logo
Generative AI is most useful for the things we care about the least

Generative AI is most useful for the things we care about the least

Yahoo25-02-2025

Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT and Midjourney can produce text, images and videos far more quickly than any one person can accomplish by hand.
But as someone who studies the societal impacts of AI, I've noticed an interesting trade-off: The technology can certainly save time, but it does so precisely to the extent that the user is willing to surrender control over the final product.
For this reason, generative AI is probably most useful for things we care about the least.
Let's use the example of AI image generators. You probably have a rough idea of how they work. Just type what you want – 'a panda surfing,' 'a piece of toast that is also a car' – and the generative tool draws it.
But this glosses over the countless possible iterations of the desired image.
Will the image appear as a watercolor painting or a pencil sketch? How lifelike will the panda be? How big is the wave? Is the toast-car parked or moving? Is there anyone inside of it?
When the images are generated, these questions have been answered – but not by the user. Rather, the generative AI tool has 'decided.'
Of course, the user can be more specific: Imitate the style of Monet. Make the wave twice the height of the panda. Maybe the panda should look worried, since it isn't used to surfing.
You can also pop open an image editor and modify the output yourself, down to the individual pixel. But, of course, drafting detailed instructions and revising the image take time, effort and skill. Generative AI promises to lighten the load. But as every manager knows, exercising control is work.
In all art and expression, power lies in the details.
In great paintings, not every brushstroke is planned – but each is carefully considered and accepted. And its overall effect on the viewer depends on all those considered brushstrokes together.
Filmmakers shoot take after take of the same scene, each subtly or radically different. Only a small fraction of that footage makes it into the final cut – the fraction that the editors feel does the job best. Great artists use their judgment to ensure every detail helps to achieve the effect they want.
Of course, there's nothing new about putting someone else in charge of the details. People are used to delegating authority – even about matters of expression – to marketers, speechwriters, social media managers and the like.
Generative AI makes a new sort of contractor available. It's always on call, and in certain ways it is very technically competent.
But compared with skilled humans, it has a limited ability to understand what you want. Moreover, it lacks intention, contemplation and the comprehensive mastery of detail that yield great expressive achievements – or even the comprehensive idiosyncrasy that spawns very unique ones.
Ask ChatGPT for a film script, plus casting and shooting instructions. It will give you neither Francis Ford Coppola's masterpiece 'The Godfather' nor Tommy Wiseau's bizarre 'The Room.'
You could, perhaps, approach a masterpiece, or a true oddity. But to do so, you'd have to exercise more and more time, more and more effort, and more and more control.
What generative AI makes possible, above all, is low-effort, low-control expression.
In the time I took to write and revise this article, I could have used ChatGPT to generate 200 grammatically correct, well-structured articles, and then I could have posted them online without even reading them. I wouldn't have had to carefully parse each word and decide whether it really helped me make my point. I wouldn't have even had to decide whether I agreed with any of the AI-generated write-ups.
This is not a merely hypothetical example. Low-quality, AI-generated e-books of ambiguous provenance are already making their way into online vendors' catalogs – and into the libraries those vendors serve.
Similarly, using image generators, I could now flood the internet with superficially appealing images, dedicating only a fraction of a second to decide whether any of them express what I want them to express or achieve what I want them to achieve.
But in doing so, I would not just be skipping over drudgery. Writing, drawing and painting are not just labor but processes of considering, reviewing and deciding exactly what I want to put out into the world. By skipping over those processes, I surrender that decision-making process to the AI tool.
Some scholars argue that the internet has produced an era of 'cheap speech.' People no longer have to invest a lot of resources – nor even face the judgment of their neighbors – to broadcast whatever they want to the world.
With generative AI, expression is even cheaper. You don't even have to make things yourself to put them out into the world. For the first time in human history, the ability to produce writing, art and expression has been decoupled from the necessity of actually paying attention to what you're making or saying.
I suspect that great art, journalism and scholarship will still demand great attention and effort. Some of that effort may even include custom-developing AI tools tailored to an individual artist's concerns.
But unless people become much better at curation, great work will be increasingly difficult to locate amid the flood of low-effort content, which is also known as 'AI slop.'
It's appropriate that generative AI becomes more useful the sloppier its users are willing to be – that is, the less they care about the details.
I could end with some dire prognosis – that working artists and writers will be replaced with mediocre automation, that online discourse will get even stupider, that people will isolate themselves in personalized cocoons of AI-generated media.
All these things are possible. But it's probably more useful to offer a suggestion to you, the reader.
When you need an image or a piece of writing, take a moment to decide: How important are the details? Would the process of making this yourself, or working with a collaborator or contractor, be useful? Would it yield a better output, or give me the chance to learn, or begin or strengthen a relationship, or help you reflect on something important to you?
In short, is it worth putting in real care and effort? The answer will not always be yes. But it often will.
Art, writing, films – these are not just products, but acts. They are things humans make, through a process of thousands of little decisions that encompass what we stand for and what we want to say.
So when it comes to art, expression and argument, if you want it done right, it's probably still best to do it yourself.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: John P. Nelson, Georgia Institute of Technology
Read more:
An 83-year-old short story by Borges portends a bleak future for the internet
What makes some art so bad that it's good?
ChatGPT, DALL-E 2 and the collapse of the creative process
John P. Nelson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

