To what degree can we discount someone's creative process given that, somewhen, they used AI in an event related to it?
So this is a contentious question, rather than a controversial opinion, but I do believe there exists a valid conversation here that doesn't end with the often black-and-white manner of thinking that isn't giving this discussion the nuance I think it necessitates. There are three topics underlying these following heated takes that I want to open up based on personal musing.
"AI is here to stay, and you would be left behind if you don't start using it".
"Generating pictures and texts through AI prompt engineering makes someone an artist."
"Any use of AI by a creative in their process and expression is automatically debased, if not totally invalid, regarding their status."
I think those three points are the extremes I've been seeing recently about the way AI use and the creative process interact. I do think AI use is prevalent enough (and rising even) that it warrants an exchange beyond outright cancellation. But being clear, the prevalence of something does not make something excusable, it simply means we have to figure out the reasons why an ethically controversial thing is so prevalent.
So I'm first discussing how I engage with those three talking points. I disagree with the first idea because it is a bit of... technocratic bullying under the guise of pragmatism—meaning you can be perfectly fine not using AI for your process and you will not be none the wiser for it—and it presumes this dichotomy that you either float or sink in a technological advance. By all means, an imperfect analogy as it is, people who learn to play instruments, use physical paint, how to navigate a library, and still write on paper aren't sinking just because electronic music, digital art, Google, and Microsoft Word exist. They can even use both. The only way I see this is close to valid is if we compare massive calculations being done by hand is far more impractical than just letting Python do it, and yet even still that does not prove invalidity for the others I mentioned because calculation is not as defined by its process as the prior examples are.
The second point is something I've been sitting with and circling around my hands because I believe there exists a limit here based on the very rigorous metric we call "effort". Now, sarcasm receded, what does "effort" mean? Since we do agree that a person using digital tools to create sounds we traditionally attribute to instruments counts as "making music", what was preserved there when we transitioned from instrument-played to computer-played? I would guess... someone was still thinking how which sounds go well together, how would they arrange that, how it captures a vision they intended, and what's going on through that whole process. Which is what I would say is the difference between a good project director and someone who engineers prompts to produce images and texts. A movie director, hopefully, understands a lot of the goings-on in the cast, producers, staff, and they would have the humility to not call a movie to be their piece of art in an ownership sense, especially solely.
Someone on Reddit compared a person prompting images from an AI to be more of a commisioner than the artist themselves, and to that, I personally agree. Now I do see the discussion opening up to the possibility of someone using prompts with intention to produce a result they understand the mechanisms of, and yet I have a hard time agreeing. It is possible it is related to the ick I get when an imaginary director would say 'this is *my* movie', but this may cross more into the realm of personal bias than it does my attempt of precise argumentation.
Moving on the remaining talking point and arguably the main one I want to discuss, to what degree can a creative person use AI such that it remains their own creative process?
I believe this is the most controversial one because it actually changes how we understand the creative process and what counts as "original". The simple notion of AI being a spell-checking tool has been met with oppositions that self-reviewing a work is part of the writing process and you are automatically discounted as a creator if an AI did that for you even once.
Now, personally, I have gripes with using AI to edit one's writing to make it more polished because a lot of the voice of someone gets lost in that; a lot of the creative process is the intent to express and convey a message. So in the event of an editing, I'd say one would have to rewrite that text once more in one's voice just to convey the specific message back. Moreover, I do think drafting your own messy dialogues and finding other people to talk to and use that as inspiration should remain the preferred option.
However, I have used AI before. Not in drafting or editing, and I've even instructed the AI I use to not give me any suggestions. Because I do enjoy making intuitive connections and build worlds in my head, even if they are derivative from people like Tolkien, Pullman, or Gaiman. But I have used it before as a way to hear my own ideas, or when I finish a work, I ask it questions I know answers to just to under the guise of asking about a separate author to see if my intent came across. Later on, I ask my friends and peers to review that same finished work and I edit it myself after based on their thoughts. But I will not deny I enjoy the validation hit I get from just the simulation of receiving feedback initially, especially when people just aren't willing to read your story or you haven't found your audience.
So if I do that and still am defensive that I could still call this my own process, what about others who use it as well in ways I don't agree with? Because I see how my process can be seen as not my own anymore if I let an AI give me standardized feedback, even if I don't listen to it. What and to what degree is the difference now? Is this gonna be like how a director is still an artist and yet cannot call a project their own, since the "reviews" given at first were a collation of a large number of other creative works?
Many of you reading have realized that this is why I opened up this discussion, and yet I don't want this to come off as *just* a defensive undertaking, but rather a way to understand the limits of how should AI be used and hearing what people's thoughts on this general Because reiterating the introducing points, the prevalence of AI use is apparent, so I don't think treating creatives who use it as moral pariahs is gonna be lucrative or fair for long, but at the same time we can't just let this all happen some agreed ethical boundaries.
I guess this leaves me with a conclusion (and a TL;DR) that doesn't cover much practically, but something for my own peace of mind and closure. That we're in a state of transition, I guess, with how complex, silently grey, and extreme it feels with this topic. AI responsibility, regulation, and ethics are in a nascent stage institutionally, individually, and culturally, and it's gonna shake up what it means to be creative for a while. Much the same, or even more intense, than the transition from physical to digital.
PS: Fitting for the discussion, I did not use AI at all, whether to edit this or review this. I'm getting over an addiction, after all, and I thought why not subject myself to Reddit instead of using AI to validate a musing. Though I do hope this has good faith engagement.