I'm a photographer, and the last 2 years have seen Adobe, whose software tools dominate the industry, on the one hand pander to photographers about how their tools can improve not only the photo editing process, but even automate it by doing in seconds what used to take hours in Photoshop - then on the other hand run endless commercials to other businesses about how Photoshop can eliminate the need for actual photographers entirely. Their terms of service have changed too, such that increasingly their tools run not on local machines, but Adobe's servers, and they have said they have a right to review your entire catalog of work the moment it touches their servers - this violates any number of corporate and client confidentiality agreements, though Adobe defends this practice by claiming it is to stop child porn and similar things and they pinkie swear that your own work isn't being used to train their AI, and won't be stolen. I don't think anyone believes them, but many feel they have no choice as they have used nothing but Adobe tools for 20 years, and moving to another system is difficult (especially when so many systems now, like Adobe, only rent the software to you, and likewise are suspected of siphoning off work).
Adobe's two-faced advertising certainly put a lot of photographers on edge - it would be like Ford offering to sell you smart cars on the one hand, but then lobbying the feds to ban private car ownership in hopes that Ford will be granted a national monopoly on building automated taxis.
Jonathan Pageau has been saying we're entering "Clown World", where we increasingly are unable to tell what is real and what is fake, which is dangerous turf. That world breeds cynicism on the one hand, and desperation to believe *something* on the other.
Worse yet, the need to "touch grass" as it were, and know that at least something somewhere is real, is driving tech towards a universal centralized identity system. I can see this in how increasingly I cannot actually conduct my business without having my phone on me, since my phone has biometric ID verification with my face. I am always being pressed to use "passkeys", which require me to log in not only with the usual name and password on a website, but then ALSO show my face to my phone in some companion ID system, just to prove I am who I say I am. I cannot even file certain legal documents with my state government online without using my phone now.
This is extending to the next generation of digital cameras too, where Leica and a few others are starting to use authentication chains that begin with cryptographic hashes embedded in photo files that allow a photographer to prove a photo's historical provenance - without a hash traceable to one camera and one photographer, you'll not be able to sell your work as "authentic". This will start with photo-journalism, where fakery is already a massive problem, but I expect it to spread to other outlets over time, except where fantasy itself is the desired "product". I expect too that this soon this will be tied to the ubiquitous phones to further lock-down identities.
And this is where it is going long-term: to shut down "clown world" and AI spoofing where it is not desired, you will have to be entirely visible and (worse yet) your entire history will be exposed and auditable, not just like the bakers behind the counter, but always and to all - especially the government. I'm not sure how to escape this.
interesting - well, as a complete non-cellphone user (wireless tech makes me sick), so far i am still able to 'deal" but the push to force cellphone usage is increasing, and why not? it is the perfect spy system! (and voluntarily for most of us).
[Apologies if this comment is too long. The fourth paragraph sums up my thoughts.]
I read this last night and then had a long conversation with my wife about the economic and creative ramifications of AI's inevitable domination of "content creation." [I hate the term, but so far haven't been able to come up with a better one that covers the whole gamut from "fine art" to "mere consumables."] My wife was far less concerned about my economic fears (I work as a hand-craft repairman, so my trade was destroyed by machines about a century before I was even born). Her concern was more for what AI will do to our ability to evaluate truth from falsehood online.
Lo & behold, this very morning my wife stormed into the breakfast room in a lather because she had just visited a permaculture forum that she frequents (yes, we're crunchy). The topic a la mode was an article on Substack purporting to have found a way to make crossbreeding of certain plants easier with applications of concrete dust and/or MSG powder during pollination. My wife was incredulous as many people were chiming in and saying what an amazing breakthrough this could be without having first tried the steps outline in the article. The idea seemed far fetched. A quick look at the original stack did not pass the smell test. Poor compositional structure, no external sources, and instructions that were simply impossible to follow because of logical inconsistencies. A detail web search provided no corroboration for the technique, or similar paths of research in any agricultural circles. And the image on the post was AI generated.
