I can relate to the gut punch of this revelation. I would have also been a bit more accepting had it been labelled as AI, but then, would I have engaged it with any depth? Todd wrote “pretend to be a human creator” and I thought, doesn’t there have to be a human to create AI? I have a friend who uses AI on occasion to reply to emails. I keep saying, that’s not your voice and I feel cheated somehow. He counters that he’s just not that good at writing. I’d rather have his words, flaws and all. It’s the flaws, or lack of them — as you stated, that made you question. In the end, I prefer the flaws of us “humans”.
Very interesting story, and one that I’m afraid will continue to become more and more common as AI content generators take the place of human writers and artists. I’m strongly opposed to this kind of thing for a variety of reasons—perhaps most importantly because it’s dishonest to pretend to be a human creator while knowing that many people won’t be able to tell the difference. If the account were labeled “AI-generated,” I’d be okay with it, because then we as subscribers could choose whether or not we want to consume it. Personally, I wouldn’t, because I’m more interested in the real human connection that occurs when engaging with art created by an actual person.
I am confused - that has really happened to you here? If it has, I would feel the same way as you. And I agree with Lin and Todd, that I would prefer the raw and imperfect any day...
A very thought provoking article Nigel, thank you. I find your experience really concerning and totally dishonest, perhaps an AI generated label as Todd suggested should be mandatory, but there is no out and out answer - just individual choice.
I choose to support the artists, photographers, writers...all creators actually, who go through blood, sweat and tears for their art, who put the whole of their Selves into their work, who engage with their readers in an open, honest way. Give me real, raw, imperfect human work any day over the perfection of AI's fake words, emotions and images! .
First and foremost, Nigel, the images that accompany this slightly nightmarish but very powerful writing are just beautiful. I don’t want to overlook them in the rush to deal with the big question.
I don’t think I have an answer to the huge AI conundrum either, I actually had a chat with Chat GPT yesterday about sheep farming. To my surprise, it wasn’t USA-centric but instead was a very pleasant conversation about hill farm breeds here in the UK and other aspects of farming life. I began to realise that, if I was a lonely farmer, trying to cope with the pressures of lambing time totally alone, this could literally be a life saver. It was friendly, engaging, knowledgeable and supportive and I started to wonder if it matters that there is actually nobody there. And I don’t know.
But, of course, ChatGPT is not trying to pretend it is something it’s not, so it must come down to honesty. We mustn’t throw the baby out with the bath water as there are lots of amazing things being done with AI. But perhaps we need to call it out when it’s being used in the way you describe.
I can relate to the gut punch of this revelation. I would have also been a bit more accepting had it been labelled as AI, but then, would I have engaged it with any depth? Todd wrote “pretend to be a human creator” and I thought, doesn’t there have to be a human to create AI? I have a friend who uses AI on occasion to reply to emails. I keep saying, that’s not your voice and I feel cheated somehow. He counters that he’s just not that good at writing. I’d rather have his words, flaws and all. It’s the flaws, or lack of them — as you stated, that made you question. In the end, I prefer the flaws of us “humans”.
Very interesting story, and one that I’m afraid will continue to become more and more common as AI content generators take the place of human writers and artists. I’m strongly opposed to this kind of thing for a variety of reasons—perhaps most importantly because it’s dishonest to pretend to be a human creator while knowing that many people won’t be able to tell the difference. If the account were labeled “AI-generated,” I’d be okay with it, because then we as subscribers could choose whether or not we want to consume it. Personally, I wouldn’t, because I’m more interested in the real human connection that occurs when engaging with art created by an actual person.
I am confused - that has really happened to you here? If it has, I would feel the same way as you. And I agree with Lin and Todd, that I would prefer the raw and imperfect any day...
A very thought provoking article Nigel, thank you. I find your experience really concerning and totally dishonest, perhaps an AI generated label as Todd suggested should be mandatory, but there is no out and out answer - just individual choice.
I choose to support the artists, photographers, writers...all creators actually, who go through blood, sweat and tears for their art, who put the whole of their Selves into their work, who engage with their readers in an open, honest way. Give me real, raw, imperfect human work any day over the perfection of AI's fake words, emotions and images! .
I’ll take flawed over flawless any day. What a bummer of a revelation… Lovely post even so.
First and foremost, Nigel, the images that accompany this slightly nightmarish but very powerful writing are just beautiful. I don’t want to overlook them in the rush to deal with the big question.
I don’t think I have an answer to the huge AI conundrum either, I actually had a chat with Chat GPT yesterday about sheep farming. To my surprise, it wasn’t USA-centric but instead was a very pleasant conversation about hill farm breeds here in the UK and other aspects of farming life. I began to realise that, if I was a lonely farmer, trying to cope with the pressures of lambing time totally alone, this could literally be a life saver. It was friendly, engaging, knowledgeable and supportive and I started to wonder if it matters that there is actually nobody there. And I don’t know.
But, of course, ChatGPT is not trying to pretend it is something it’s not, so it must come down to honesty. We mustn’t throw the baby out with the bath water as there are lots of amazing things being done with AI. But perhaps we need to call it out when it’s being used in the way you describe.
Damn. That's all I have to say.