So, the hot topic of the moment is AI (Artificial Intelligence), and using AI to create art and web content in general; what does it mean? Should it be allowed? Should it be allowed, on Hive? Should it be clearly marked as what it is? What value does it have? Is AI going to render humans irrelevant in the creation of content?
We find ourselves asking a lot of seemingly relevant questions while perhaps skipping over some of the relatively obvious but at the same time overlooked questions.
For most people, I expect any kind of final verdict an AI is still out with the jury. And yet? We already frequently interact with AI and one form or another.
Heck, let me stick my neck out here, and admit that this post was created "partially using AI."
WHAT????
I say that, because whereas everything in this post was definitely the result of my own original thoughts, HOWEVER, the words as you see them on this page are partly the result of speech-to-text technology… and isn't that just another form of AI? Let's consider:
The voice recognition software gradually becomes more adept at recognizing my voice, my word choice patterns, and the odd expressions I use, as a result of which there are fewer and fewer typos I have to fix at the end. So, technically speaking, I used AI to create this post. There's machine learning involved, here.
Yes, I know, that's not exactly what we're talking about here.
I'm just starting off this diatribe with that little "admission" to point out that the lines are typically more blurred than we think.
Not so long ago, 
She started with some sketches and photographs of her own creation, used Night Café to give them a dreamlike quality using AI according to a very specific rule set specified by her, and then spent hours and hours tweaking that result into what she finally wanted, digitally — but essentially ”by hand.”
Again, the lines are blurred.
Was AI involved? Definitely! But the AI was a tool, much as a PhotoShop "brush" is simply a tool for a graphic artist.
As I contemplate the AI debate, I find that the most fundamental question that comes to my mind is "what is your intention?" What are we doing? What is it we want the end result to be?
It all brings to mind discussions we had back on ”Hive 1.0” in which we were debating whether the repository of information that was being distributed and accumulated through our blogs was contributing to the ”Internet of information” or the ”Internet of PEOPLE.”
Again: What is your intention?
It's a question that's perhaps very difficult to answer in a global sense because it ultimately boils down to the interest of the individual. And even that can be a moving target.
What exactly is it that AI does? What does it provide? What does it add or subtract?
If my intention is to find instructions on how to replace a certain engine part on my 1997 Nissan, I would definitely like to be assisted by AI which is able to collect an aggregation of information about replacing that particular part on the 1997 Nissan. In that instance I'm looking for information. The human factor is somewhat secondary.
HOWEVER, AI can't describe the feeling of watching your kid play soccer. AI can't describe what it's like to hold and pet an adorable kitten. AI can't describe the texture of a rock you're sitting on at the beach. AI doesn't know what it feels like to make the first sale for your new business. AI can't describe the flavor of a perfect cup of cocoa.
Some might protest this particular line of thinking since AI has access to ALL information, but let's consider the essentail fact is that what AI does is gather aggregate of external experiences and present a plausible summary of what any one of those feelings might be. However none of those examples would be described through direct experience.
And so, we come back to our personal intentions and preference. Speaking only for myself, the primary reason I blog is for the human content rather than the informational content. I care more about people's stories and *experiences than about numbers on a page.
I neither agree nor disagree strongly, but I find myself wanting characterize the underlying idea that we're ultimately each driven by ”whatever it takes,” to have and maintain our personal sense of reality. Much of human experience will show us that it's an approach that leads to a giant free-for-all that quickly decays into little more than chaos… and we end up with a situation where nobody wins.
I've seen a few people talk about AI in the same context as the issue we had with bid bots in the past.
In a sense I'm in alignment with that because it closes in on an important issue: perhaps what we're really looking at isn't so much to do with effort or money or who's trying to beat the system… as it is to do with the unpleasant swampland between various forms of deception and openly transparent honesty.
Consider, for example, that when something shows up at the top of your Twitter or Facebook feed much of the time your initial interest and curiosity that it could be something really interesting is substantially tempered by the fact that there is a small note next to it that says ”promoted content.”