I looked at the "stack" in question and it seems to exhibit all the superficial signs of being AI generated content. Not being a computer person, I can't forensically prove that it's so, but either way the content is not only useless to serious permaculturists, it's downright fallacious. The part that scares me is how much traction it was getting on a web forum that claims to be for serious, rational practitioners of an agricultural science. It will all blow over soon, as do all fads on the interwebs, but I think this reveals an underlying issue.
When we no longer take the time to consider the origins of the content we consume, we have already devalued the quality of the content to the point where AI's inevitable domination of "content creation" is redundant. There are AI generated substacks and podcasts out there, and they exist because the majority of the public no longer cares where they get their information. I am a bookbinder. I do not make "new" books because I cannot economically compete with publishers printing thousands of cheep volumes by assembly line overseas. Instead, the vast majority of my business comes from individuals who want rare volumes preserved, or books and bibles with sentimental value rebound and kept "alive" for a few more decades. I hope we never get to the point where human-created content is viewed as a "bespoke service" only for those who can afford to pay for something that is made by a person. But I can foresee a world where the majority of consumable culture is made by algorithm and consumers are perfectly happy to have nothing else.
Hats off to Peco and Ruth for reminding us of what we should value, and what -God forbid- we may soon be losing. Apologies if this seems to much doom-laden cynicism. I can't help it. I see nothing in human history that would give me hope for a reversal against the onward rolling juggernaut of The Machine.
I'm sure you have considered this, but i wonder how much of the "traction" it was getting on the permaculture site was also fake AI-generated response/nonsense.
Good question. I honestly don't know how that particular forum polices its user profiles, though I know most of the online permaculture communities my wife is involved with are pretty personable & tight knit. If this is a case of an AI getting over the wall past the dozing watchmen, I hope they catch it soon. Either way, AI will continue to obfuscate the evaluation for truth rather than clarify.
The answer has to be in local community. We have to start meeting together in real life…taking the time to either move to a place where the community is present or learning to write long form again. My son is at a boarding school that uses zero digital tech in teaching. Everything is handwritten and in real “hold in you hand-turn the page” book form or lecture. No computers, or radios or digital music devices. They make all the music themselves. We need to discover how to do this more outside of that kind of environment. Paul Kingsnorth spoke in Alabama this weekend about drawing lines. We have to begin to this. Sounds like you already are.
AI is a Trojan Horse. I think it's really that simple. But a Trojan Horse can have a lot of glamor, and if most people want to pull it inside the walls, that's what's going to happen. That's what is happening.
If I read something I want to know if it was AI generated. If we have labels for food we should have labels for AI content. I want to know what I'm consuming.
Trying to protect any economy from effective technological change has never worked. Not once. Not ever. It only leaves the protected people in an impoverished ghetto which eventually empties out and is left a ruin. The only question that really matters here is whether readers actually want AI generated content or if they want to know that what they are reading was created by a human being. My suspicion is that in some cases they won't care, but in most cases they will. It is already the case that the best marketing for authors is to establish a personal connection with their readers. People want to know that they are communicating with a real person. And if that continues to prove true, then AI is irrelevant.
The artisan bread example is not entirely on point. The attachment there is sentimental, and while sentiment is powerful, it can also be fickle. Machine made bread is still bread. It has all the properties and virtues of bread. Communication puts the human actor at the center. If the content does not come from a human being, it is not communication at all. To communicate is to make communion, to make common, to make community with other human beings. This does not happen at all with AI content. AI content has none of the properties and virtues of human communication.
On the other hand, the current idea that AI-using creators will take over the market is shortsighted. If there turns out that there is a market for AI generated content. AI-using creators will swiftly be put out of business by self-service AI content utilities where readers will generate the content they want for themselves. After all, if you can generate a podcast in two minutes, why would I go searching for podcasts when I can ask the same utility to create one for me on the subject of my choosing?
Substack's entire model is based on the power of personal connections between writer and reader, so AI-using creators do nothing for their business. But if personal connection proves not to matter, then Substack will become irrelevant.
