Bravo. Authenticity rules and phoniness rules. In a world where the dignity of the human person continues to diminish, it’s refreshing to see a stand for humanity.
My hope is, as it pertains to the arts, that just like individuals pay more for organic food raised without pesticides, so too will readers for art made by living, breathing human beings.
I think we will still enjoy watching humans run even when robots can run faster. The problem with the arts and literature is that it’s a cultural item that’s often ALREADY disconnected from the human producing it. Singing or even playing an instrument (live) will still be safe from AI, mostly (I hope).
But anything you consume without direct contact with a human should have a “made by a human” stamp as Eric and you suggested. If we managed to have movements for animal rights, we should at least have one for human beings!
The idea of a badge I support wholeheartedly. What’s hard to figure out is how much use of AI can remain under “made by a human”? (like sounding board is okay, but style is too much and grammar correction is on the edge?)
Curious to hear what you think, I am not sure yet.
This reminds me of the "No animals were harmed during filming" badge. As I try to show in my last post about Materialism, as soon as you specify a threshold too precisely, people will find way to circumvent whatever you were aiming for.
I think this will have to be a moveable threshold with each industry and generation defining the standard and staying open to corrections based on the reaction of the consumers and authors.
I can't tell you how this essay touched me. You did the right thing - yes, of course! sometimes high mindedness is the right thing! - and to have done it by drawing on Montaigne is a powerful gesture. The idea of Montaigne being 'revised and simplified' by AI makes me feel nauseous. The whole point of Montaigne is to follow this man, this long-ago, witty, self-deprecating, flawed human being, in his reflective, narrative and humanistic strolling.
Simplifying, robotifiying culture - the classics, but also the moderns - is like removing the roots of a tree and calling it tidying.
In its own way - and thankfully without the tragic outcome - the vision of your choice reminds me of the last words written by that other great French humanist, Antoine de Saint Exupéry, pilot and writer. The night before he set off for his last mission, in July 1944, he wrote several letters. In two of them, he rejected the robotic, spiritually starving world that he saw being built under his feet and all around him, and advocated for a spiritual renewal (he was, as Montaigne, an agnostic; but his vision of culture was a spiritual one.)
To the General Chambe, he wrote:
"General, there is but one problem, a single one in the whole world. How to give back to humans spiritual meaning, spiritual concerns, to rain on them something that sounds like a Gregorian chant. We can’t live off fridges, politics, reports and crosswords, you know! We can no longer live without poetry, colour or love. Just by hearing a 15th Century village song, we can measure the slope we have slipped down. Nothing remains but the voice of the robot, the voice of propaganda. Two billion men hear nothing else but the robot, understand nothing but the robot, and turn themselves into robots. "
And to his friend Pierre Dalloz:
"If I fall, I will regret absolutely nothing. The coming termit mound appals me. And I hate their robot virtue. I was made to be a gardener."
There's a reason why culture refers both to growing things and to creating art, literature and ways of thinking: both are forms of gardening - slow, deliberate, hard work, demanding patience and perspiration. Until AI machines learn how to get their hands dirty in the soil, their backs sweaty in the sun, they won't be making anything grow, far less anything that can sustain humans, but will be cutting off the roots of the trees in our forests and gardens.
AI will be part of the writer’s value chain. It’s already happened. What is up for grabs is where the moral and legal lines will lie. This essay was an effective exploration of your position. I respect it and I’ll consider it as I configure my own lines.
I think AI-mediated non-fiction books that let readers dial the detail up or down depending on their needs and query the book with questions and clarifications will be a worthwhile experiment I’d like to see run.
The search volume for ChatGPT trends very closely with the academic year. You see a dip every summer, and a dip every winter around the holidays when students are on break. If Google Search data is representative, nearly half of ChatGPT usage could be from students.
You got my subscription. For clarity on purposes of AI, and also for transparency about income and lifestyle. Most people are cagey about their income.
