What's that all about?
Those are the two hot words in AI-generated content coverage. It LOOKS to me like objectively good content, that’s objective and churn-able. Ugh. Those words are kinda backhanded towards Ai journalism and I wanted to give a more optimistic take if you will. Honestly, I'm curious about the whole thing even as someone who might one day be a journalist and also get fucked by the whole ai shtick. Is there something an AI can never accomplish the way a human can? Given time, not necessarily.
But it’s also not necessitated by their nature. It’s natureless by form and origin, even if we train it to think and eat and breathe, none of it, its very existence isn’t necessary. It’s orchestrated by creators. And setting aside the proverbial god’s existence, our’s isn’t. Ours is fuelled by desire, need and want or something something the hierarchy of needs. I feel like this is a roundabout way of saying soul, necessitated by emotions and desire, and it’s incredibly basic, the same way I over flower and frivolous-ise my description of having too strong a hook being a negative for filler, when it could have been summed by “filler doesn’t add or work towards a tangible goal”
My point was to remove the tangible goal and make the filler more important, but that was a lot of words for ultimately a pretty tame shift in philosophy when writing. But will machines be able to match this irrationally erratic way of writing I do? I’d bet on it.
But even as “all is lost”, you’ll never produce enough content to be replicated. The AI won’t know the time you stubbed your toe and had a stuffy nose when you wrote a dizzyingly incoherent pile of rubble, or your insecurities when you felt you had to give and give and never take or you’ll be discarded if you already weren’t. It wasn’t there for when your friend told you something perspective-changing, or what said friend went through.
If you live like maybe a couple aeons and produce enough varied content that you start sounding repetitive, maybe? But also no, each year the formula that makes up your brain changes bit by bit, the years shed your cells and new ones take their place until the cells that made you you years ago are no longer there, replaced by patchwork cells. Does that mean the old you is dead? I don’t feel so, but there’s a case to be made. And if the case is made, you’re constantly dying and being reborn, so you’ll never be able to be replicated. YOU won’t at least. Not everything that ever happens to you is catalogued into the AI’s database, and how intangible the effects shift your psyche and style. I don’t think you can be replicated. But yeah you can be “beat” in the eyes of others by the pure artistry of mass-inputted AI masterpieces. But not beat at being you.
So should we all despair? On the payment and company side yeah I think so. But the ethics, the origin and the place from which the art comes from can’t be replicated. That might be something to hold onto.
