Merely using computers and using AI are not even remotely similar. I learned to draft using T-squares, triangles, Rapidiograph pens and transfer type. Using computers made my workflow much easier, making changes to layout, layering, color and typesetting child's play but
it was still incumbent on me to make every creative decision.
Similarly, my recording studio is run on my laptop. A $3000.00 investment nets me better results than the $30,000.00 ADAT studio I had nearly 30 years ago. The quality of the music remains dependent on the
human songwriting, musicianship and engineering.
As a photographer, my DSLR simplified my processes, a single card could hold a day's worth of shots, hundreds of rolls of film. Processing the photos was simplified, I could do it back in my trailer after the day was done and release the images the next day or sooner. My input was required at every step along the way: I still had to be at the right place at the right time to get the shot. While autofocus was a godsend, I still had to set the f-stop, make sure the light readings were correct, frame the image and pan the shot to capture everything. Back in my trailer, I still had to comb through hundreds of images to select the perfect photos from the dailys. I also had to do color and light corrections if needed or crop the images for better visual impact. While there was much that could be automated through batch processing, the results were inferior to doing each image individually, to completely put my artistic imprint on the shot.
Learning to type on typewriters back in the 80's was a chore. While there was a tactile quality to pressing the keys on the 1960's vintage Remington typewriter that I used in high school and my freshman year in college, it was a messy, painstakingly slow affair, especially considering that I suffered from mild dyslexia. the mess of the ribbons, whiteout and even having to redo entire pages made writing papers an excruciating task. I hated it. Word processing on a desktop eased a lot of the pain and certainly eliminated having ribbon ink on my fingertips and smudges of Whiteout on the pages, while autocorrect reduced my typos and cut and paste made editing my compositions much more straightforward and easy. At the same time, it was my responsibility to research the information, interpret the data that I'd found and compose it in a meaningful way, imprinting my stylistic flourishes to make my prose more engaging (or not). Over the course of time, writing went from a laborious task that I loathed and struggled with at every step, to a process that I relished and enjoyed, in no small part because of computers enabling me to overcome cognitive disabilities and better organize my thoughts.
The common thread above, is that while computers are a wonderful tool that eases workflow and facilitates creativity, they don't replace it. In each case, the success or failure of the end result is dependent on the individual who created it. It requires thoughtfulness, creativity and expertise in the intellectual and technical aspects to yield a acceptable result. Above, computers are a tool that allow individuals to channel their creativity and create works that reflect that individual's experiences. It still requires intellectual, social and emotional intelligence to achieve a successful outcome.
Generative AI, on the other hand, does none of that. It combs, parses, filters and contextualizes information, but it does not create. It steals. It requires no user intelligence, intellectual, social or emotional; it needs no artistic creativity or imagination and requires no experience. Generative AI is the death of expertise. Further, when I write and record a song, create an image, write an article, design a structure or capture a photo, I, the artist, own the output of my creativity until I sell it. Who owns AI? Corporations and their wealthy backers own it and its products, which are the result of theft. You don't own the results of your queries to Grok AI, its parent corporation does. AI bypasses the creativity of individuals (which it is wholly dependent upon) for corporate profit. Far from democratizing information, it robs it from creators and funnels the value directly to the billionaire class that developed it. Ai is always exploitive, using it at all promotes the exploitation of creative's work and personal data, since that how the models are built.
In summary, Al images, text, videos and music are created by fusing the creative work of real, human artists without their explicit permission; They are generated with the express purpose to avoid paying someone to create something unique. Countless artists, authors, musicians, animators and video producers with unique, original styles have had their entire portfolios fed into Al algorithms to copy their look, sound or methodologies. Many media publishers are already in the process of massively cutting or entirely eliminating their human artist workforces; Apropos to our interests, Spotify, for instance, uses AI generated "music" that copies established artists and places it in their playlists as filler of avoid paying their already meager royalties. Then there's the fact that Al uses tremendous amounts of energy and resources per use. For each Al prompt, it requires approximately .5L of water to cool the processors. Al's global water consumption is estimated to reach between 4.2 and 6.6 billion cubic meters by 2027; this is roughly equivalent to 4-6 times the annual water usage of Denmark.
Your usage of AI suggests an apathy towards the moral, environmental, and social issues I've outlined above.
If you'd like further reading, Here's a more in-depth and technically-oriented essay on how Generative Al functions and its social impacts:
https://www.corralldesign.com/writing/ai-harm-hypocrisy
Energy usage:
https://www.vox.com/climate/2024/3/28/24111721/climate-ai-tech-energy=demand-rising
Ethics of Generative Al:
https://beautifulbizarre.net/2023/03/11/ai-art-ethical-concerns-of-artists/
fosiaudio.com
