Obligatory Sentiments On AI

Generated with Adobe Firefly AI

As you likely are aware, AI has become a bit of a hot topic as of late. With Chat GPT, Midjourney, Grok, Adobe Firefly, and more all appearing in the public eye within a few months of each other, everyone is all atwitter and on Twitter (I mean X; come on, Elon, you ruined my lame joke) about AI. The reactions seem to be predominately in the extremes. Either it is the most amazing technological advancement ever and there is no way this could possibly go wrong or it is the literal end of the world. In the circles I frequent the negative bent seems to be the more common reaction.

Even though the topic of AI intersects with culture in more ways than one, I have, for the most part, kept my peace when it comes to this topic. This is partially because it has become a subject that gets emotional all too quickly. Diving into such topics usually means stirring up emotions and having to wade through them to get to the point where a reasonable discussion can be had. The other reason I have yet to broach the topic is because observing how people react to AI has been an interesting anthropological study. This is especially true when it comes to those who are against it.

There are three types of reactions from those opposed to AI that I find the most interesting. And by “interesting” I mean nonsensical.

The first reaction comes from people who fear AI because some of the creators of AI have been sounding the alarm on how dangerous it could become. Many, if not all, of those who brought AI to “life” are either members of or tools of the Deep State (the Globalists, the Cabal, whatever your preferred term for [them] may be) and yet they are also the ones sounding the alarm. Whenever we start to hear the Enemy tell us that we should be afraid of something, I think it is time to pause and take a step back.

Some would say we should just do and believe the opposite of whatever the Enemy says. After all, if our known enemy is telling us to do or believe something, then why would we comply? But the problem with that reasoning is that the Enemy likes to play both sides, more often than we care to admit. Doing or believing the opposite of what [they] say may simply lead to doing or believing something else that [they] say. Such is the case, or may be the case, with AI. If the Enemy has created AI (or at the very least, is disseminating it into the world) and the Enemy also is warning against AI, in an attempt to get us to fear it, what do we do with that?

Truthfully, I am not sure I have a satisfactory answer to this question. I suppose the best course of action would be to attempt to figure out the Enemy’s goals for both AI itself and for sowing fear of it. But the problem with attempting to understand evil, conniving psychopaths is that unless you are also an evil, conniving psychopath you will likely be unable to truly understand their minds and motivations. We can speculate, but we can never really know until sufficient real-world evidence comes out. So I think the best course of action, for the time being, is to step back. We should exercise caution with AI, but we also shouldn’t fear it. To quote Frank Herbert’s Dune, “Fear is the mind-killer.” It clouds judgment, so if the Enemy is sowing fear, then it is likely at least part of their goal is to mess with our judgment so that we will do something stupid.

The second reaction I have observed also has to do with fear, especially when it comes from Christians. Many Christians are afraid of AI. Their fear stems from, essentially, the same fears as everyone else: how will this be used? Is it going to be used for evil? Will it continue the degradation of our society, education, culture, politics, and (naturally) the Church. Will it usher in the Biblical apocalypse?

Ok, that last one may be unique to Christians.

Of course, I have no problem with asking most of these questions; I think it is important to try to understand the bad that could come from AI, if for no other reason than so that we can strategize to minimize or even fully prevent that bad. But I do have a problem with Christians, in particular, going beyond asking questions or trying to find solutions to those questions and instead stoking fear.

The Bible says:

“…for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.” (2 Timothy 1:7)

And

“We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:5)

And

“I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33)

And yet, when it comes to AI I see many Christians giving into a spirit of fear, neglecting to take those thoughts captive, and seemingly believing that AI is the one thing that Christ has not and cannot overcome. It is especially pernicious and hypocritical when this fear-mongering comes from Christian influencers.

