"Great, yet another fucking blog post talking about AI. I bet it's gonna say all the shit everybody else is saying: 'AI is good until it isn't,' 'I don't like AI but you guys are taking it too far,' 'When will AI finally generate good porn?'"
Yeah, I know, this isn't an obscure topic, but that's also precisely why I thought it a perfect second post for Screaming Into The Void. "Does that imply you picked it from a list (asks no one)?" Yes, of course. I have 13 different text documents of ideas I could choose to write into, and that list is only growing. I chose this topic as my first real one because it hit a few good points: I have a lot to say on it (most of that being hot-takes); it's not about depression (not all of the blog is or should be that); and most importantly, it's topical.
Recently, I made a ChatGPT account (sorry for making you spit out your drink). Initially, I did it just so I could include a snide intro in a far more meandering and vitriolic version of this blog post that I'm probably not going to make public for a while (at least not until the blog is more established and people know who I am), but then I remembered ChatGPT is actually fairly adept at HTML+CSS. I'm not sure if I made it clear in my last blog post, but while I do take a bit of pride in my website's clean Adwaita/GTK stolen inspired design, I honestly just view HTML and CSS as a means to an end. I don't hold any of the code or design of my website sacred, in-fact feel free to dig into the files and take whatever you want, I really don't care.
HTML and CSS are rather simple programming languages at their core. All HTML does is define what's on the page, and all CSS does is style it. The only complexity (at least that I've found) comes from the fact that they're both fucking old. That's not to say they're outdated per se, but naturally, technology stops for nothing, and both languages seem to have slowly become convoluted with age. There may technically be no "right" way to build a website, but it sure feels like there are infinite bad ways. "What!? Are you using <center> to center things instead of <div class="center">? THAT'S DEPRECATED! DEP-RE-CATE-TED!!! WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU!?!" It's to the point where it almost FEELS like it was designed specifically to torture pseudo-perfectionists like me who are always aiming for at least a B+ in everything they do…
I think you can probably guess how AI is about to fit into this picture.
—No, ChatGPT did not write this blog post, that'd defeat the purpose of the blog entirely. But ChatGPT has had a SIGNIFICANT impact on pretty much everything surrounding said text. Was it as simple as "Step 1: Ask ChatGPT for a website, Step 2: Profit"? No. In fact it took like 4 days cumulatively of Hyper-fixation Hell to get where we are now, where the website is at least passable UX-wise. Simple, but at least it's a hell of a lot better than "PawsturbaitingFagatron's" Neocities page – Lookin' like if a rainbow and an overpriced Macintosh had an abortion, littered with word-diarrhea that makes you want to kill yourself.
What was I going on about again? Oh, right, AI: My approach to ChatGPT, and what I believe to be the correct approach to AI, is to view it as a collaborator. In other words, it has a role – maybe numerous roles – but ultimately, I'm still head of the project. The AI can suggest code or concepts, but I have the final say on everything, and pretty much all of its output is filtered through me. In other words: It was a very iterative process, like any other project. I knew what I wanted, it was just a matter of getting there. And that's what AI specializes in: Getting you there faster than guesswork or googling. I'd say "yet another tool in the toolbox," but ChatGPT isn't useless enough to just be a tool – Unless you classify everybody you commission anything from as a "tool."
Frankly, whether you're willing to admit it directly or have to admit it indirectly through "ethical concerns": Current generation AI models are human enough now that we can treat them as more than just toys – We're past the point of Eviebot now. I can already say AI is more competent than most of you motherfuckers are at writing, at least, and given enough time, it may even be able to match my writing style on more than just a superficial level. And I am not worried about that day at all.
That may come as a shock to some of you. Though I'm frankly not sure if I even know what passion feels like, writing is the closest thing I have right now, and as I've already acknowledged ChatGPT already writes at a higher level than most do. To be honest, given enough time and iterations and feedback, I could probably help ChatGPT write a book that'd probably sell infinitely better than the one I'm writing right now. However, this is where AI's humanity (or rather emulation of humanity) comes into effect. At the end of the day, ChatGPT is not me. It's the weights and biases of endless samples, much in the same way I am, but its training data isn't mine. Admittedly, it could probably emulate me fairly closely if you gave it an overview of my life and access to tons of samples of my writing, but that's still not me, and at some level – maybe even subconsciously – people will always know the difference. And I'm confident that the people who matter most will always prefer real mental illness over simulated mental illness.