I have no issue with promoted content, and I also had little issue with bid bots, BUT I take considerable issue with the basic reality that promoted content that is not labeled as such essentially amounts to a deception.
When the whole bid bot debate originally broke out, and people were up in arms over the fact that some elements of the community were effectively "buying their way into the trending feed" the parallel that always came to mind was that of an author who publishes a book and then creates the false illusion that it's a Best Seller by going to every bookstore they can find and buying 100 copies of their own book.
It's basically a deception.
Publishing blog content created by an AI chatbot and not letting people know that it was created by an AI chatbot is also a form of deception. That's where we get into the whole issue of whether something borders on the edge of becoming a scam.
Before you protest too loudly... consider whether you'd really buy that t-bone steak if it were actually synthesized from cricket protein in a factory, but not labeled as such?
And so we uncork another of the much discussed pet topics of Hivelandia: Value and Quality Content.
Personally, I am not — and generally haven't been — a big fan of the concept of ”quality content.”
For starters, it is very subjective... but moreover, I can't help but think back to my college days (40 years ago - yikes) and creative writing courses in which fairly wise creative writing professors with lifelong authoring and publishing experience would point out that if you go to your local bookstore, less than 2% of what is on the shelves actually constitutes ”literature quality” writing.
Everything else is basically Pulp. But it's popular pulp; it's the pulp people want to read; it's the pulp people actually pick up and take to the cash register and then lay on the beach during their vacation and read.
”Does it add VALUE?” has always been a far more relevant question for me.
So does AI add value?
Again, isn't that a highly individualized and subjective question?
Which brings me full circle back to what I brought up earlier: perhaps this isn't so much an issue of "AI" or "not AI," as it is an issue of ”truth in labeling.” In most cases, I don't give a flip how you came about your content, but I want to know where you came about it: out of your brain, or our of a machine.
Is this your personal experience? Or is it your research project? Or did you actually have nothing to do with the creation of it?
We're expected to credit, label and source images/illustrations, so why would the content, itself, be subject to any different requirements?
If you wanna get technical about it, let's consider digital ownership.
Who owns the content? If you didn't write it — let's say AI did — then it's not really your content, is it? Then if it's not really your content, then perhaps I don't particularly want to give you my vote unless I know that you're going share that money with the AI... yes, I know that's technically speaking impossible but I'm making a point... because otherwise you're practicing a deception and that is perhaps the central issue here.
It's not just "Proof of Brain," but "Proof of WHO'S Brain." Or brains, artificial or otherwise.
Why do I keep bringing deception and transparency into the discussion?
Communities that try to run on — or even tolerate — deception as a way of life tend to have a way of collapsing on themselves. We see that whether it revolves around politics, or something much smaller like a local community organization, or even something as really super local as a marriage or partnership.
Lying is bad, m'kay?
Thanks for stopping by, and have a great remainder of your week!
Comments, feedback and other interaction is invited and welcomed! Because — after all — SOCIAL content is about interacting, right? Leave a comment — share your experiences — be part of the conversation! I do my best to answer comments, even if it sometimes takes a few days!
Greetings bloggers and social content creators! This article was created via PeakD, a blogging application that's part of the Hive Social Content Experience. If you're a blogger, writer, poet, artist, vlogger, musician or other creative content wizard, come join us! Hive is a little "different" because it's not run by a "company;" it operates via the consensus of its users and your content can't be banned, censored, taken down or demonetized. And that COUNTS for something, in these uncertain times! So if you're ready for the next generation of social content where YOU retain ownership and control, come by and learn about Hive and make an account!
Proud member of the Silver Bloggers Community on Hive!
(As usual, all text and images by the author, unless otherwise credited. This is original content, created expressly and uniquely for this platform — NOT cross posted anywhere else!)
Created at 2023-03-07 23:39 PST
0763/2018