It is staggering to me that 95% of writers agreed to selling out to AI. Kudos to you, not just for turning down a significant amount of money, but for sending a clear message on the immeasurable value of human authenticity. My husband Peco recently wrote a piece that called upon Substack to take a position with regard to AI-created content in order to protect its "creator's economy" and the trust of its readership https://pilgrimsinthemachine.substack.com/p/the-ai-curse-is-coming-for-the-creators. Thanks for your work Erik!
The debate on whether AI generated content deserves as much attention as authentic writing seems orthogonal to debating whether a contemporary minimalist painting deserves as much attention as a renaissance masterpiece requiring extensive skill and effort. In both cases, the answer imo feels like no, where no to 'as much attention' != no to any attention at all. A better question is probably which will be Lindy? - that seems more certainly to be in favor of the skilled output in both cases. It is more probable that people 10, 20, 50+ years from now will be sharing intrinsic perspective posts/authentic content vs AI content.
And I, too (an ad-free blogger whose 15 years of content have undoubtedly been feeding atoms to the AI beast for free) have thought of the "grass-fed beef"-like label for authentic human content, only the model I thought of was "non-GMO." I cannot believe 95% of the writers offered this rotten apple seized it. Names, we want names!!
Yes, Vonnegut *did* stoop over ridiculously when he wrote. Not sure where I learned that. Probably the “unstuck in time” documentary, which I heartily recommend. (I would have made the cynical justification, “The AI book club will be shit. I’m practically stealing their money.” I’m a terrible person.)
Just want to say:
1. Can you imagine the experience of buying a Saab from Kurt Vonnegut?
2. That’s definitely the kind of anecdote you only get from a human writer
Bravo. Authenticity rules and phoniness rules. In a world where the dignity of the human person continues to diminish, it’s refreshing to see a stand for humanity.
My hope is, as it pertains to the arts, that just like individuals pay more for organic food raised without pesticides, so too will readers for art made by living, breathing human beings.
Drools***
I think we will still enjoy watching humans run even when robots can run faster. The problem with the arts and literature is that it’s a cultural item that’s often ALREADY disconnected from the human producing it. Singing or even playing an instrument (live) will still be safe from AI, mostly (I hope).
But anything you consume without direct contact with a human should have a “made by a human” stamp as Eric and you suggested. If we managed to have movements for animal rights, we should at least have one for human beings!
The idea of a badge I support wholeheartedly. What’s hard to figure out is how much use of AI can remain under “made by a human”? (like sounding board is okay, but style is too much and grammar correction is on the edge?)
Curious to hear what you think, I am not sure yet.
This reminds me of the "No animals were harmed during filming" badge. As I try to show in my last post about Materialism, as soon as you specify a threshold too precisely, people will find way to circumvent whatever you were aiming for.
I think this will have to be a moveable threshold with each industry and generation defining the standard and staying open to corrections based on the reaction of the consumers and authors.
Good point, leaves room for exploration, too.
We're eagerly turning our only global public space into an uncanny valley of ghosts, and I despise it. Well done Erik, stay strong.
I can't tell you how this essay touched me. You did the right thing - yes, of course! sometimes high mindedness is the right thing! - and to have done it by drawing on Montaigne is a powerful gesture. The idea of Montaigne being 'revised and simplified' by AI makes me feel nauseous. The whole point of Montaigne is to follow this man, this long-ago, witty, self-deprecating, flawed human being, in his reflective, narrative and humanistic strolling.
Simplifying, robotifiying culture - the classics, but also the moderns - is like removing the roots of a tree and calling it tidying.
In its own way - and thankfully without the tragic outcome - the vision of your choice reminds me of the last words written by that other great French humanist, Antoine de Saint Exupéry, pilot and writer. The night before he set off for his last mission, in July 1944, he wrote several letters. In two of them, he rejected the robotic, spiritually starving world that he saw being built under his feet and all around him, and advocated for a spiritual renewal (he was, as Montaigne, an agnostic; but his vision of culture was a spiritual one.)
