Brett's opening, essentially a rephrase of "We stand on the shoulders of giants," illuminates the limitation of AI in that any one of us humans is intimately connected to the entire history of our species while any AI only contains the current data set available to its training on the Internet. Also, we should never forget that the 'Luddites' were a labor rights movement, not just anti-technology, and we do not own AI.
This essay is a superb foray into the limited field of AI; but as our world necessarily degrades its energy use, as it 'depowers' so to speak, we all will make collective choices of how to use limited resources such as energy. On my boat I have limited solar and wind power; so, do I use that to run the Blu-ray player and monitor, or do I just read a book by LED light? On a social scale, do I run mass surveillance and artificial intelligence, or do I travel by rail to visit my family?
In the reality of a sustainable planet, AI might have some niche uses, but it is not the answer to prosperity and well-being.
"Don’t get me wrong. I know we’re all stuck in this, so I don’t judge anyone who finds themselves pushed to use AI – if that’s what you’ve got to do to economically survive, then do what you have to do ..."
Is this not the crux of the problem? How do we get off that treadmill, because that is the underpinning of pretty much everything wrong in our world. Not that I have an answer, yet. But I am looking for something grassroots and enduring.
Yes, but you have to be empathetic to the fact that the majority of people do not just have the option to buy out of the situation. There are of course ways to build counter-power to the dominant tendencies of this system (which is why I used the phrase 'this version of progress' in the final section - there are other versions of progress we can build), but it would be glib for me to just tell people 'don't use the system you're locked into'
(Incidentally, I've always been interested in the dynamics of this when it comes to attacks on social movements that call for change: for example, you'll find Big Oil lobbyists accusing climate change campaigners of hypocrisy because they fly to the COP events, but the reality of course is that if the climate change campaigners don't turn up the big oil lobbyists will)
Empathy, in all its forms, is vital as we move through this. So, yes, agreed.
"but it would be glib for me to just tell people 'don't use the system you're locked into'". True. At some point, though, we do need to step off this path, albeit sooner rather than later. And as I said, I don't know yet how to do this, but I am working on it. As Stephen Fraser said, it is the age of acquiescence. How do we wake from that slumber? How do we break free without breaking down?
Rebecca Solnit says "Perfection is a stick with which to beat the possible." I think it is important to do what we can, when we can, as best we can, however partial and imperfect that may be: to keep things real, to simplify, and most importantly to resist internalising the constant barrage of capitalist propaganda that seeks to make us feel small and powerless. Everyone makes their own choices as to what they can and can't do without, but even thinking about it, talking about it, and paying ongoing attention is a net personal and societal good, in my view.
I recently listened to this great epsiode of Conspirituality Pod interviewing writer, historian and activist Rebecca Solnit (https://www.conspirituality.net/episodes/relief-project-6-rebecca-solnit). She said something along the lines of: This thinking that there's no way out of the system, no way to change anything, so we just give up and accept it... This is exactly what these big capitalist organizations/structures/etc want to hear. They love it. And maybe that should have been obvious to me before, but hearing it said in just this way made me really annoyed (I am cynical, but I don't want that cynicism to be dictated by and helpful for them). And then, it made me really inspired to do my part, no matter how little it is.
This isn't a critique of "we're all stuck in this," because that is sooo true, but two things can be true at the same time, and it's also true that we can do our littler part to resist that and change that (which this piece also contends).
Love this, Brett! Been thinking about this authenticity vs fabrication in our digital spaces a lot recently (deleted all the social media scrollers off my phone recently because I just couldn't take it anymore), and love the use of aura to define this.
