And why? The tech industry seems to be deaf to the shouts of many creatives with regard to the multitude of concerns that come with unleashing this AI dragon that they so desperately want us to hail as the biggest thing since...ever... Or maybe since Hydra. I don't know, but I'm not buying it. The promotional push is everywhere, thanks to algorithms that no one wants in their lives (Yes, Target. I bought a package of diapers. It was for one baby shower. I don't need your ads at EVERY internet turn, pushing diapers on me).
As a writer, I find my Facebook feed filled with sponsored ads that the algorithms have decided I need for the latest and greatest software that will "write the stories for me." But I don't want the software to write the stories for me--where is the goddamned challenge in that?
Also, as a screenplay finalist in a handful of script competitions, I got this promotional doozy in my email.
The tone deaf sponsors of this abomination of a competition have since removed it and apologized to the greater screenwriting community (aka the WGA) after one day's worth of backlash, and I applaud my fellow screenwriters for getting the job done.
But the problem is that someone thought it was a good idea in the first place. Someone thought it was a good idea to push the envelope, to sell us on the necessity of AI to "be creative for us." I have gone through the ads in my feed, I've taken the time to click on the little corner icon that brings up the menu where you can choose the option, DON'T SHOW THIS AD AGAIN and DON'T SHOW ADS SIMILAR TO THIS AGAIN, and STILL they keep coming. Okay, fine, I say. If they're going to keep coming, I will leave snarky remarks in the threads just to piss them off, because I want them--and everyone--to know that they can stop selling me shit that I don't want or need. That will make a difference, right? They'll read those comments and discern my discontent, right???
Okay, huge assumption on my part. Wishful thinking, yeah. But you would think, with the snarky feedback and the social media posts that I have made in support of the WGA and against the use of AI in the creative world...you would think that the algorithms would get the hint. But I get it. I am a target audience when it comes to pushing AI writing software. That part of the equation is not going to change.
What I REALLY don't need though is a baked goods company trying to sell me on the benefits of AI in my life. That's right, Wolferman's Bakery, that sells breakfast muffins and pastries sent me a newsletter eblast about using AI to better improve my life. Wolferman's Bakery wants me to think hard on that, and since they asked for opinions on that topic, I decided I would oblige.
This is what I had to say:
I’m not sure why I’m getting a newsletter in support of AI from a baked goods seller (or floral arranger—who knows, because the email came from Wolferman's but the address is 1800flowers…), but whatever… Your email blast found its way to the wrong inbox. You see, I am a writer, a book author, a screenwriter, and I’m not as enamored with the onslaught of promotional advertising being shoved in my face left and right as our money grubbing tech bros hoped I would be.
A good number of writer types are in agreement with my stand as is evidenced by the current Writers Strike, where key components of the agreement, that the AMPTP refuses to recognize, address the usage and implementation of AI in a highly creative field. Add to that the growing number of writers and artists who are filing lawsuits over the vast amount of material that AI has trained on without author/artist consent to create “new” art, “new” stories. Background actors are being scanned for features and TV and being paid a day's wage so that studios can use their images "in perpetuity" without a say as to how those images are used, and without further compensation.
At minimum, there needs to be serious regulation put into place. There needs to be clear rules regarding copyright and compensation, because AI training on the artistic endeavors of others—for the sake of selling their AI technology to the masses and to corporate entities—is clearly a violation of fair use in my opinion.
So no, I am not super excited by this new technology. I have had the opportunity to read a few AI examples in the creative writing field, and to be honest they are monstrosities. And derivative. And I know, you might say that I'm biased, and yes I am, but seriously. They were that bad. And I get it to some degree—artists who don’t make a lot of money, who are trying to get their material out there on a budget, might cave to the cost effective use of AI to self publish a book or to have it read by an AI voice, or to push past the block, or to have it create some artistically rendered book cover. I get that. But you lose something when you rely on artificial intelligence to do the work for you. You lose the sense of pride and accomplishment that comes from the work. And you fail to support the artistic talents of others. Because writing, at least, isn’t about writing another story like the last story. It’s about putting your heart and soul into a story to learn about yourself and to create something special that speaks to you. That you hope will speak to others.
So, no. I am not in support of AI like the tech industry hoped I would be. But thanks for asking.
Anyway, thanks for entertaining me by reading this rant. Also, don't buy books from robot authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment