AI and the value of creating

In this article, I provide a perspective on use of AI for creative tasks - and why it feels like a good evolution to me.

You probably have heard what it is: A semi-intelligent chat programm which has been trained by reading much of the internet (+ countless books) which can understand and answer your questions.

These programs do not only generate texts for how to message your crush when you really can't come up with anything. AI can generate images, music and videos based on the description you give them. Need a cover for the book you're writing? Tell your graphic AI of choice what you imagine and the art style you have in mind - or just let it read your book - and watch how it, patiently, generates suggestions for your image, until you find the one you're happy with. (It's not soo easy yet, but the tools are on the way). Need some music for your podcast quickly? No worries. Tell your AI your preferred mood and genre, and it needs 30 seconds to generate something for you (somewhat rudimentary, but I have heard worse things delivered by our studied human composer when working with radio plays in Germany 10 years ago).

"I need an image, in anime style, framed by an old arched window, of a girl playing a flute and an angel, facing each other, with flying islands in the background."

Dall-E:

...

...

...

This is a promise of power for people with creative ambitions: Creating games or videos is not this immense task anymore which would require paying a team of professionals. It suddenly seems very managable to do it yourself.

Professionals have already discovered these tools, of course, and use them to find inspiration or speed up the more tedious parts of the work, or the less interesting projects. It is like using a computer to do your book keeping instead of doing it on paper: It saves a lot of time and energy which you, now, can dedicate to working on the pieces and projects which you enjoy. Technology makes work easier for humans. Should be an occasion to rejoice.

But alongside the cheering, there is also heavy mourning going on in circles of creators.

A crisis, driven by fear: The same fear of a factory worker seeing a machine take over his job: No! This evil technology ruins my life purpose, now I need to find a new (and maybe more useful) way to spend my life energy!

Didn't I work hard to become an illustrator? Don't I love this work? Will customers still come back to me if they can get something which meets their needs within one hour, and basically for free? Maybe not.

There you're standing now, maybe not missing the time spent working on these less ambitioned kind of projects, but very much missing the money on your account (which was already sparse).

The problem here, to me, is not the rise of the AI, or AI taking over "your work". The problem is that the whole idea of earning your living by doing art, in capitalism, never worked well. If you're one of the lucky few, you probably feel the cost it takes on your health and sanity. Maybe you, also, hesitated for a moment at the point when you felt that this path will either turn you into an asshole or make you depressed, or both.

To the monster of the market, it is difficult to accept that, in contrary to every humble hard kind of work out there, creativity does not flourish under pressure. It degenerates.

And so, god said to Bill:

1.) People are lazy per nature.

2.) Pressure keeps humanity productive.

3.) Demand generates money.

4.) Money values the result.

5.) When you do good work, someone will pay it.

Valuing the result always had the problem that it does not generate anything before the work, literally, is done. In the 3 years which is takes for a team to develop a game, for example. It works if the money, magically, is already there. For most people with creative ambitions, the sad reality is that there's won't be a game, or a music album, and that's it.

We could, cynically, ask the question: Do we need more games and music, when already by now 39 games are published on steam every day?

The answer, to the creators, has become more and more obvious over the past 20 years. We don't. Maybe they, at last, found a bit of comfort in the idea that their work is special. Now, watching a piece of software effortlessly replicating our style of writing may lead to the next painful revelation: Our skills may be less unique than we hoped.

When the world doesn't need our work, and our skills are not valuable, why do we still choose this rocky path which doesn't seem to lead anywhere?

Well. At some point the tormented poet might find, in this painful awakening, a precious bit of wisdom:

Because it is fun.

It's great to work on your own project, giving you a sense of purpose. Allowing you to learn and progress, to feel the uplifting happiness and satisfaction of the creative flow. To have an outlet for emotions in moments when no one is there to talk to. An occasion to connect with likeminded people. Something to be nervous about when reading it to your friends. A good way to pass the dark winter. It's more rewarding then getting drunk on a party, or watching netflix.

The result might no longer matter that much. But the journey is precious. We need to start valuing the activity of creating for the person doing it.

I am appreciative for AI bringing up these questions. And I hope that it will change some variables in the carefully calculated theory of the market, opening a chance to discuss, and reevaluate our needs. This, maybe, can lead us to a more healthy, humble and human attitude to creating:

A variety of activities which should be accessible to everyone who enjoys them, helping us to keep our sanity in these crazy times, and adding value to our lives.

Could it be beneficial for a professional artist to do different work, once in a while?

With technology reducing the amount of work needed in all sectors, could there be a scenario in which part time jobs get encouraged, maybe even become the norm?

Do monthly rents need to be so high, and ever rising, that part time work can't come up for them? Who are the winners and who are the losers of this scenario?

How would valuing creating as an activity, instead od valuing the result, affect quality and innovation of results?

Thanks for reading :)

Sophie