I hear what you're saying about Rebecca Solnit, but one nuance I'd add in is that promoters of the system actually want *enthusiasm* for it too. If people were to come to an acceptance of the fact that actually we're locked in, rather than 'choosing' to be in this situation, it poses an ideological problem for capitalist praise-singers. A lot of their ideology (e.g. the idea that billionaires are 'inspirational to the people' etc) actually depends on the belief that it's a voluntary and chosen situation rather than simply a structure we're imprisoned in. From one angle, the acceptance of lock-in could be seen as a defeatist or passive position, but it actually contains a rebellious streak, in the fact that it sees through the bullshit, and this is actually a potential threat to the billionaire class
Our culture’s artifacts are the manifestations of our cultures soul, which is, as you point out, exploitation. Tereza Coraggio @Third Paradigm has written a brilliant book called “How to Dismantle an Empire” on how we might get ourselves off that treadmill if we want to.
Hi Brett, another thought-provoking piece. My view is encompassed in your phrase about the eccentric BBQ hut owner. These leaps of insight or intuition to escape the norm will never come from AI. How would Copernicus have fared trying to convince an AI world convinced and reinforced by the pattern-recognition technology, that the Earth was not the centre of the universe? AI will be fantastic for cataloguing and storing all the previous thinking in an instantly accessible form, but the truly novel lightbulb moment is humanity’s evolutionary purpose as far as I can see. Btw I believe AI is part of our evolutionary story, but only as the emissary to humanity’s master. You’ll understand where I’m coming from if you’ve read Dr Iain McGilchrists work
It is massive - in more ways than one. I took the audio version while I was working and took notes. It’s one of those books that changes the way you think. This time because it informs you how you think.
As always thought provoking and rebellious. I love it! I can definitely see the need and popularity of using “AI free” on creative pieces. Thank you Brett!
Below link is an interesting read along the same theme of creativity:
Definitely on the right track in terms of how the market directs capital. From an evolutionary standpoint we have even ceded aspects of our nature to corporates who then organize to manipulate our impulses and senses. Tastes, status, belonging all get commoditized, and consumed. Lots to unpack.
The worst things ever done by humanity are always packaged as ''democratization'' or in the name of democracy. Great article provoking a lot of thoughts for those that have time to stop and think.
I actually have done a lot of work on fintech and its claims to 'democratising finance' in the past - in reality it inevitably just means automating finance so that Big Tech and Big Finance can fuse together - this is what my book Cloudmoney is about
I quite enjoy reading your articles and this newest one, having the FreeTrade banana sticker imagery made me picture a new movement of "whole foods", "UPF-free", "single-ingredient" content. Sorry for food parallel because that's the field I'm passionate about, but UPF is the product of the food farming and look at the number of research investigating its harms which came only recently. Now with AI and arts/essays being factory farmed, there will be a time for higher appreciation of the AI-free digital creation, in the UPF-free fashion.
Thought-provoking. While you address many of the problems associated with technology, there may be another fundamental failure — the refusal to accept responsibility for the harms done. Invention casts a moral shadow. Instead of trying to understand how a new technology may effect others, and then mitigate those harms, they deny any accountability. We require new drugs to be tested for efficacy and side effects. We require food to be labeled to account for health concerns. That we do not do this for technology that completely changes society is insane. The tech guys will make their millions or billions; as usual, everyone pays the orice.
Where can we find Neo-Luddites who are actually organizing and actively doing....anything? I'm done hearing "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" and ready to get to the machine-breaking part.
you say that IA art 'feels' empty to the beholder. But you also say that some people can't 'feel' the difference, for example, in your writing So it seems to me that AI creativity is good enough, much of the time.
If content production (as it is now called) is a mass conversation, between humans, then robots should not be welcome. I'm concerned that AI generated content will soon be so voluminous as to drown out human generated content; we will consume more and AI content because the human content is too hard to find. We can see the beginnings of this on Instagram and youtube already. Why is this a concern? For me mostly because AI serves elites, like all new tech.
When I was in architecture school, I once failed my writing assignment because my professor thought I had plagiarized. It was too well written according to him. ( Was it because I'm black? 🤔) I re-submitted the assignment with an added section but didn't change much of text I had written. I got 16/20.
Let's not forget that AI is only copying humans so it is only as good as the best writers. This regurgitation of preexisting content cannot become the model, and us, merely imitators. I worry that the quality of our writings will collectively decline if we keep relying on AI so that one tenth of a person does the work of one person as you said.
