Originally written on 8th July 2024
As I look back at my research topic, I find much has changed from where I started. I have been reading ‘Hyperculture’ by Byung-Chul Han (originally published in 2005) and ‘Internet dreams: Archetypes, myths and metaphors’ by Mark Stefik (originally published in 1997). Both these books were published at the early stages of the Internet and globalisation and talk about the cultural impact it may have moving forward. Some of the text is dated and reflects on both the caution and optimism promised in the earlier years of the internet’s development. We have however since seen the world take a drastic and unexpected departure from the models we started out with. This is not to say that the underlying reality predicted has changed, rather manifested itself in unique and unexpected ways. I will be posting full reflections on these texts as I finish them in their entirety.
Moving back to where I come from, when I started researching this topic, my introduction was of the idea of technology corrupting and replacing human work and expression. Since then I have questioned how many people truly are being affected in this way. From what I can observe, the largest impact is on small digital artists, and while there is merit to their claims of large technology companies utilising their work without proper permissions, the argument has not stood legal ground. The current framework we see legally is that one cannot copyright images or text solely generated by AI. Different countries are still figuring out the limits of this argument. As for copyright infringement, copying someone’s style cannot be considered as theft as one cannot copyright “a style”. It has widely been accepted that AI is a tool and cannot generate art without the intervention of a human.
The AI craze has also been shown to be relatively hyped. Journalist and tech critic, Ed Zitron states some concerning points in his talk with Adam Conover on the rise of Gen AI. Some of the talking points they discuss in this podcast include, How will these systems be monetised? What, if any use is there beyond being interesting? How Intelligent really is AI? And How does the new technology differ from what we’ve seen before. There are some real questions on the viability and future of this “Silicon Valley” project. The ideas extend to discuss the point of diminishing returns on training models and how much improvement will we really be able to see in the future. Aside from the issues discussed, there is a general shared sense across the stakeholders – artists, scientists, investors and critics, that the technology is here to stay. It is also widely regarded more relevant compared to something like NFTs, which was essentially a speculative market based on blockchain technology. Though blockchain technology has been adopted in many aspects of digital security, its popularity with everyday users has fallen out of fashion. This scenario is unlikely as there are visible and tangible uses that seem obvious at first glance when it comes to generative AI.
Overall, there is merit to this technology but it’s future direction will be impossible to reliably predict at such an early stage, but that is what makes the subject so interesting to speculate and test.
Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin among thousands of British artists used to train AI software, Midjourney; by James Tapper for The Observer; Published on 21st January 2024; Accessed on 10th May 2024.
What is an “Author”? – Copyright Authorship of AI Art through a philosophical lens; by Mackenzie Caldwell for Houston Law Review; Vol. 61, Issue 2, 2023; Published on 11th December 2023; Accessed on 1st June 2024.
The AI bubble is bursting with Ed Zitron; by Adam Conover; Podcast; Published on Youtube on 3rd July 2024; accessed on 05th July 2024.
The rise and fall if NFTs: What went wrong?; by Patrick McGimpsey for Forbes; published on 31st January 2024; accessed on 05th July 2024.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/au/investing/cryptocurrency/are-nfts-dead/