Peco and Ruth-- I really like that you post infrequently. Your readers are, I'd assume, people who have full lives and who want to read genuinely helpful and thought-provoking pieces from time to time. We don't just want more content for our money to fill our empty hours. Podcasts are often like that, just re-hashing the content of books or essays but with a conversational format. I doubt that AI could simulate the thoughtful writing that it used to produce that fake podcast.
But if the time should come when the internet is no longer a viable way to disseminate intelligent, inspired writing I feel sure that God will give you another way to use your gifts to help others in this whacky time.
Whether it's bloggers churning out fake podcasts, students churning out fake essays, or grifters churning out fake images, the intent it to deceive, and to deceive is to inflict pain. They take joy in doing this, which says all I need to know about them. They are not welcome in my life, and they become more unwelcome the harder they try.
I have a clear AI declaration on my website: https://alastairjohnston.com/ai/ which states my relationship with AI in producing my work. It was inspired by a number of writers who have all signed up to the AI manifesto https://www.bydamo.la/p/ai-manifesto in order to help keep trust.
Maybe you would find something like this useful here?
How very timely. Recently we had a bulletin cover for our church liturgy made with AI. How could we tell? There were six fingers on the man’s left hand (sorry Inigo) all jokes aside, I did not find it funny. As an art teacher, I find it offensive. Our church prides itself on supporting the arts, and most often will call for people from church to create art for the bulletin. This is a lovey way to keep artists engaged in a place where their talents are often downplayed. When my husband brought up a motion at the elder meeting that we steer clear of AI in favor of humans, he was shut down as “coming down too strongly” on the issue. It’s all fun and games until your avocation and vocation are on the chopping block. I don’t think those same people will have the same feelings when Bible AI can answer all of the congregation’s theological questions.
Listening to the AI generated podcast was SO VERY DISCONCERTING!! I really hope Substack implements some way to limit and/or label AI generated content… I’m still trying to wrap my head around the fact it only took a bathroom break’s time to make that podcast. Thank you Peco for sharing this information, although I’m disturbed by it.
This is beyond disturbing. Interestingly, I interpreted the Creator's...to mean The Creator, ala God or whatever you wish to call it, rather the the creator of content, which I think is what you meant. Either way is true, and terrifying.
There are two types of AI that we need to consider.
One is human created content being moved from medium to another exemplified by this podcast. AI is digesting the aesthetics of the podcast and merging it with the written content.
The other is AI created content. In this case it would be ask ChatGPT to write an article about the 3 Rs of unmachining, and then create a podcast using the generated content.
These two are fundamentally different. The first one, though uncanny and weird, can at least open up the content to another an audience that might have barriers to digesting the written content. The latter, fundamentally useless and detrimental to how we are digesting the current culture. It's a poison, that appeals to our laziest instincts and diminishes everyone who uses and consumes it.
However...
The accelerationist in me hopes that latter type of AI takes over the Internet. A flood of anodyne, bland content that starts eating itself will make the internet unattractive to everyone but the most incurious. The upside is that this will raise the attractiveness of real-life content.
Great point! I hope the latter takes over too. So far, it seems it is... I took a "how to use AI class" (mostly just to be a troll). And the reason people use AI was kind of sad. They use it to augment their lack of emotional intelligence and imagination. I found what AI generated to be pretty lame....yet, they were ooh-ing and ah-ing. What AI does is derivative and if it does something unique it's considered hallucinogenic. Its hallucinations (at the moment) are nonsensical as far as I can tell.
Such an important reflection, I wouldn’t feel the same on substack if some people were using AI, I’d look for and hope to find an alternative, a kind of artisan substack.
I'm a photographer, and the last 2 years have seen Adobe, whose software tools dominate the industry, on the one hand pander to photographers about how their tools can improve not only the photo editing process, but even automate it by doing in seconds what used to take hours in Photoshop - then on the other hand run endless commercials to other businesses about how Photoshop can eliminate the need for actual photographers entirely. Their terms of service have changed too, such that increasingly their tools run not on local machines, but Adobe's servers, and they have said they have a right to review your entire catalog of work the moment it touches their servers - this violates any number of corporate and client confidentiality agreements, though Adobe defends this practice by claiming it is to stop child porn and similar things and they pinkie swear that your own work isn't being used to train their AI, and won't be stolen. I don't think anyone believes them, but many feel they have no choice as they have used nothing but Adobe tools for 20 years, and moving to another system is difficult (especially when so many systems now, like Adobe, only rent the software to you, and likewise are suspected of siphoning off work).
