Tonner posted on LinkedIn asked about Substack’s AI scanner and it kind of set me off. As part of this releast, users will be “able to scan text to see how much of it was likely written by hand or with AI assistance.”
The release is a defence against a mismatch of expectations:
‘The problem is when there is a mismatch between a reader’s expectation and reality, especially when they unwittingly invest their attention in something with no human thought on the other end.’
The value is the relationship between creator and audience, which I think is core to good art. Art without contextual positioning and relevance has always been more hollow to me (not hollowed out, just less full) - I find additional impact in knowing what cultural or political or artistic tradition art was created in response to. AI generated art is going to struggle to do this in creative, novel or evocative ways. It will likely feel and act derivative and absent of context.
The argument being put forward by Substack depends on intent though. It actually presupposes that the AI intent is nefarious.
If an AI-generated work is honestly presented as AI-generated, many people would argue there’s no deception.
If you haven’t gathered by now, AI touches most of the work I do. I’m a bad speller. I don’t always have the best sense of rhythm. I don’t want to wire up all the hyperlinks - AI does this.
I think people are grappling with the fact that creativity used to be the result of process (or luck, never underestimate a great work of art by chance) - we used to do creative things, and got creative outcomes.
Now.
You can do non-creative things in a traditional sense (prompt) and (sometimes) get creative outputs (although, probably not often, yet - What 400,000 Essays Reveal About AI and Creativity is a good look at where that line actually sits today).
You shouldn’t say something didn’t involve AI if it did.
We do permit ghost-writers though, all the time. If you think your celebrity crush all of a sudden became a novelist after 45+ years in an unrelated field - isn’t that more disingenuous? (Especially given, in the ghost-writer case, there is a person or persons actually labouring in secret, as opposed to an AI clanker.)
Is the writing still creative, if it didn’t come from a creative process?
I think so, but I think this is going to take some getting used to.