When I started this newsletter over two years ago, AI was just crashing onto the scene. Many of us considered AI with cautious curiosity: If AI could write novels, where did that leave writers?
The issue of generative AI is, of course, much more complex than whether or not it can write novels (and, if it can, how that affects writers and readers). There's evidence of adverse mental health affects of using AI, concern about the data centers required to power AI, and studies that show AI use harming the brain.
I've noticed that online we tend to travel in bubbles, and where AI is concerned there are at least two distinct bubbles. There is the bubble where people think that generative AI is an exciting, new tool to complement their creative workβthat the risks are perhaps worth the potential gains. And there is another bubble where people think that AI flattens the work, harms the environment, steals from other artists, and robs the maker of the joy of creating.
Most of us have been raised up with the idea of progress above everything. That faster is better. That technology is "good." That growth is the ultimate goal. (More shareholder value, more revenue, more consumption.) It can be scary to find yourself in the second bubble. Does this mean you are not forward-thinking? Does it mean you are no longer relevant?
I've wrestled with this. Who wants to be seen as out of touch? But I also know, in my heart of hearts, that art made by humans is what matters to me. I don't want to read work that has been spun through a machine. I want to read stories that came from someone's own dreams and nightmares. I want to read the words that someone struggled over. I like human imperfection.
It's true that AI can be a shortcut. If you're tempted to take the shortcut, ask yourself why. Weigh the cost.
What do you want to see more of in the world? Go make that.