Adobe's two-faced advertising certainly put a lot of photographers on edge - it would be like Ford offering to sell you smart cars on the one hand, but then lobbying the feds to ban private car ownership in hopes that Ford will be granted a national monopoly on building automated taxis.
Jonathan Pageau has been saying we're entering "Clown World", where we increasingly are unable to tell what is real and what is fake, which is dangerous turf. That world breeds cynicism on the one hand, and desperation to believe *something* on the other.
Worse yet, the need to "touch grass" as it were, and know that at least something somewhere is real, is driving tech towards a universal centralized identity system. I can see this in how increasingly I cannot actually conduct my business without having my phone on me, since my phone has biometric ID verification with my face. I am always being pressed to use "passkeys", which require me to log in not only with the usual name and password on a website, but then ALSO show my face to my phone in some companion ID system, just to prove I am who I say I am. I cannot even file certain legal documents with my state government online without using my phone now.
This is extending to the next generation of digital cameras too, where Leica and a few others are starting to use authentication chains that begin with cryptographic hashes embedded in photo files that allow a photographer to prove a photo's historical provenance - without a hash traceable to one camera and one photographer, you'll not be able to sell your work as "authentic". This will start with photo-journalism, where fakery is already a massive problem, but I expect it to spread to other outlets over time, except where fantasy itself is the desired "product". I expect too that this soon this will be tied to the ubiquitous phones to further lock-down identities.
And this is where it is going long-term: to shut down "clown world" and AI spoofing where it is not desired, you will have to be entirely visible and (worse yet) your entire history will be exposed and auditable, not just like the bakers behind the counter, but always and to all - especially the government. I'm not sure how to escape this.
interesting - well, as a complete non-cellphone user (wireless tech makes me sick), so far i am still able to 'deal" but the push to force cellphone usage is increasing, and why not? it is the perfect spy system! (and voluntarily for most of us).
Insightful comment! 🙏
[Apologies if this comment is too long. The fourth paragraph sums up my thoughts.]
I read this last night and then had a long conversation with my wife about the economic and creative ramifications of AI's inevitable domination of "content creation." [I hate the term, but so far haven't been able to come up with a better one that covers the whole gamut from "fine art" to "mere consumables."] My wife was far less concerned about my economic fears (I work as a hand-craft repairman, so my trade was destroyed by machines about a century before I was even born). Her concern was more for what AI will do to our ability to evaluate truth from falsehood online.
Lo & behold, this very morning my wife stormed into the breakfast room in a lather because she had just visited a permaculture forum that she frequents (yes, we're crunchy). The topic a la mode was an article on Substack purporting to have found a way to make crossbreeding of certain plants easier with applications of concrete dust and/or MSG powder during pollination. My wife was incredulous as many people were chiming in and saying what an amazing breakthrough this could be without having first tried the steps outline in the article. The idea seemed far fetched. A quick look at the original stack did not pass the smell test. Poor compositional structure, no external sources, and instructions that were simply impossible to follow because of logical inconsistencies. A detail web search provided no corroboration for the technique, or similar paths of research in any agricultural circles. And the image on the post was AI generated.
I looked at the "stack" in question and it seems to exhibit all the superficial signs of being AI generated content. Not being a computer person, I can't forensically prove that it's so, but either way the content is not only useless to serious permaculturists, it's downright fallacious. The part that scares me is how much traction it was getting on a web forum that claims to be for serious, rational practitioners of an agricultural science. It will all blow over soon, as do all fads on the interwebs, but I think this reveals an underlying issue.
