Recently, I someone asked: why is generative AI so bad? Motor boats can go faster than humans, and yet humans can still enjoying swimming. So why can’t humans still enjoy art even if generative AI can make graphics faster than human beings?
It’s a good question. Boats can indeed go faster than swimmers and cars can go faster than runners, and yet people still enjoy running or swimming. And indeed, human-produced art can still be enjoyed as an act of creation even if the world is swamped in generative AI.
But there are two distinct differences between these situations that makes generative AI still detrimental to the art world. The first is that unlike running or swimming, the final goal of art is the output of the art: the painting, the photograph, the piece of music. Although other people do appreciate the artistic journey behind the creation of these things, they primarily want to see the final product. Swimming or running is much more about the pure experience.
So, generative AI reduces the value of the final creation because it is lost in a sea of generative images and creations. And it’s a fabrication to say that artists create for the journey of creation alone. Virtually all artists want to share their work and have their work appreciated. Painters want people to see their paintings and composers want people to hear their music. Artists want others to experience their work as something unique and special. Generative AI takes that away because it reduces the probability that human-generated art will be seen in the first place, and it also reduces the ability for the artist to make a living off the work.
The second difference between swimming and art is that art itself is an expression of the intellect that acts as a form of communication symbol. Something is intrinsically lost when we elevate mechanical computers to the level of human beings. I take this as an axiom, but it is unquestionably felt by those who value intellect. Lee Sedol, a famous Go player, himself said after a match with a Go-playing AI that “Even if I become the number one, there is an entity that cannot be defeated.”
Finally, there is one flawed assumption in the question itself! It assumes that humans still enjoy swimming and running as much as they did before machines could go faster. I think that’s also false. I imagine myself as a hunter in a primitive hunter-gatherer society. If I were a good runner in such a society, I would probably be valued as a hunter precisely because of my running abilities. My ability to run fast would be valued by the entire society and it would feel extra special to have it because it would be something I could use to help provide food for the whole tribe. I think that feeling would be much more special than being able to run a marathon in modern-day society.
The truth is, although machines often make life convenient, they always take away something as well. Yes, I can still enjoy running myself and I do. But there is something mechanical in it that can’t equal using running in a society where it is valued for its practical, social value. And I can still enjoy mathematics. But mathematics is now being taken over by AI as well, and so I only really enjoy mathematics now as a private activity, rather than a social one—the society of mathematics is being tainted by the machine. And of course, being a photographer, I still enjoy taking pictures and showing them to people but some of that joy is being eroded because the internet is being swamped by AI-generated imagery.
A healthy person should be able to enjoy their hobbies and pursuits by themselves. But it would be a damned lie to say that people should have the capacity to derive all their enjoyment in solitude. Art and creation is a social phenomenon, and there is no shame in having a component of your enjoyment rooted in having like minded people with whom to share. So when I talk of machines taking away the enjoyment of art, it is not the part in solitude I am talking about. Instead, I am talking about the social aspect which is manipulated and distorted by the machines. And if we are not careful, that fabric will be easily destroyed as well. AI is the apex of that mechanized erosion, and that is why it will always be a net negative when it comes to how it affects human beings and our entire world.