The Artist Against the Machine
Be part of a new movement
"Your worst sin is that you have destroyed and betrayed yourself for nothing."
Fyodor Dostoevsky
Photo by Simon Hurry on Unsplash
The Artist’s Dystopia
Generative AI will likely exceed human artistic ability. One day, very soon; you may be watching, listening, reading a work of art so good, you may not even be able to comprehend it. A threshold likely exists; multiple thresholds, of intelligence, of creative sensitivity, of emotionality, that if exceeded, will break a human consumer’s capacity for comprehension . Think of a child trying to read Ulysses. AI art could be like that for us humans; so superior, so insightful, our grasp will be superficial at best.
Perversely, this could cause artists and consumers of art to be optimistic; our stupidity has capped AI capacity to take over and control artistic expression. Maybe, because of our limitations, we humans - we simple human artists - still have a place in this new regime?
No.
AI generates at all-levels at an impossible pace.
Recently, as author AC Cargill reports, world-famous science fiction magazine Clarkesworld, has had to halt submissions. Twice. The editor was inundated with hundreds of AI generated short stories. Cargill goes on, listing several other cases where generative AI is thoroughly disrupting the lives of artists.
Of course, the new machine is also replicating our basest instincts.
An essay by Erik Hoel a couple of months ago detailed cultural degradation at the hands of AI. From bots posting ad-infinitum on Twitter; to AI models accruing millions of boomer followers on Instagram; to deep fake porn of celebrities on Pornhub; the internet - already a cesspit - is fast becoming a self-perpetuating rubbish heap.
AI is everywhere, at all times, in all places.
For the cunning exploiter, it means financial gain.
For the artist with integrity, it is a dystopian nightmare.
The Heroes of Gattaca
It is said, total tyranny exists all the way down; from the executive branch, to the family home.
In his weakness, the cynic succumbs to the tyranny he sees all around him; shamefully, he too becomes tyrannical. He cloaks his cowardice with rationalisations, “it can be no other way.” Bereft of guilt, he reinforces the system.
Dystopian fiction is often populated by this spirit. Despite forcing the reader to reflect on what would happen, if poor choices were stacked upon poor choices were stacked upon poor choices; often left out, is the human capacity to fight back and triumph, even in death.
Lost from 1984 is the Solzhenitsyn example; whereby despite the odds against man - an entire oppressive state, he is resolute in his values and his beliefs; he is willing to die for what is right.
Lost from 1984 are the Heroes of Gattaca.
In Gattaca, a dystopian film about a eugenics future, those created by traditional means (‘god-children’) with high likelihood of genetic malfunction, are classified as ‘in-valids’. Those created in a lab ‘using the best genes of both mother and father’ are classified as ‘valids’. Biometrics are used to discriminate against in-valids, from the executive branch, to the family home.
The protagonist, Vincent Freeman, has dreams. He dreams of space, of interplanetary exploration.
But he is an invalid.
Constructing an elaborate plan, Vincent impersonates a superior valid who was left paralyzed by a car accident, Jerome Merrow, and infiltrates spaceflight conglomerate Gattaca Aerospace Corporation.
A week before launch to Titan, Saturn’s moon, an administrator at Gattaca is murdered. One of the lead investigators, Anton, a superior valid, discovers an eyelash at the scene of the crime.
The eyelash is that of his older brother, Vincent Freeman.
Vincent evades the investigation; and luckily, the mission director is rightfully exposed as the killer. But his younger brother, Anton, finally traps Vincent - and questions him about his fraudulent activities.
Anton challenges Vincent to a game of chicken they used to play as children; to swim out into the sea as far as possible. When they were young, Anton, the superior valid, always won; this time, Vincent beats his younger brother, and has to save him from drowning.
Vincent won because he didn’t save energy for the swim back.
On the day of the spaceflight, Vincent’s dream almost reached, Dr Lamar, the genetic tester at Gattaca, reveals he had known all along that Vincent was invalid - the implication being he had altered every genetic test in Vincent’s favour and was complicit in the impersonation.
Dr Lamar did so because Vincent inspired his invalid son.
Vincent leaves aboard the rocket ship, and opens a note from his co-conspirator, Jerome, who simultaneously incinerates himself at his home. It has a lock of his hair; an admission that Jerome, who failed in his own dreams and became cynical, lived a second, redeeming life through Vincent.
In Gattaca, despite living in tyranny, heroic individuals aspired to the best qualities of humanity; that of ambition and dreams, of sacrifice and love, of integrity and loyalty. Cynical instincts were resisted; they were overcome.
Although Gattaca is about a eugenics future (and its message, of course, should also be applied to the transhumanist movement), the message for artists today is the same. We are up against a bulwark; a dreaded machine, a computational power that, no doubt, will exceed our merely human capacities.