Of course, that particular defense works well when all you're worried about is competing against generative AI creatively. What about in the job market? Frankly: I don't think most of us should be worried there either. Yes, it may seem shitty as a voice actor, having to work for less because now you're competing against the cost of electricity for keeping the voice-acting machine brr'ing, but most of you motherfuckers are overpaid anyway but stop and think of the broader picture for a moment: Who's going to voice the AI? It needs samples. What if you just selectively license out your voice to AI-utilizing companies, but demand a commission for all commercial use? Congratulations: You're still making money. And now that you no longer have to even go into the studio as often; you can just sit on your ass and let the money print. You now have plenty of time to invest in other ventures, including podcasts, streaming, masturbating – Whatever floats your boat. Newsflash: Efficiency is not a zero-sum game. When time is saved, that means that it's free to go elsewhere. Economists have a term for this, but I'm not an economist, and I don't care. I am also not an academic source, and after my miserable time in college, I want nothing to do with the academic method ever again. Sources aren't the basis of all logic, observation is, and this is my logic based on my observations.
Speaking of which: While browsing the more plasticity-straining side of YouTube, I came across a video that pretty much says everything that I could even imagine to say about the topic of AI art in particular. As you can tell from this article, I don't really care too much about whether AI art is art or not or whatever, because art is subjective anyway and I subjectively chose to not care, but LiquidZulu does, and he goes into extreme (almost meandering) depth on everything. Frankly, he really needs to work on being concise, but his points themselves are solid and well-thought-out. Before you get r'arded: No, this is not an endorsement of his entire YouTube channel or every single action he has or will ever commit, I'm just giving my endorsement for this singular solid video.
Since I know not all of you have the time to watch an obese 2-hour long video, here's a summary generated by ChatGPT and a transcript of the YouTube video, acquired from a 3rd-party service, and of course the output was edited by hand to fix a few minor misinterpretations and improve flow and clarity (Fitting, I know):
🔍 Summary: In Defense of AI Art (TL;DW)
Main Claims Addressed:
- AI art "steals" from human artists
- AI art causes job loss and is ethically problematic
- AI art isn’t "real art" or lacks creativity
Counterpoints Explored in the Video:
- Inspiration ≠Theft: Theft involves depriving someone of a scarce resource. Artistic ideas aren’t scarce. You can't steal that which is infinitely reproducible.
- Plagiarism Myth: Diffusion models don’t “remember” or store training images, they store statistical weights and biases. The outputs are not stitched-together collages but entirely new images generated from noise via learned patterns.
- “Learning by Reference” is Human Too: Humans also learn by seeing and referencing – same as AI. We don’t call it theft when an artist imitates Van Gogh’s brush strokes or the general characteristics of an ogre.
- Replication is Rare: The possibility that an AI might accidentally (vaguely) replicate a training image exists (i.e. overfitting), but larger, more diverse datasets (like Stable Diffusion's) make this statistically insignificant. More training data = less overfitting.
- Photobashing Hypocrisy: Ironically, human artists often photobash directly (e.g., from Google or royalty-free Images), while AIs mathematically can't without storing source data – which they don’t.
- AI Isn't Following the Artistic Process: Critics argue AI doesn’t “understand” like humans do, and thus the output is fundamentally different to a human artwork. But lack of conscious awareness doesn’t invalidate the process, nor the results.
- Photography Analogy: Like early photography, AI art is disruptive. But disruption ≠invalidation. The video argues this is a historic pattern – new mediums threaten old ones, but art – and society as a whole – adapts and grows.
- “AI isn't original” is Contradictory: Critics claim AI art is both “soulless and meaningless” AND “stealing from brilliant human works.” It can't be both entirely derivative and entirely alien at the same time.
Conclusion: The video defends the legitimacy of AI-generated art as a new medium and an augmentation, not necessarily as a replacement. Ethical concerns are better directed at how tools are used (e.g., corporate abuse, exploitative practices), not the existence of the tools themselves.
If you actually have the time to watch the full video, though, I'd still recommend it. Those bullet points do a good job at summarizing it quickly and efficiently, but if you find yourself not fully comprehending any of the points, you'll want to watch the video.
With all that, though, that's pretty much all I have to say currently on the topic of AI. I could hypothetically go on for even longer, naming and shaming particular overzealous AI critics and refuting even more points, but LiquidZulu really did eat my lunch there. But my entire point is: Artists will have to adapt, but the benefits to society as a whole will be worth it in the end. Those who refuse to adapt deserve whatever comes to them. And those who try to fight the evolution of technology just because it might force them to change are no better than the Luddites who fought against the industrial revolution. Future generations will not give a fuck about "lost jobs," they'll be enjoying the benefits of a more advanced society. But as for right now: I'm enjoying the benefits myself. Six months of struggling with HTML and CSS? Skipped. Hours of careful note taking and summarization? Skipped. If this is the future, I accept it—and anyone who won’t can enjoy being left behind. — Crigence (aided by ChatGPT)