When we no longer take the time to consider the origins of the content we consume, we have already devalued the quality of the content to the point where AI's inevitable domination of "content creation" is redundant. There are AI generated substacks and podcasts out there, and they exist because the majority of the public no longer cares where they get their information. I am a bookbinder. I do not make "new" books because I cannot economically compete with publishers printing thousands of cheep volumes by assembly line overseas. Instead, the vast majority of my business comes from individuals who want rare volumes preserved, or books and bibles with sentimental value rebound and kept "alive" for a few more decades. I hope we never get to the point where human-created content is viewed as a "bespoke service" only for those who can afford to pay for something that is made by a person. But I can foresee a world where the majority of consumable culture is made by algorithm and consumers are perfectly happy to have nothing else.
Hats off to Peco and Ruth for reminding us of what we should value, and what -God forbid- we may soon be losing. Apologies if this seems to much doom-laden cynicism. I can't help it. I see nothing in human history that would give me hope for a reversal against the onward rolling juggernaut of The Machine.
Great thoughts here. Thank you.
I'm sure you have considered this, but i wonder how much of the "traction" it was getting on the permaculture site was also fake AI-generated response/nonsense.
Good question. I honestly don't know how that particular forum polices its user profiles, though I know most of the online permaculture communities my wife is involved with are pretty personable & tight knit. If this is a case of an AI getting over the wall past the dozing watchmen, I hope they catch it soon. Either way, AI will continue to obfuscate the evaluation for truth rather than clarify.
The answer has to be in local community. We have to start meeting together in real life…taking the time to either move to a place where the community is present or learning to write long form again. My son is at a boarding school that uses zero digital tech in teaching. Everything is handwritten and in real “hold in you hand-turn the page” book form or lecture. No computers, or radios or digital music devices. They make all the music themselves. We need to discover how to do this more outside of that kind of environment. Paul Kingsnorth spoke in Alabama this weekend about drawing lines. We have to begin to this. Sounds like you already are.
AI is a Trojan Horse. I think it's really that simple. But a Trojan Horse can have a lot of glamor, and if most people want to pull it inside the walls, that's what's going to happen. That's what is happening.
PS I don't live in Troy. I just visit now and then since I have friends and family there. They think I'm kind of peculiar, LOL.
For anyone who hasn't seen it already, I can recommend James Tunney's work. His latest is THE MYTHIC AIM OF AI: MAIMING THE MIND
https://www.jamestunney.com/books
If I read something I want to know if it was AI generated. If we have labels for food we should have labels for AI content. I want to know what I'm consuming.
Trying to protect any economy from effective technological change has never worked. Not once. Not ever. It only leaves the protected people in an impoverished ghetto which eventually empties out and is left a ruin. The only question that really matters here is whether readers actually want AI generated content or if they want to know that what they are reading was created by a human being. My suspicion is that in some cases they won't care, but in most cases they will. It is already the case that the best marketing for authors is to establish a personal connection with their readers. People want to know that they are communicating with a real person. And if that continues to prove true, then AI is irrelevant.
The artisan bread example is not entirely on point. The attachment there is sentimental, and while sentiment is powerful, it can also be fickle. Machine made bread is still bread. It has all the properties and virtues of bread. Communication puts the human actor at the center. If the content does not come from a human being, it is not communication at all. To communicate is to make communion, to make common, to make community with other human beings. This does not happen at all with AI content. AI content has none of the properties and virtues of human communication.
On the other hand, the current idea that AI-using creators will take over the market is shortsighted. If there turns out that there is a market for AI generated content. AI-using creators will swiftly be put out of business by self-service AI content utilities where readers will generate the content they want for themselves. After all, if you can generate a podcast in two minutes, why would I go searching for podcasts when I can ask the same utility to create one for me on the subject of my choosing?
Substack's entire model is based on the power of personal connections between writer and reader, so AI-using creators do nothing for their business. But if personal connection proves not to matter, then Substack will become irrelevant.
I don't agree with everything here, but I appreciate the reflections.