Ahead of us there are options.
Do we succumb to the new tyranny of artist creation? See the benefits of AI generation, and think “it can be no other way?” Or do we resist, placing faith in our humanity, leaving no energy for the swim back?
Artistic Integrity in the Face of Generative AI
When I saw the capability of Large Language Models, to edit your work, to generate; like a knife cut, I felt two emotions, one on either side of the slice.
First, on the right side of the cut, I felt dejected. I had a dream, since a young child, of becoming a writer. Of developing my craft, outside of any institution, of never giving up, and eventually - after 20,000 hours of writing if necessary - having a small number of people appreciate my work. That is all I wanted; having done it all by my human self.
In the face of Generative AI; the meaning, the essence of this dream, seemed to slip away; like reality on too strong an LSD trip.
Second, on the left side of the cut, I saw an opportunity. I saw how pragmatically, the model's ability to edit one’s work, generate phrases, sentences, paragraphs, and come up with new ideas, if used with skill, might elevate my work. ‘Why resist these changes, you Luddite?’ I asked myself, ‘Use them to your advantage. The art world’s definitely trending toward this; it can be no other way…”
But, as Morpheus said to Neo in the Matrix, this thought process was like a splinter in my mind, driving me mad. I kept returning to questions about my integrity. If I used Generative AI to write my stories, my essays; even if I used it only as an editing tool - could I maintain my artistic integrity?
No.
I kept returning to no. Every time I asked that question. Who knows where the path will lead. Today, I may get it to rephrase my sentences; tomorrow, it may be generating whole articles using my voice.
I would be an artistic fraud. A cheat.
Not only would I be cheating others - my readers; I would be cheating my own humanity. I would be cheating my own journey, my own dream; of developing my craft, of developing my own unique take on the world, using the gifts given to me by God.
Finally, I stopped asking myself; and I kept writing, as I had always done.
I was going to leave nothing for the swim back. If I drowned, I drowned; but at least I would keep my integrity as an artist; and I would rather fail and keep my integrity, than succeed by underhand means, having sold my soul to the Machine God.
And I started noticing, at least on Substack and in my own family; others who shared my instinct. I realised, yes, while there are those - maybe most - who either sell their soul, or simply do not see using Generative AI as artistic contradiction; there are in fact many others - many others! - resisting in their quiet little cranny in the world. Reconfirmed I was, of my Gattaca thesis; total tyranny is not all consuming; Dr Lamar’s exist on every level, resisting their inner cynicism.
People are out there, as willing as I am, to leave nothing for the swim back; to place faith in their humanity.
The Rebirth of the Artist
Now determined to leave no energy for the swim back; we need to know how to swim, because we will drown upon entering the first patch of deep water.
What do we do, practically, to maintain our artistic integrity? To usher in the Rebirth of the Artist?
(Note: One may have gotten this far, and think I hate everyone who uses AI. This is not the case. I understand some writing communities believe Generative AI should be used to elevate one’s craft and, importantly, they are upfront about their use of these systems. Though I disagree with their position, I do not wish them any unhappiness or malaise.)
…
Don’t Use Generative AI.
This seems obvious, but I believe there exists some arbitrary generative threshold (how much I don’t know - 50%, 75%, 90%?), that if passed using AI, means you can no longer lay claim to being a ‘primary creator’. This logic too, must then apply to the human examples of newspapers, literary magazines, scientific journals, and publishing houses. In many of these places, an editor or series of editors will add so much of their own input, the writer’s creative integrity is called into question. Their name might be on it; but is it really theirs anymore? In those cases where this arbitrary line is crossed, I would also argue the writer’s artistic integrity is lost.
And many of us know it when we see it.
So, if you are going to use AI to ‘enhance’ your writing, go ahead, but remember past a certain point, you should put ‘co-written by CHAT-GPT’, or ‘edited by the Team at Microsoft…’ (thanks for that last one, AC Cargill).
For my own artistic integrity - when it comes to creative writing and the craft of writing - using Generative AI for any part of the process is not an option.
…
Disclose Your AI Use
If you use Generative AI, say for images or using it as a tool for research (as I do for my PhD), and whatever other ways AI will likely manifest, it does not mean you will lose your writing integrity.
However, if you do not disclose you used AI for an image, say, it will cast doubt upon your writing. Every time I see an article with an image generated by DALL-E, I wonder if the text is generated by CHAT-GPT. As AC Cargill put it:
…if someone lies to you, you are likely to distrust other things they tell you.
Recently, I had used an AI image for a sci-fi story, thinking I wouldn’t be able to find a suitable ‘human-taken’ photo. AC Cargill’s point above made me rethink this decision, and stick to my intuition of supporting human photographers and graphic artists at all costs. And, I ended up finding an awesome astronaut photo on Unsplash anyway!