To the General Chambe, he wrote:
"General, there is but one problem, a single one in the whole world. How to give back to humans spiritual meaning, spiritual concerns, to rain on them something that sounds like a Gregorian chant. We can’t live off fridges, politics, reports and crosswords, you know! We can no longer live without poetry, colour or love. Just by hearing a 15th Century village song, we can measure the slope we have slipped down. Nothing remains but the voice of the robot, the voice of propaganda. Two billion men hear nothing else but the robot, understand nothing but the robot, and turn themselves into robots. "
And to his friend Pierre Dalloz:
"If I fall, I will regret absolutely nothing. The coming termit mound appals me. And I hate their robot virtue. I was made to be a gardener."
There's a reason why culture refers both to growing things and to creating art, literature and ways of thinking: both are forms of gardening - slow, deliberate, hard work, demanding patience and perspiration. Until AI machines learn how to get their hands dirty in the soil, their backs sweaty in the sun, they won't be making anything grow, far less anything that can sustain humans, but will be cutting off the roots of the trees in our forests and gardens.
AI will be part of the writer’s value chain. It’s already happened. What is up for grabs is where the moral and legal lines will lie. This essay was an effective exploration of your position. I respect it and I’ll consider it as I configure my own lines.
I think AI-mediated non-fiction books that let readers dial the detail up or down depending on their needs and query the book with questions and clarifications will be a worthwhile experiment I’d like to see run.
Your throwaway claim that we're "near the peak of AI hype" prompted me to check the Google Trends for ChatGPT, and I noticed an interesting pattern:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=chatgpt&hl=en
The search volume for ChatGPT trends very closely with the academic year. You see a dip every summer, and a dip every winter around the holidays when students are on break. If Google Search data is representative, nearly half of ChatGPT usage could be from students.
You got my subscription. For clarity on purposes of AI, and also for transparency about income and lifestyle. Most people are cagey about their income.
I'll echo the bravos and sentiments expressed below. And thanks for reminding me of The House of Sand and Fog.
"A principle is not a principle until it costs you". Chapeau bas.
It is staggering to me that 95% of writers agreed to selling out to AI. Kudos to you, not just for turning down a significant amount of money, but for sending a clear message on the immeasurable value of human authenticity. My husband Peco recently wrote a piece that called upon Substack to take a position with regard to AI-created content in order to protect its "creator's economy" and the trust of its readership https://pilgrimsinthemachine.substack.com/p/the-ai-curse-is-coming-for-the-creators. Thanks for your work Erik!
The debate on whether AI generated content deserves as much attention as authentic writing seems orthogonal to debating whether a contemporary minimalist painting deserves as much attention as a renaissance masterpiece requiring extensive skill and effort. In both cases, the answer imo feels like no, where no to 'as much attention' != no to any attention at all. A better question is probably which will be Lindy? - that seems more certainly to be in favor of the skilled output in both cases. It is more probable that people 10, 20, 50+ years from now will be sharing intrinsic perspective posts/authentic content vs AI content.
YES. THIS. THANK YOU.
And I, too (an ad-free blogger whose 15 years of content have undoubtedly been feeding atoms to the AI beast for free) have thought of the "grass-fed beef"-like label for authentic human content, only the model I thought of was "non-GMO." I cannot believe 95% of the writers offered this rotten apple seized it. Names, we want names!!
Thank you. Out of respect for their work and to not cause drama, I didn't list the names, but I will say that I was *very* surprised.
oh when john henry, was just a little baby
sittin' on his daddys knee
he gave one long and lonesome cry
said the hammer gonna be the death of me
the hammer gonna be the death of me
Many thanks for taking a stand.
I'm already subscribed but will most certainly buy your next book. Best wishes for the Holidays!
Thanks for sharing this and for upholding your values.
Yes, Vonnegut *did* stoop over ridiculously when he wrote. Not sure where I learned that. Probably the “unstuck in time” documentary, which I heartily recommend. (I would have made the cynical justification, “The AI book club will be shit. I’m practically stealing their money.” I’m a terrible person.)