 |
| “Upon reflection, adding “except jerks” to the first law of robotics may not have been prudent. But, damn it! How was I to know we’re all jerks!” |
I should start with several disclaimers. The first is that I do not use AI to write my stories. I enjoy writing and don't do it for money, so there is no reason whatsoever for me to use generative AI. I don't have many story ideas, but you only need one at a time to write a story, so I don't need AI to come up with prompts. The same goes for painting. I paint in a physical medium. Thus my decision not to use generative AI is not an ideological or ethical choice. It is simply that I really enjoy both the process of writing and painting and have zero interest in automating either endeavor.
I am, however, not opposed to the use of technology including AI to create art, if only because I recognize that I rely on technology to create, improve, and distribute my own creative endeavors. It would be very selfish of me to draw a line in front of me and say, you can't go further than I choose, or need, to go.
So, I'm not going to draw that line.
Use the technology you need to help you create your art.
I say this from over five decades of writing.
I wrote my first novel and a novella using a manual typewriter. I recently had my old typewriter out, even bought new ribbons for it. I'm here to tell you that typing on a manual typewriter is work. At least from the vantage point of a keyboard and computer using writer. Handwriting is easier, but it still has to be converted into a typed page, which doubles the work, though usually for someone else. You can argue the merits of using old tools and writing slower with more effort, if you care to. However, having done so in my youth, I'm not on bit nostalgic.
In addition to the physical work of typing on a manual typewriter, I lack the ability to memorize by rote. Things like the idiotic spelling of the English language is beyond my ability to master. This is a great handicap for a would-be-writer. I first used a paper dictionary to consult for spelling, when I recognized that I didn't know how to spell a word. When I didn't, I had to rely on my wife to find and correct it. In order to correct these misspellings and simple typos typed on paper, I had to paint over the offending word with white-out and either type or write over it. Luckily copy machines were available way back then, so I didn't have to use carbon paper to make a second or third copy of a work. Physical copies being necessary since a physical copy of the manuscript had to be sent out via the mail to submit your work to publishers. And if none of those dozen or so people wanted to buy it; your effort ended up in a drawer, or as a thousand books in you garage if you chose to pay thousands of dollars to self-publish your work yourself.
Ah, the good old days when writers were writers.
Over the ensuing years I adopted new technologies as they became available; electric typewriters with automatic error correction, electronic dictionaries, and once computers were affordable, computers and the internet. While none of these inventions wrote stories for you, they made turning an idea into a manuscript and then into a published book possible for far more people.
Including me. With word processers, spell checking, email submissions, and the ability to publish ebooks in digital marketplaces that reach tens of millions of readers, not to mention print on demand paper books I have been able to realize a dream in my lifetime. Long gone and good riddance to the days when I had to try to sell my work to a small handful of slush pile readers, editors, and publishers.
And then there is the invention of the digital camera. With one I can photograph my paintings and post them on line for others to hopefully enjoy. I can also use these digital photographs for my book covers photographing the original analog art, processing it in Gimp; adjusting colors and adding contrast to my original paintings to make them more suitable as cover art.
In the last couple of years I have added using Google Drive and two free online grammar checkers, Grammarly, and Scribbr to proofread my manuscripts, highlighting typos and wrong words, suggesting where to put comas, and such. Proofreading is something I am terrible at, and I need someone to do it for me. People still do it for me, but these days the job is much easier for my wife and beta readers by using these services. So these services are a win for me, for them, and ultimately, for my readers as well
On the other hand, I don't usually take their free grammar suggestions or pay for their far more extensive grammar suggestions; I make my own creative decisions. It is creative writing, after all. Proofreading is all I use them for. All I need them for. Everything else about writing is fun and something I can do. And since, for me, their use replaces no paid workers, it's a win for all.
I also use the text-to-voice technology of Google, Amazon, and Apple to convert my written word into audiobooks. While this is generally lumped these days as AI, the technology has been around for decades. In recent years it has gotten better at reading strings of words that, with a an extensive data base, predicts the best way to vocalize the words in a certain way to mimic the emotions the words likely are meant to convey. That said, the technology generates nothing that I haven't already created. And since my business model does not generate the revenue needed to pay a human to read and record my work, I have no ethical misgivings about my decision not to lose money when offering my work to readers in this format.
In short, I these days I use a lot of technology to create my art. And as I said, I'd be a hypocrite to turn around and deny the use of advancing technology to aspiring authors, or to draw some sort of line in the sand that says, this is as far as you should go, just because I don't need to go further.
I fell that anyone can use what they need to bring their dreams and aspirations to life. As long as they are satisfied with their contributions to the creation of their art, it is good. It is a personal choice. This includes using AI generated prompts to come up with story ideas, plots and story structures. It includes using AI generated text to bring the story they want to tell to life. It includes using AI to create covers and interior art. Basically, I see it as ethical to use the tools one needs to write a story or create art. However, it should be understand that I am talking about writing as art. When it comes to writing as a product; society and the market will determine the value of what they create in partnership with generative AI. And that is what is controversial.
Still, if a human uses technology, including generative AI, to bring their creative ambitions to life, I don't see that being too different from any other sort of creative collaboration.
I guess it comes down to the fact that I just don't buy the argument that humans have some sort of exclusive ability to write books and create art. That we have some sort of magic elixir that transforms our life experience into "true" art. Yes, we have unique neural pathways that make each of us fairly unique in the way we assimilate what we experience and then rearrange that into something that is, hopefully, little new. We all have our special talents. But it seems to me that AI can, or at least, will someday, be able to be just as "creative" by replacing the uniqueness of human individual human creativity with its vast, comprehensive access to billions of past human creations. A different road to the same destination.
In a broader sense, people say that AI makes people dumber and less adept at critical thinking. Maybe. But then, dumbness and the lack of critical thinking has never been in short supply, so I'm not sure it matters.
Again, take my experience. Millions of words written later, I'm no better speller than I ever was. Heck, I might be even worse now, because now when I misspell a word, all I have to do is recognize the word I'm looking to spell from the list of suggestions. I don't even have to try to memorize it. Perhaps as a result, these days I hate to handwrite anything for fear of misspelling a word, even ones I (should) know. Not to mention trying to make my handwriting legible. Typing on a keyboard and screen has made writing so much better in every way while making it more dependent on technology. Thus, even using the technology that I do, it can be argued that I'm dumber for it. But dumber in ways that don't matter much, if at all.
So, while I think AI will indeed make people less competent at the things that AI will become competent at, humans will adjust and go on living just fine. We have always let machines do the things they are better and faster at than us, and enjoyed the benefits.
The fact is that down through the ages, the world has always been going to hell on a handcart. At least if you listen to old people. Change happens. If you get old enough, the accumulated changes will tend to leave you the feeling that you're a stranger in a strange land. Not surprisingly, the more familiar past, and the way things were done in the past, look more appealing when you find yourself in a strange land and your youth a distant, and hopefully, a golden memory. But the thing is, this strange land will always be someone's golden past. Who knows how AI is going to shape the world, but shape it, it will.
Take what you need from AI to find joy.
%20style%203000.jpg)