Peco and Ruth-- I really like that you post infrequently. Your readers are, I'd assume, people who have full lives and who want to read genuinely helpful and thought-provoking pieces from time to time. We don't just want more content for our money to fill our empty hours. Podcasts are often like that, just re-hashing the content of books or essays but with a conversational format. I doubt that AI could simulate the thoughtful writing that it used to produce that fake podcast.
But if the time should come when the internet is no longer a viable way to disseminate intelligent, inspired writing I feel sure that God will give you another way to use your gifts to help others in this whacky time.
Clara
Thank you, Clara -- and I appreciate your long-time reading.
And yes, whacky times indeed.
Whether it's bloggers churning out fake podcasts, students churning out fake essays, or grifters churning out fake images, the intent it to deceive, and to deceive is to inflict pain. They take joy in doing this, which says all I need to know about them. They are not welcome in my life, and they become more unwelcome the harder they try.
I have a clear AI declaration on my website: https://alastairjohnston.com/ai/ which states my relationship with AI in producing my work. It was inspired by a number of writers who have all signed up to the AI manifesto https://www.bydamo.la/p/ai-manifesto in order to help keep trust.
Maybe you would find something like this useful here?
How very timely. Recently we had a bulletin cover for our church liturgy made with AI. How could we tell? There were six fingers on the man’s left hand (sorry Inigo) all jokes aside, I did not find it funny. As an art teacher, I find it offensive. Our church prides itself on supporting the arts, and most often will call for people from church to create art for the bulletin. This is a lovey way to keep artists engaged in a place where their talents are often downplayed. When my husband brought up a motion at the elder meeting that we steer clear of AI in favor of humans, he was shut down as “coming down too strongly” on the issue. It’s all fun and games until your avocation and vocation are on the chopping block. I don’t think those same people will have the same feelings when Bible AI can answer all of the congregation’s theological questions.
Oh my goodness, I learn something new from Ruth and Peco with each post. I agree with Ruth’s sentiment regarding the AI podcast.
Listening to the AI generated podcast was SO VERY DISCONCERTING!! I really hope Substack implements some way to limit and/or label AI generated content… I’m still trying to wrap my head around the fact it only took a bathroom break’s time to make that podcast. Thank you Peco for sharing this information, although I’m disturbed by it.
This is beyond disturbing. Interestingly, I interpreted the Creator's...to mean The Creator, ala God or whatever you wish to call it, rather the the creator of content, which I think is what you meant. Either way is true, and terrifying.
There are two types of AI that we need to consider.
One is human created content being moved from medium to another exemplified by this podcast. AI is digesting the aesthetics of the podcast and merging it with the written content.
The other is AI created content. In this case it would be ask ChatGPT to write an article about the 3 Rs of unmachining, and then create a podcast using the generated content.
These two are fundamentally different. The first one, though uncanny and weird, can at least open up the content to another an audience that might have barriers to digesting the written content. The latter, fundamentally useless and detrimental to how we are digesting the current culture. It's a poison, that appeals to our laziest instincts and diminishes everyone who uses and consumes it.
However...
The accelerationist in me hopes that latter type of AI takes over the Internet. A flood of anodyne, bland content that starts eating itself will make the internet unattractive to everyone but the most incurious. The upside is that this will raise the attractiveness of real-life content.
"The upside is that this will raise the attractiveness of real-life content."
Or, it could lower the bar of everybody's expectations. Which could mean the further junk-ification of culture.
Great point! I hope the latter takes over too. So far, it seems it is... I took a "how to use AI class" (mostly just to be a troll). And the reason people use AI was kind of sad. They use it to augment their lack of emotional intelligence and imagination. I found what AI generated to be pretty lame....yet, they were ooh-ing and ah-ing. What AI does is derivative and if it does something unique it's considered hallucinogenic. Its hallucinations (at the moment) are nonsensical as far as I can tell.
Such an important reflection, I wouldn’t feel the same on substack if some people were using AI, I’d look for and hope to find an alternative, a kind of artisan substack.
We humans can actually live with much less coal and nuclear powered electricity generation than AI.
We should just ride bikes, grow vegetables, raise children and play the long game...
;-}