Is Art Dead?
The rise - and ethics - of AI-generated novels and artwork.
In the wake of ChatGPT's release, my LinkedIn & Twitter feeds have been clogged by an onslaught of posts lauding it as the second coming. And it’s no wonder. GPT-3 was great, but ChatGPT is phenomenal. The rest of the world thinks so too: it acquired its first million users in just five days.
Of the eleventy billion examples we’ve seen, I think I have a favourite: a biblical verse in the style of the King James Bible, explaining how to remove a peanut butter sandwich from a VCR:
However, as I waded through unnervingly-good example after unnervingly-good example, my initial childlike wonder morphed into a growing disquiet.
We’ve already seen the advent of automation make many blue-collar workers redundant. So, as exciting as this development is, I can’t help but wonder: what does it mean for artists? Right now, there’s a definite use case for employing GPT to give inspiration & write the occasional sentence or two. It’s great, but it certainly isn’t producing award-winning novels and screenplays. Yet.
Two questions:
Do creatives have an obligation to declare the level of help they’ve received from AI in their work?
When the tech improves - because it will improve - what happens to writers and artists?
Did AI just kill creativity?
Started from the bottom now we’re here
When AI was in its infancy, author Robin Sloan (Mr. Penumbra's 24-Hour Bookstore, Sourdough) appeared in a 2018 New York Times article:
In his cluttered man-cave of an office in an industrial park here, he … writes: The bison are gathered around the canyon. … What comes next? He hits tab. The computer makes a noise like “pock,” analyzes the last few sentences, and adds the phrase “by the bare sky.”
Mr. Sloan likes it. “That’s kind of fantastic,” he said. “Would I have written ‘bare sky’ by myself? Maybe, maybe not.”
He moves on: The bison have been traveling for two years back and forth. … Tab, pock. The computer suggests between the main range of the city
Sloan treats this magical ‘pock’ with the same reverence one might treat a thesaurus. For him, machine-learning is simply another tool that enables him to follow his passion and earn his livelihood.
Four years on, and we’ve seen numerous iterations of OpenAI’s GPT, the launch of DALL-E (an algorithm that renders text into jaw-droppingly realistic images) and the development of other tools, like Sudowrite.
Sudowrite uses Artificial Intelligence to help users write & rewrite, by providing advice and altering phrasing. Check out these examples below:
With a tool like this, writers can focus on the aspects of their work they enjoy, while delegating the boring bits. And it’s backed by some major industry heavyweights. Sudowrite’s investors include the founders of Medium, Rotten Tomatoes and Wordpress, as well as the writers and directors of Aladdin, Bourne Ultimatum and Oceans Twelve. So you can bet it has found its way into a few Hollywood writing studios.
At first glance, a tool like this doesn’t kill creativity; it fosters it. But as for the ethics - surely borrowing the occasional turn of phrase is innocent, right? What about a few pages. Alright. What happens when swathes of texts are lifted from a chatbot, with no mention of where they came from?
Consider the arena of accolades: Pulitzers, Oscars, the Booker Prize. Say that Sloan’s novel had been nominated for a Pulitzer. Would it be fair for him to take out the prize against the unadulterated literary works of his creative-purist-colleagues? Does he have a duty to share the true genesis of his work before releasing it?
This is where the ethics grow murky.
Fraternal Twins: Drugs & AI
Let’s see if we can compare this to an ethical issue in sport.
Most Performance Enhancing Drugs aren't illegal substances, they're just banned in the context of professional sport. I am at perfect liberty to swallow a few erythropoietin pills (a drug that increases red blood cells) and go for a high-powered jog around my neighbourhood. However, if I want to go for a jog around an Olympic track, I will face a lengthy ban, an eye-watering fine & the knowledge that I have brought shame upon my nation.
Why? As an audience, it would be more entertaining to watch, wouldn't it? Let me see a 12-hour tennis match between a revved-up Nadal and Tsitsipas. Imagine the ratings if you threw two superhumans into a boxing ring. Damnit, show me how high the human body can really jump.
But that's not the point, is it?
Now, let's say ChatGPT is the artistic equivalent of erythropoietin (stay with me here). In keeping with the neighbourhood jog idea, writers should use as much AI-generated content as they like. Alright. That seems fair. Now - should such content be eligible for Olympic-grade literary honours?
