Artificial Intelligence: Are We Fighting a Losing Battle?
DISCLAIMER: the following addresses the controversial topic of AI and the views of various individuals. It should be noted that Spellbound Publishing House, LLC in no way condones the profit of an individual based solely on the use of AI and the materials that are generated by these programs.
Image by Susan Cipriano from Pixabay
If you’ve been anywhere on the internet recently, you’ll know that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is taking the world by violent storm and creating conflict in ways that are largely unprecedented. Advanced technology is nothing new. In high school, a majority of students in the United States are made to read works such as Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, 1984 by George Orwell, and Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. Each of these works really zero in on the use of advanced technology to the benefit (and detriment) of society, highlighting and in some ways assisting in the innovation of said technology. In recent years, this focus has become heightened as we see the effects that this technology can have in the educational space and the creative space.
WE TAUGHT YOU BETTER
In the educational space, teachers are up-in-arms about the use of Artificial Intelligence in their classrooms, claiming that they taught their students better - they should know how to write these essays and use these sources because “we taught them better”.
…but did we?
Having spent nearly a decade in the educational space as an English teacher, I can confidently say that no, we didn’t teach them better. We taught them that rigor is more important than learning, that the world doesn’t care about teachers (so why should students?), and that in the face of a global pandemic their health didn’t matter as long as they were sitting in a chair or on a screen when the appropriate time came to say they were present in order to get more funding. It was during this time that AI really started to gain traction in the educational space and is it really a shock to anyone that students have chosen to cut corners, when the education system has chosen to cut whatever corners they deem necessary to do the least amount of work for the largest pay out?
We didn’t teach them better.
We taught them how to cheat the system.
And now we are mad when the system isn’t cheating them.
For a moment, consider Isaac Asimov’s “The Feeling of Power” which was published in the 1950s as fear of computer technology took hold of society. In this dystopian sci-fi short story, Asimov cautions against the use of calculators and other technology, warning that it will cause mental atrophy and an inability to do fundamental mathematics. Yet here we are, nearly 70 years later so reliant on calculators that most of us carry one around in our pockets daily on our phones. This technology actually became a huge benefit to society and enhanced the accuracy of information in the economic sphere.
In many ways, Artificial Intelligence is the new calculator. Kelsey Myers is of the opinion that “AI can inform some educational things and help out teachers and tutors, but…it could ever replace them or even play the more dominant role [in education].”
Author Taiya Collier notes, “Educationally, I feel like AI can be effective based upon the method in which its used. Oftentimes, AI is used as a shortcut to learning as opposed to an assistant to learning. Being someone who is currently in school and has had a fair share of experience with AI, I’ve noticed a lot of people in my generation of students using it in a way that actually inhibits learning— using tools such as ChatGPT to write entire essays and articles. This is an issue that needs to be addressed, because it restricts learning when work is being done entirely by artificial means.”
Her point enhances the claims made by both Kelsey Myers and Asimov—when we are educating individuals, we must teach them the fundamentals. We must teach them how to use technology. We cannot just give it to them and then get angry when they are reliant on it to the point of being unable to function without it.
AND WHAT ABOUT THE CREATIVE SPACE?
The creative space is tricky. After all, imitation is a form of flattery, is it not? There are no truly original ideas, are there? Everything is a version of something else.
But does that make AI in the creative space okay?
In short? It’s complicated.
The Alliance of Independent Authors defines Artificial Intelligence as “technology that replicates human behaviors and abilities conventionally seen as ‘intelligent' and augmented intelligence as “applications or tools that combine human and machine intelligence.” Where do we draw that line, though, and determine what is an acceptable application or tool combining the intelligence of man and machine?
On the one hand, I completely understand people who are against the use of Artifical Intelligence in the capacity of writing and publishing. I’m a publisher for goodness sake! Of course I understand the implications that come with publishing a work that is completely AI generated—it’s unethical and unfair to those who are actively putting in the time and effort to write their stories! But I can’t negate the benefits to using AI to generate writing prompts or character names when a writer’s block comes calling. I also cannot negate the use of Artificial Intelligence as a regular facet of daily life.
After all, do we not have access to Grammarly, Wordtune, ProWritingAid, and embedded grammar and spelling checkers in web browsers, Google Docs, Microsoft Word, Pages, and other programs? Some individuals are going to far as to swearing off the use of these aids, but I’d venture a guess that many who claim they don’t use any of these programs aren’t being truthful. Unless they’re writing on a type writer or completely by hand, it is nearly impossible to avoid these programs.
Then comes the question of visual art and the use of AI generators such as Midjourney, Imagine.Art and Gencraft. What place do these have in the creative space?
Again, it’s a tricky question. James Nicholas Adams, author of Chronicles of Myriad: Quest for the Oracle believes “AI art could be nice as a personal inspirational tool, but shouldn't be used in place of artists.” It shouldn’t be sold, but can be used for inspiration. For some individuals (like myself) who struggle with painting images in their head, AI art is an invaluable tool for keeping character appearances consistent and aiding in visualization. But this doesn’t mean that I can take that art and sell it, profiting off of work that isn’t mine. It’s a great tool and it can be used to create something magical, but you can’t use a hammer and then claim you built a house.
SO WHO IS RIGHT?
A U.S. Federal Judge ruled on Friday, August 18th that AI generated art cannot be protected by copyright. In terms of legality and profitablity, the AI nay-sayers are right: U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that AI cannot be copyrighted because it “protects only works of human creation” and even though AI may draw from human creation, it is created in the absence of human involvement and therefore cannot be treated the same as an authentic human work.
When it comes down to it, the question isn’t that of right and wrong. The question is that of integrity and intent.
Are you ethical enough to maintain integrity and use AI responsibly as a tool to aid in bettering your work? Do you intend to use it only as a support and not a source of profit?
Or is integrity and ethics something that doesn’t matter when money is involved?
NOW I KNOW YOU’RE ASKING: WHERE DOES SPELLBOUND PUBLISHING HOUSE, LLC STAND?
Spellbound does not condone or encourage the use of AI programs such as ChatGPT or Sudowrite to generate, craft, and publish written works. We do not allow authors to profit off of AI-generated materials.
Spellbound does not condone or encourage the use of AI programs such as Midjourney or Imagine.Art to create and profit off of character and/or book art.