I used to write a newsletter called " Construire les futurs africains" ( Building African Futures). While I was researching I use to come up with unconventional ideas about the modelisation of African systems and the creation of sustainable prosperity. The AI boom came, and I wondered if AI could have helped me work better ( I had stopped writing my newsletter in the meantime) . So I challenged it but it was only coming up with subpar ideas compared to mine,and regurgitating world bank and IMF talking points on development. Even when I explained why these theories couldn't work, it only gave me thesis from academics and had few alternative thoughts. Maybe I wasn't prompting well, but when it comes to creativity, it is not as gas humans. However.
I think it is useful for research. My stance is that people are going to use AI no matter what. So I have to commit to use it for good. If we do not commit to use it for good, it will be used for bad. I want as much African entrepreneurs and investors as possible to learn about the best ways to build a prosperous African future in a sustainable an human way. To do this I need to study African systems extensively. I tried to do it on my own before AI, and it was too much for one person ( I was also actively looking for someone to work with me on this topic,but didn't find one) . I think using AI for this kind of project is justified.
But.
The problem with using AI for research is that it's mostly trained on western material. By relying on AI to either regurgitate "knowledge" or to help us think through complex topics, we risk re- colonizing or over colonizing cultures that are already in danger of vanishing due to the lack of awareness and preservation efforts.
Brett's opening, essentially a rephrase of "We stand on the shoulders of giants," illuminates the limitation of AI in that any one of us humans is intimately connected to the entire history of our species while any AI only contains the current data set available to its training on the Internet. Also, we should never forget that the 'Luddites' were a labor rights movement, not just anti-technology, and we do not own AI.
This essay is a superb foray into the limited field of AI; but as our world necessarily degrades its energy use, as it 'depowers' so to speak, we all will make collective choices of how to use limited resources such as energy. On my boat I have limited solar and wind power; so, do I use that to run the Blu-ray player and monitor, or do I just read a book by LED light? On a social scale, do I run mass surveillance and artificial intelligence, or do I travel by rail to visit my family?
In the reality of a sustainable planet, AI might have some niche uses, but it is not the answer to prosperity and well-being.
OK, but ...
"Don’t get me wrong. I know we’re all stuck in this, so I don’t judge anyone who finds themselves pushed to use AI – if that’s what you’ve got to do to economically survive, then do what you have to do ..."
Is this not the crux of the problem? How do we get off that treadmill, because that is the underpinning of pretty much everything wrong in our world. Not that I have an answer, yet. But I am looking for something grassroots and enduring.
Yes, but you have to be empathetic to the fact that the majority of people do not just have the option to buy out of the situation. There are of course ways to build counter-power to the dominant tendencies of this system (which is why I used the phrase 'this version of progress' in the final section - there are other versions of progress we can build), but it would be glib for me to just tell people 'don't use the system you're locked into'
(Incidentally, I've always been interested in the dynamics of this when it comes to attacks on social movements that call for change: for example, you'll find Big Oil lobbyists accusing climate change campaigners of hypocrisy because they fly to the COP events, but the reality of course is that if the climate change campaigners don't turn up the big oil lobbyists will)
(See also the comment I made to Bailey below)
Empathy, in all its forms, is vital as we move through this. So, yes, agreed.
"but it would be glib for me to just tell people 'don't use the system you're locked into'". True. At some point, though, we do need to step off this path, albeit sooner rather than later. And as I said, I don't know yet how to do this, but I am working on it. As Stephen Fraser said, it is the age of acquiescence. How do we wake from that slumber? How do we break free without breaking down?
Rebecca Solnit says "Perfection is a stick with which to beat the possible." I think it is important to do what we can, when we can, as best we can, however partial and imperfect that may be: to keep things real, to simplify, and most importantly to resist internalising the constant barrage of capitalist propaganda that seeks to make us feel small and powerless. Everyone makes their own choices as to what they can and can't do without, but even thinking about it, talking about it, and paying ongoing attention is a net personal and societal good, in my view.
When you figure it out can you let me know please?
I recently listened to this great epsiode of Conspirituality Pod interviewing writer, historian and activist Rebecca Solnit (https://www.conspirituality.net/episodes/relief-project-6-rebecca-solnit). She said something along the lines of: This thinking that there's no way out of the system, no way to change anything, so we just give up and accept it... This is exactly what these big capitalist organizations/structures/etc want to hear. They love it. And maybe that should have been obvious to me before, but hearing it said in just this way made me really annoyed (I am cynical, but I don't want that cynicism to be dictated by and helpful for them). And then, it made me really inspired to do my part, no matter how little it is.
This isn't a critique of "we're all stuck in this," because that is sooo true, but two things can be true at the same time, and it's also true that we can do our littler part to resist that and change that (which this piece also contends).
Love this, Brett! Been thinking about this authenticity vs fabrication in our digital spaces a lot recently (deleted all the social media scrollers off my phone recently because I just couldn't take it anymore), and love the use of aura to define this.
Hey Bailey! I love Conspirituality pod
I hear what you're saying about Rebecca Solnit, but one nuance I'd add in is that promoters of the system actually want *enthusiasm* for it too. If people were to come to an acceptance of the fact that actually we're locked in, rather than 'choosing' to be in this situation, it poses an ideological problem for capitalist praise-singers. A lot of their ideology (e.g. the idea that billionaires are 'inspirational to the people' etc) actually depends on the belief that it's a voluntary and chosen situation rather than simply a structure we're imprisoned in. From one angle, the acceptance of lock-in could be seen as a defeatist or passive position, but it actually contains a rebellious streak, in the fact that it sees through the bullshit, and this is actually a potential threat to the billionaire class
Our culture’s artifacts are the manifestations of our cultures soul, which is, as you point out, exploitation. Tereza Coraggio @Third Paradigm has written a brilliant book called “How to Dismantle an Empire” on how we might get ourselves off that treadmill if we want to.
Thanks for the tip - will check it out!
And yes, this is a great idea AI -free AND organic (so opposed to Astroturfed!)
Great article Brett, going to design my own 100% AI free sticker right away!
Excellent!
Would love to post my design here but can't see how to do that!
Would you consider making your AI-Free sticker available — perhaps via a Creative Commons license?
Yes indeed!
This is excellent. I am not an AI edit hater, but I totally grasp the impacts.
Thanks Steve 🙏
Hi Brett, another thought-provoking piece. My view is encompassed in your phrase about the eccentric BBQ hut owner. These leaps of insight or intuition to escape the norm will never come from AI. How would Copernicus have fared trying to convince an AI world convinced and reinforced by the pattern-recognition technology, that the Earth was not the centre of the universe? AI will be fantastic for cataloguing and storing all the previous thinking in an instantly accessible form, but the truly novel lightbulb moment is humanity’s evolutionary purpose as far as I can see. Btw I believe AI is part of our evolutionary story, but only as the emissary to humanity’s master. You’ll understand where I’m coming from if you’ve read Dr Iain McGilchrists work
I've held Iain's book in my hand before, but it's a big tome - I'll probably need to find time to read it!
It is massive - in more ways than one. I took the audio version while I was working and took notes. It’s one of those books that changes the way you think. This time because it informs you how you think.
I'm in. And have added your sexy-ass badge to the About page and homepage of my website, linking back to this piece. All too happy to affiliate!
As always thought provoking and rebellious. I love it! I can definitely see the need and popularity of using “AI free” on creative pieces. Thank you Brett!
Below link is an interesting read along the same theme of creativity:
https://substack.com/redirect/608a48d3-a2ae-43fb-a056-8f92049d49b9?j=eyJ1Ijoib3N6ZmwifQ.cjGsdvQlgUwnMYnpg9qZPqulTJHkBaV2FcMlAjh5mNg
Definitely on the right track in terms of how the market directs capital. From an evolutionary standpoint we have even ceded aspects of our nature to corporates who then organize to manipulate our impulses and senses. Tastes, status, belonging all get commoditized, and consumed. Lots to unpack.
