“Is the slow death of creativity not the slow death of being human?” An existential question. To look at the human from an AI point of view is perhaps to witness the irrelevance of creative thinking? Such an interesting turnabout to find fair play, and the question, if AI “plagiarizes” human output, what arises as “authentic perspective” to share? An “unplagiarised”
Thanks for the great comment! I have no proper answer for what exact extent AI can be used so that something is not plagiarism, other than the absolute detestation of voiceovers and thumbnails created by AI which I mentioned in the post, but I seem to have a general feeling that the more an AI input there is on a human creative endeavour (in things like writing books and even speeches and presentations) the more diluted from true humanity it seems to be.
In my philosophy concerning AI and human creativity, absolute humanity seems to be my ideal and AI is the antithesis. Thus, the more an AI has influenced a book, an idea, a poem (something a human has made) the more diluted and wrong it feels.
Of course I do believe that AI is beneficial in many ways to society as well, such as for learning and understanding concepts easily, but there is of course a fine line of where AI telling you things becomes more of what you write about and what you base your writing on which "dilutes" it, as I say.
It seems we have opened a complex Pandora's box with AI. Could it be inevitable that human creativity, though it can never completely die, will always be damaged by AI as long as it exists given that many things humans create may have some AI influence?
There is also the larger existential question about whether it is already too late - are large swaths of creativity already dead? What if AI has become so wide spread in new thoughts and ideas that the way they have developed in their present forms are actually the result of people talking to AI and thinking of new things using it? How many new ideas and books could be inspired by AI second or third-hand, thus making them less human?
Never has it been more important to shut off the screens and study the classics! The future with AI and deepfakes seems like a world where we cannot trust the internet anymore, and a world in which we can no longer as efficiently things across the world as we can now, some mini dark age? Or maybe I am just catastrophising, but this is worth a thought.
Your reply is deep and deeply appreciated. Those of us who enjoy discourse treasure the classics and the minds that created them. As AI dilutes human creativity from full expression, whether hybridized or in total surrender, we must question the course of navigation for meaning. Philosophical AI is to attribute meaning, but by what synthesized system? “The ‘what’ must have a ‘why?’ “ comes to mind (or was that AI?:)) Not a user in writing with this accomplice, I do have concerns about human flourishing. You are amazingly prescient in watching this and your writing essential.
Thank you for your comments and your appreciation of my work. If you are interested in this topic, read my older post titled: "Should AI be making us unable to read?" where I cover the use of AI in replacement of book-learning. There is suddenly a lot to consider in the terms of this new machine which has landed on our shores, and thinking about it deeply is certainly appropriate.
I would also like to edit this post and copy and paste my first reply to your comment in a "further thoughts" section of this post so people can see my expanded philosophy on AI and human creativity too, would you give me permission to use your name in it in order to thank you for this conversation? I will leave any mention of you out if you do not wish to be seen directly in the post.
“Is the slow death of creativity not the slow death of being human?” An existential question. To look at the human from an AI point of view is perhaps to witness the irrelevance of creative thinking? Such an interesting turnabout to find fair play, and the question, if AI “plagiarizes” human output, what arises as “authentic perspective” to share? An “unplagiarised”
question…
Thanks for the great comment! I have no proper answer for what exact extent AI can be used so that something is not plagiarism, other than the absolute detestation of voiceovers and thumbnails created by AI which I mentioned in the post, but I seem to have a general feeling that the more an AI input there is on a human creative endeavour (in things like writing books and even speeches and presentations) the more diluted from true humanity it seems to be.
In my philosophy concerning AI and human creativity, absolute humanity seems to be my ideal and AI is the antithesis. Thus, the more an AI has influenced a book, an idea, a poem (something a human has made) the more diluted and wrong it feels.
Of course I do believe that AI is beneficial in many ways to society as well, such as for learning and understanding concepts easily, but there is of course a fine line of where AI telling you things becomes more of what you write about and what you base your writing on which "dilutes" it, as I say.
It seems we have opened a complex Pandora's box with AI. Could it be inevitable that human creativity, though it can never completely die, will always be damaged by AI as long as it exists given that many things humans create may have some AI influence?
There is also the larger existential question about whether it is already too late - are large swaths of creativity already dead? What if AI has become so wide spread in new thoughts and ideas that the way they have developed in their present forms are actually the result of people talking to AI and thinking of new things using it? How many new ideas and books could be inspired by AI second or third-hand, thus making them less human?
Never has it been more important to shut off the screens and study the classics! The future with AI and deepfakes seems like a world where we cannot trust the internet anymore, and a world in which we can no longer as efficiently things across the world as we can now, some mini dark age? Or maybe I am just catastrophising, but this is worth a thought.
I hope this is not too long of a reply,
The Everything Scholar
Your reply is deep and deeply appreciated. Those of us who enjoy discourse treasure the classics and the minds that created them. As AI dilutes human creativity from full expression, whether hybridized or in total surrender, we must question the course of navigation for meaning. Philosophical AI is to attribute meaning, but by what synthesized system? “The ‘what’ must have a ‘why?’ “ comes to mind (or was that AI?:)) Not a user in writing with this accomplice, I do have concerns about human flourishing. You are amazingly prescient in watching this and your writing essential.
Thank you for your comments and your appreciation of my work. If you are interested in this topic, read my older post titled: "Should AI be making us unable to read?" where I cover the use of AI in replacement of book-learning. There is suddenly a lot to consider in the terms of this new machine which has landed on our shores, and thinking about it deeply is certainly appropriate.
I would also like to edit this post and copy and paste my first reply to your comment in a "further thoughts" section of this post so people can see my expanded philosophy on AI and human creativity too, would you give me permission to use your name in it in order to thank you for this conversation? I will leave any mention of you out if you do not wish to be seen directly in the post.
Thanks,
The Everything Scholar
You are welcome to use my name.