Not too long ago, Christian social media denizens were up in arms over the Super Bowl “He Gets Us” ad for being unBiblical. And yet, some of the same people who I saw decrying this unBiblical ad are also fear-mongering about AI. I saw one “influencer,” who, within the span of a week, put out one post taking aim at the “He Gets Us” ad and then another post stoking up fear over AI. Apparently, these people don’t realize that trying to convince others to live in fear is every bit as unBiblical (and arguably more so) as the “He Gets Us” ad.

Again, we can and should talk about the issues and potential issues that will arise from AI (or any other new technology), but as we do that, we need to take care that we are not encouraging or even causing fear. Imagining scenarios of how AI will be used and then declaring that those scenarios will absolutely, 100% for sure come to pass, is not the same as a reasonable discussion regarding possibilities and how to counter any negative realities that arise.  As Christians, we should actively take any fears that arise, lay them at God’s feet, and ask Him for wisdom on how to deal with the new future that is upon us.

The third reaction that I have seen stems from the first two. People who believe and push out the worst-case scenarios regarding AI often seem to have one exception for their fears: AI-generated art. Over the last year, I have seen numerous people, who are quite vocal about their fear of the future that AI could usher in, go on a spree of “making” AI art or changing their social media profile pictures to AI-generated images. I find this trend to be a bit irksome, and not because I’m an artist and therefore have a bias against AI-generated art. My thoughts on AI art are actually a bit complicated, but we’ll get to that later.

No, my annoyance at this trend is twofold. To begin with, it is hypocritical to go around proclaiming doom upon humanity at the virtual hands of AI and then to turn around and use AI. All of these AI engines are still learning and training. Every human interaction with them is used to calibrate and fine-tune them. So if someone believes that AI is a danger, then why feed it? In doing so, the AI only gets “smarter” and that much closer to reaching the evil end that has been predicted of it.

And yet, many people who fear AI dabble with art-generating engines. Why? Is this simply another example of society’s aversion to abstaining from anything? Do people think their interactions with AI don’t matter because so many other people are also doing it? Or do they think that art-generating AI is not as nefarious as other forms of AI?

That last question leads me to the other reason this trend annoys me. Since most of the people I’m seeing do this are Conservatives, it seems to be yet another example of how Conservatives devalue culture. Specifically the arts. It seems like they’re saying that AI is out to destroy everything and we must be cautious or even outright fearful of it - unless it’s being used to make art. Then it’s no big deal. After all, art isn’t really that important. It’s just frivolous nonsense with no real impact on the world.

Perhaps I’m simply reading a bit too much into the situation. Perhaps this is my bias as an artist coming through. But as I’ve said in previous articles, there is a tendency among Conservatives to mishandle the arts. The arts are seen either as having little more value than as a hobby to do in one’s downtime or as simply a tool to be used to create clumsy propaganda. And if a Conservative has this perspective (whether conscious or subconscious), then it really isn’t all that surprising that he or she may see generating AI art as nonconsequential, even if he or she thinks other forms of AI are dangerous and threatening.

Then, when one considers how visual media can be used (and has already been used) to perpetuate hoaxes, in the form of Deep Fakes, the idea that those who see AI as a net negative would use art-generating AI becomes even more nonsensical.

Now, you should not take my above commentary as confirmation that I see no issues with AI. Nor should it be interpreted as me thinking that AI is too dangerous for this world. Personally, I find myself rather ambivalent about AI. It’s a piece of technology that has the capacity to be used for a lot of good, but also to be used for a lot of evil. Of course, the same could be said for virtually all technology. So the question to contemplate is whether the good will outweigh the bad. Only time will tell. Baring a worldwide EMP and mass amnesia, I’m not sure this is a genie that can be put back in its bottle, so I don’t see much point in fretting over it. It is here, so we must learn to deal with it.

Of course, as an artist, I do find myself considering the impact AI will have on the world of art. Especially the art market. What challenges will it present to professional artists? Will people be willing to pay for a piece of art made by a real artist when they can just pop on over to an AI and generate whatever their hearts desire? Will the skills required to create art be devalued by people who come to think that typing some words into a text box is equivalent to spending years learning how to create something from scratch?  