Yes, one could argue that “the market decides” what good art is, and that if technological advancements produce a better kind, then that should be celebrated above all else, regardless of where it came from. One could say that creatives who cannot keep up with AI should get left behind. But when we look at sport, we see that there is an honour & unique glory in celebrating what the human being is authentically capable of. Yes, as an audience, we want to be entertained. But it is deeper than that.
So - should a screenplay win an Academy Award if large parts of it were not written by the credited author? If a painter generated an image on DALL-E 2 and then proceeded to replicate it on a canvas, is he plagiarising? Maybe the art is more entertaining (as in the case of junkie sport), but does that mean it’s ok?
And - more to the point - could this become a 'cancellable' offence?
The OG AI: Ghostwriters
To answer that last question, let’s look at the next best thing: ghostwriting.
As their career comes to a close, many-a rugby player or actress has been known to 'write' and release a book, topping up their retirement savings one last time before they disappear into relative obscurity. These New-York-Times-Best-Selling page-turners dazzle us with a hitherto hidden eloquence. It seems these stars become gripped by a literary genius - one that was missing from their gruff post-match interviews and talk show appearances. Why?
Because those aren't their words.
Many of these books were in-part or entirely written by a talented biographer. It's alarmingly common, yet little known. Those inspiring, galvanising quotes we attribute to our heroes were in reality penned by talented English Literature graduates.
Ghostwriting scandals have plagued the likes of Gwyneth Paltrow, Naomi Campbell, and many, many influencers. The fallout is never pretty. In 2018, it was revealed that former U.S. First Lady Michelle Obama hired a ghostwriter for her best-selling memoir, "Becoming." Put simply, fans considered it a betrayal of the highest order. You’re telling me the line “If you don’t get out there and define yourself, you’ll be quickly and inaccurately defined by others,” was written by some nameless, faceless individual?
Now, imagine the public outrage if the Hungry Little Caterpillar or Harry Potter series were secretly the work of a sanitised, stiff, bot. Because that’s what ChatGPT & Sudowrite are: modern-day ghostwriters. There would be an almighty backlash, and the author would be crucified in the court of public opinion. If it emerged that Oscar-winning screenplays like Good Will Hunting had been written with the assistance of ChatGPT, there would be calls to blacklist Matt Damon from Hollywood.
Ok, but would this ever leak? Hmmm. It’s unlikely. It ultimately depends on whether or not artists are broadcasting their processes in NYT interviews. There is no vial of blood we can extract from a manuscript. Unlike the collaborators that outed Paltrow & Obama, ChatGPT has an unmatched, tight-lipped loyalty.
Final Musings & Speculation
I’ve posed many questions in this article – many more than I’ve answered. Let’s revisit the melodramatic question I began with: no. Art is not dead. By some definitions, it is being reinvigorated as we speak. Indeed, this extends far beyond the written word: singer Francois Pachet released the first pop album composed with AI (Hello, World) to critical acclaim. Painters are using DALL-E2 to create their reference image, in the same way they used to arrange still-life. RunwayML have just announced the first annual AI Film Festival, celebrating filmmakers & creators who use AI in their work.
In this sense, AI-generated art can be seen as a legitimate form of artistic expression that deserves recognition. However. There is a huge difference between the artist who openly celebrates the use of AI in their art, and the one who takes credit for work that isn’t wholly theirs.
Inevitably, numerous acclaimed works will be passed off as the artist's own genius. From where I’m standing, artists should be transparent about their reliance on AI. Using these tools for inspiration is fine. But, like Sloan, they should be honest and unashamed of their writing’s origins. I do recognise that I’m being idealistic here. There really is no incentive to tell the truth.
Perhaps there will be two classes of artists: the AI-wielding & the creative purist. Maybe Sudowrite will become as commonplace as the humble spellchecker.
In any case, it won’t be long before we see literary masterpieces generated with little effort or skill. When that happens, I hope that there’ll still be a place for aspiring, passionate writers. I hope that prize-giving bodies and literary fans will still pay attention to real brilliance and genuine stories. But most of all, I hope that the authentic creative won’t go the same way as the factory worker.
Time, as they say, will tell.