I will be creating my version of 100%AI free for my writing as well. Thank you for this.
Great!
Would you consider making your AI-Free sticker available — perhaps via a Creative Commons license?
The worst things ever done by humanity are always packaged as ''democratization'' or in the name of democracy. Great article provoking a lot of thoughts for those that have time to stop and think.
I actually have done a lot of work on fintech and its claims to 'democratising finance' in the past - in reality it inevitably just means automating finance so that Big Tech and Big Finance can fuse together - this is what my book Cloudmoney is about
I quite enjoy reading your articles and this newest one, having the FreeTrade banana sticker imagery made me picture a new movement of "whole foods", "UPF-free", "single-ingredient" content. Sorry for food parallel because that's the field I'm passionate about, but UPF is the product of the food farming and look at the number of research investigating its harms which came only recently. Now with AI and arts/essays being factory farmed, there will be a time for higher appreciation of the AI-free digital creation, in the UPF-free fashion.
Thought-provoking. While you address many of the problems associated with technology, there may be another fundamental failure — the refusal to accept responsibility for the harms done. Invention casts a moral shadow. Instead of trying to understand how a new technology may effect others, and then mitigate those harms, they deny any accountability. We require new drugs to be tested for efficacy and side effects. We require food to be labeled to account for health concerns. That we do not do this for technology that completely changes society is insane. The tech guys will make their millions or billions; as usual, everyone pays the orice.
Where can we find Neo-Luddites who are actually organizing and actively doing....anything? I'm done hearing "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" and ready to get to the machine-breaking part.
you say that IA art 'feels' empty to the beholder. But you also say that some people can't 'feel' the difference, for example, in your writing So it seems to me that AI creativity is good enough, much of the time.
If content production (as it is now called) is a mass conversation, between humans, then robots should not be welcome. I'm concerned that AI generated content will soon be so voluminous as to drown out human generated content; we will consume more and AI content because the human content is too hard to find. We can see the beginnings of this on Instagram and youtube already. Why is this a concern? For me mostly because AI serves elites, like all new tech.
When I was in architecture school, I once failed my writing assignment because my professor thought I had plagiarized. It was too well written according to him. ( Was it because I'm black? 🤔) I re-submitted the assignment with an added section but didn't change much of text I had written. I got 16/20.
Let's not forget that AI is only copying humans so it is only as good as the best writers. This regurgitation of preexisting content cannot become the model, and us, merely imitators. I worry that the quality of our writings will collectively decline if we keep relying on AI so that one tenth of a person does the work of one person as you said.
I used to write a newsletter called " Construire les futurs africains" ( Building African Futures). While I was researching I use to come up with unconventional ideas about the modelisation of African systems and the creation of sustainable prosperity. The AI boom came, and I wondered if AI could have helped me work better ( I had stopped writing my newsletter in the meantime) . So I challenged it but it was only coming up with subpar ideas compared to mine,and regurgitating world bank and IMF talking points on development. Even when I explained why these theories couldn't work, it only gave me thesis from academics and had few alternative thoughts. Maybe I wasn't prompting well, but when it comes to creativity, it is not as gas humans. However.
I think it is useful for research. My stance is that people are going to use AI no matter what. So I have to commit to use it for good. If we do not commit to use it for good, it will be used for bad. I want as much African entrepreneurs and investors as possible to learn about the best ways to build a prosperous African future in a sustainable an human way. To do this I need to study African systems extensively. I tried to do it on my own before AI, and it was too much for one person ( I was also actively looking for someone to work with me on this topic,but didn't find one) . I think using AI for this kind of project is justified.
But.
The problem with using AI for research is that it's mostly trained on western material. By relying on AI to either regurgitate "knowledge" or to help us think through complex topics, we risk re- colonizing or over colonizing cultures that are already in danger of vanishing due to the lack of awareness and preservation efforts.