I have seen others raise concerns about what AI will do to creativity in general. Will people be discouraged from creating art altogether? After all, why learn to paint or draw when an AI can just generate an image for you? Why go through the time and effort to write an essay, an article, or a story when you can throw a prompt at an AI and it will write it for you? Why learn about composition, lighting, and how to use a camera when you can just have AI generate a photograph or a video for you? And AI will do all of this for free or at a greatly reduced cost. Will AI destroy the will to create?

All of these questions are valid and I am sure some of the concerns they conjure up could turn out to be a reality. However, I find myself more optimistic that things may not turn out as dire as many fear. Of course, we will have to adapt, but artists have had to adapt before when new artistic technology arrived on the scene.

The camera made portrait painters more or less obsolete, at least in regard to their role in recording history. But painters adapted, exploring new subjects and new styles. Arguably, Impressionism - one of the most important, beautiful, and inspiring art movements in all of history -  would never have happened had cameras not given painters both the ability to study light in a new way and the freedom to explore less realistic styles. For that matter, the camera also benefited realistic painters as it allowed them to freeze and study things that would have been impossible to see clearly without a camera. The camera could have destroyed painting, but instead, it enhanced it while also going on to create a new medium of art. Today, painting and photography both thrive as artistic mediums alongside one another.

Fast forward some years and we have the digital camera presenting challenges to film photographers; suddenly photography was more accessible to more people. This flooded the markets, making photography far more competitive than it had been previously. It also caused people to devalue the work of professionals and serious hobbyists as they thought that having a point-and-shoot digital camera lent them the skills of photographers with years of experience. This only compounded with the advent of smartphones that had decent cameras in them. But photographers adapted. New business models emerged and the competition led to better photography. At one time National Geographic was known for its stunning, world-class photography. Today you can pop over to Instagram or 500px and find photography that (in my opinion) exceeds most, if not all, of National Geographic’s body of work. Photographers adapted and rose to the challenge and we have better art as a result.

As for the idea that AI will destroy the will to create, well, I don’t see that as a reality either. Humans are beings created in the image of a Maker. The desire to create is innate. Perhaps, on some level, AI is an attempt to destroy that part of us, but I cannot see it succeeding, because, once again, we have examples from the past of new technology that could have destroyed the creative spirit, but failed to do so. Mass manufacturing could have been the end of craftsmanship, but it was not. All you have to do is spend some time on Instagram or Etsy or attend a local craft show or festival to see that potters, carpenters, textile artists, metalworkers, leather workers, glass blowers, and more all still exist. They have not let the machines kill their drive to create. And I think we will see the same thing with AI and art.

I see no reason to believe that artists, facing the challenges that AI presents, will not once again rise to the occasion and adapt. It is only a question of what challenges they will encounter and how they will adapt. If you would indulge me, I’d like to give my - I don’t think I’m bold enough to say “predictions” - speculations on the possible impact of AI on artistic fields and the adaptations we may see.

I think the age-old debate asking the question “What is art?” will flare up with a new intensity. This time, instead of focusing on styles or skill, the question will be something along the lines of “Is a human element required for something to be considered art?” This will then lead to a debate as to how much of a human element is required. Is the mere act of a human giving an AI a prompt enough to consider the results art? Are concepts - ideas - art? If these questions are not already being asked, then they will be soon.

