting for around 10% of global emissions (Statista) and goodness knows how many respiratory illnesses. Then there's the fact that the thirst for petrol in developed countries keeps questionable regimes in power with appalling human rights records in developing countries.
Bearing all this in mind, is it possible that the car was maybe NOT the most progressive option when it came to improving transportation and that investment into public transport could have served us all better?
With regards to what we should do about AI, well, the same as we do with every emerging technology; monitor and regulate. We have never wholly accepted any technology as an unalloyed good; everything from electricity to x-rays to nuclear power stations and, now, social media in Australia, is regulated to protect the public. Why should I only be allowed to drive 90kmh in my car which can do 200kmh? Because of laws put in place to protect the public from misuse of the internal combustion engine as a technology. All of this is a form of adaptation but I don't think this is the defining aspect of humanity, I think it's empathy - the ability to understand how another human may be impacted by your actions, to empathise with that and take further action to mitigate those effects.
I agree, Neal. The 'ho hum' was unnecessary. I apologize. I appreciate your reply - and it confirms for me the areas where you and I - on these issues - are poles apart. Thanks for the opportunity to share my opinions on your post. I look forward to your next posts - especially about acting.
I'll need to get another audition first lol!!
😄
😄
Did you get ChatGPT to write that for you? Certainly reads like ChatGPT.