…
Expose Humanity to the World, Not the Machine
If you end up using an AI image, or outsource the editing and feedback of your writing to the machine, you are inadvertently shielding human creations and input from the world.
In the case of editing and feedback, while AI might be superior to people you know; the input from other humans into your work … will be lost. Whatever changes you made, were influenced by a machine, not a close friend, a family member, a spouse. The work becomes less of a conversation between you and those in your close environment, and more like a conversation with an artificial hive mind. I would argue, there is less of you in the work; your relationships, and even the flaws in these relationships.
Remember, it is not perfection that makes us human.
It is our flaws.
…
Support Other Writers and Artists Who Have Integrity
Total tyranny exists only in the mind of the cynic; that “it can be no other way”. The Substack network, and discussion with my family, has solidified my belief in the aspirational human spirit that transcends the inherent weaknesses of cynicism. On whatever platform, be it here on Substack, or at a local book sale, support those who cast greed aside, and would rather drown than lose their artistic integrity.
Be a Dr Lamar to their Vincent.
In the future, you will likely need your own Dr Lamar.
…
Expose Cheaters
Many whose lives are defined by mediocrity may see Generative AI as a chance for short-term success. Without a mirror AI system that can accurately detect skillful cheating, like ‘writing laundering’ or ‘creative laundering’ (for instance, asking one LLM to generate, another to rephrase, and another to edit - and thanks for the phrase Dad), those of us who gain clear evidence a writer is fraudulently generating entire stories and essays should be exposed. Of course, those who are upfront about their use, and do not see the artistic contradiction so present in my own mind, should be left alone.
…
God Will Have His Vengeance
Or karma, if you prefer. Perhaps a more effective way of exposing frauds than vigilante justice is what will happen to a cheater after years of outsourcing their craft - and their thinking - to the machine. Eventually, their lack of ability will be exposed. The market, one would hope, will rearrange free-riders and those with true skill accordingly (the economic challenge to my dystopian thesis).
Of course, the market is far from perfect; and one may have to accept that yes, frauds do live among us; do ‘succeed’ at this capitalism game. Yet, one should keep faith and remember; many of these people will still have a conscience; and their conscience after years of lies and deceit will be tortured - perhaps this, rather than less money and status, is what really matters.
The Flourishing of New Culture
To me, art is a conduit to another dimension. It inspires awe; not only the awe in seeing the height of human capacity and brilliance, but the precise emotion that allows us to transcend our daily experience. It can provide insights into the human condition. It can, like fireflies in the deep forest, light the way when the sun has set.
It is an assumption that AI art or a combination of AI and human art cannot initiate these same great feelings. As I said in the first section; AI art alone - without the aid of humans - may exceed our grandest creations.
The cynic inside will whisper in our ear, “join them”. However, to me, answering that call will betray my own hero’s journey, turning my story into a tragedy.
And, ‘merely human’ is more than enough; I have millennia of artwork, I have Brunelleschi’s Buildings, Monet’s Landscapes, Dostoevsky’s Novels, Tarantino’s Films, Keats’ Poems, all as arguments, for why one needn’t listen to their inner cynic.
Some may say that these are people special due to circumstance and genes; that most of us will never compare; that AI provides an opportunity for those of us less gifted to transcend our daily experience.
Maybe it does, I’m not saying it won’t. More power to those of you where this is true.
Yet, to me, the obstacle course is void if we remove the obstacles. Our ability at the end will be the same as when we began.
So we resist; leaving no energy for the swim back.
It is this spirit, along with following the steps above, that may inspire a flourishing of new culture, of stories and films; music and sculpture; paintings and printmaking - created by humans for humans.
We are at the vanguard of a new movement; a new artistic movement.
The Rebellion Has Begun
…
Thank you all for reading.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider giving it a like, or if you have some thoughts, share them in the comments. Even better, click the subscribe button for more essays on culture and science fiction short stories.
Anything helps, more than you might think.
Chur, and have a good day and night,
The Delinquent Academic
This article is criminally underrated. The points you make are strong, supported with clear reasoning and consistency in your stance. I'll have to thank A.C. for putting you in my radar, and I thank you for not just bemoaning the existence of LLMs, but actually providing reasonable suggestions that creators who want to resist that inner cynic. Our work may be "merely human," but considering it was human hands that built both the greatest and worst of our history, I fail to see how something being "merely human" would be a problem.
Well put. I hope this doesn't sound unnecessarily dismissive, but it just doesn't even occur to me for a moment to use AI, it 's antithetical to everything an artist does and is. It would be a betrayal of all the artists that have come before, and of ourselves.