Last semester I took a creative writing class centered around the digital age. I had always been repulsed by the mention of Artificial Intelligence (AI), especially when reading headlines about writers’ strikes and watching society grow more comfortable using shortcuts toward creativity. The thing I didn’t expect to happen through this class, taught by my mentor, Dr. Clark, was to dive deeper into why I feel this way, discovering specific aspects about the creative process that influence my thinking. Instead of confirming my beliefs, this class challenged them. I still have so much more to learn about the rise of the digital age, but in this post I’m sharing a condensed version of the research paper I wrote at the end of the course:
As a creative writer, I’ve spent the past year wondering to myself—why? Why use a machine to solve a problem that never existed? Why invest in machine learning in creative communities when there are advancements in engineering, medicine, and criminal justice that still need improvement? The key word is “invest.” Companies behind AI are not concerned with the development of the artist, but money.
To the general public, AI is beneficial for countless reasons. In Jeffrey Dean’s article “A Golden Decade of Deep Learning: Computing Systems & Applications,” he groups neuroscience, molecular biology, health care, and more as areas in which AI offers tremendous assistance. Combined in the mixture are creative endeavors. Dean said, “Deep learning algorithms show surprising abilities to transform images in sophisticated and creative ways, giving us the ability to easily create spaceships in the style of Monet or the Golden Gate Bridge in the style of Edvard Munch” (65). The underlying element of Dean’s argument comes down to imitation. The AI is not creating a spaceship in a never-before-seen art style—it’s imitating an acclaimed artist.
Whatever we feed into the system, AI feeds back to us. Therefore, AI is a limitation to societal growth. Humans have experienced a paradigm shift as AI has been rising, but placing creative thought in the hands of a machine prevents further development of ideas from forming. Across time, different eras of literature and history have proven that when people’s voices are heard, stereotypes change. But if AI creates content that draws from mindsets of today, those who engage in such information continue to believe the same idea rather than questioning their own views upon certain topics. AI perpetuates human thought rather than redefining it.
So what does it mean to be an artist in the age of AI? In the age of boomerangs instead of polaroids, long texts instead of handwritten letters, and Siri instead of Thomas Guides, being an artist means the same thing it always has in every other revolution— to be an artist is to resist. By choosing to cultivate the art, the art persists. To wonder about what makes humans human, what stirs our emotions and enlightens our souls, to fall in love and experience heartbreak—nothing can replace that. Art is irreplaceable.
The creative process requires constant internal reflection, something that causes oneself to question their beliefs and morals, leading to the changes in stereotypical thought as mentioned earlier. If writers use a shortcut, they’re not tapping into the heart of creative expression.
The majority of today’s culture might continue to value economic worth above all else, but in a society that wishes for more more more, artists are the ones who can push back, choosing to abundantly create. With all the fear, excitement, danger, and convenience that AI offers, the best way an artist can channel their discontent is through art itself.
Comments