Copyright issues have already arisen, but will continue to do so. Already, questions regarding both the ethical and legal aspects of training AI on the works of real, living, human artists have popped up. There is also the question of who owns the copyright of finished AI-generated works. Already, one author, who used AI to illustrate a graphic novel she wrote, has run into copyright issues:

“It [the copyright office] concluded that Ms. Kashtanova was the author of the graphic novel's text, and that the selection and arrangement of its images and text were also protectable as a creative compilation. However, the graphic novel's individual images were treated as lacking sufficient human creativity and so a new registration certificate was issued which explicitly excluded ‘artwork generated by artificial intelligence.’” - Reuters

For the moment, AI-generated images are considered Public Domain, because they are not created by a human (the bizarre Selfie-Monkey case has reared its head, once again). Presumably, AI-generated writing and music are also Public Domain. But how does that work for other fields? I’ve seen coders talk about using ChatGPT to check and fix their code; is some or even all of that code now Public Domain? Or does it fall into the world of inventions? Oddly enough, patents are granted for inventions that utilize AI even as copyright registrations are rejected. I suspect there will be many legal cases brought, in the years to come, in an attempt to hammer out any and all questions regarding ownership of works created, in some part, with AI.

Aside from the legal and philosophical questions that will be asked, there are the more practical responses we may see. I believe we will see many patrons (meaning anyone who consumes and supports the arts) express a desire for more authenticity. People are already suspicious of images they think are, or could be, “Photoshopped.” Manipulated. People don’t like to feel as though they have been tricked into liking or believing something that isn’t what they originally thought it was. This suspicion will only increase with AI-generated works. Now it won’t just be photos and videos that people scrutinize, but all images. Is that watercolor really a watercolor, or was it generated by AI?

We won’t just see this phenomenon with visual work, but with written work as well. Bots on social media have been around for years, stirring up questions as to whether or not one is interacting with a real person. Now we’re seeing AI-generated articles. Disney is suspected of using AI to write the lyrics to songs or even the entire plot for the 2023 film Wish (whether that is true or not is irrelevant; it is what people believe). Even cooking blogs are popping up with AI-generated recipes that often produce disastrous results. The desire to know that something was created by a real person is only going to grow and people will be suspicious of anything that they cannot confirm was human-made.

I think there will be a few ways artists respond to the call for more authenticity. One response will be a continuing emphasis on relational businesses. This is something that has already been happening for years, as the Millennial generation, who (for various reasons) often take issue with giant corporations, started seeking out businesses run by individuals who genuinely care both about the products they created and their customers. This style of business will only increase now that AI is here. Artists will seek to prove they are real people by showing their creation processes, showing their mistakes, and interacting with their followers and customers. What this will look like for writers or composers - people who work in mediums where showing the process is not as easy as it may be for someone working with paint, clay, or wood - I am not sure. They will likely have to adapt in different ways, but I am confident they can and will do so.

We may also see changes in the art itself, at least for certain visual mediums. Artists who paint or draw may be less inclined towards digital art and instead lean into traditional, tangible mediums. Sure an AI can create an image in the style of a watercolor or an oil painting, but at the end of the day, it is still just pixelated mimicry. People wanting authenticity will be drawn to art that is produced with the actual mediums. This means we may see an increased market for original pieces over prints. Prints will always be more affordable, making them accessible to more people, so I don’t think they will ever go away entirely. However, I think we will start seeing people who previously would have never considered buying an original, due to the cost, now be more inclined to start pinching their pennies so that they can save up to purchase an original from their favorite artist.

In addition to artists and patrons reacting against AI, I think we will also see people embracing AI and finding new and inventive ways to use it to enhance their current art forms or even launch entirely new artistic fields. Already I have seen storytellers using AI to generate images and animations to illustrate their stories. And while I do not want to see illustrators or animators lose their jobs to AI, I also think AI could free some writers, who cannot or do not wish to work with an artist, to bring their stories to life in new ways. I’m sure this is just the beginning of many innovative ways AI will be used for good, in the future.

It remains to be seen exactly what sort of future AI will usher in and how people will react to it. There are plenty of concerns to be had. Concerns that it will be used to deceive, to encourage laziness and dependence, to take people’s jobs, and to strip us of our freedoms. These concerns should not be laughed off, but neither should we let them control us and steal our peace. Instead, we should have faith that, with God’s help, humanity can and will adapt and overcome any challenges that AI may bring, just as we have done many, many times before.