"Piracy Is Piracy": Disney Sues Midjourney for Massive Copyright Violation
"Piracy Is Piracy": Disney Sues Midjourney for Massive Copyright Violation

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

"Piracy Is Piracy": Disney Sues Midjourney for Massive Copyright Violation

Disney and NBCUniversal — a pair of media behemoths behind franchises ranging from "Star Wars" and "Toy Story" to "Minions" and "Shrek" — are suing AI company Midjourney, accusing it of enabling copyright infringement on a massive scale through its AI image generator tech. In the lawsuit, which was filed in a California district court today, the two Hollywood juggernauts accused the firm of ignoring its previous requests to stop violating their intellectual property rights. "Midjourney is the quintessential copyright free-rider and a bottomless pit of plagiarism," the scathing complaint reads, as quoted by the Wall Street Journal. It's a major escalation in the fight between copyright holders and AI firms, a battle that has been brewing for years. Per Axios, it's the "first legal action that major Hollywood studios have taken against a generative AI company." And it's not just the use of image generators; generative AI writ large has triggered a barrage of lawsuits, with media companies accusing the likes of OpenAI and Google of training their large language models on their materials without fair compensation. Those disputes have turned into a major pain point for the AI industry, despite surging enthusiasm for the tech. Considering the sheer size of both Disney and Universal — Disney is the third largest media company by market cap in the world — Midjourney could soon be in a world of hurt. Disney, in particular, has a long track record of closely guarding its enormous cache of intellectual property. "Our world-class IP is built on decades of financial investment, creativity and innovation—investments only made possible by the incentives embodied in copyright law that give creators the exclusive right to profit from their works," said Disney's chief legal compliance officer, Horacio Gutierrez, in a statement. "We are bullish on the promise of AI technology and optimistic about how it can be used responsibly as a tool to further human creativity," he added. "But piracy is piracy, and the fact that it's done by an AI company does not make it any less infringing." The lawsuit explained in an example how Midjourney users could easily request a picture of the Disney-owned "Star Wars" character Darth Vader in a "particular setting or doing a particular action," and the AI "obliges by generating and displaying a high-quality, downloadable image." That kind of loose approach to copyright has been an open secret for quite some time. In January 2024, noted AI critic Gary Marcus and film industry concept artist Reid Southen warned in a piece for IEEE Spectrum that tools like Midjourney and OpenAI's DALL-E3 could land them in a "copyright minefield." The pair found that it was "easy to generate many plagiaristic outputs, with brief prompts related to commercial films," including well-known Marvel superheroes, Nintendo's Super Mario, and Disney's Darth Vader. Disney and Universal are framing their legal action as a way to "protect the hard work of all the artists whose work entertains and inspires us," said NBCU executive VP and general of counsel Kim Harris in the statement. Given the lack of a clear legal precedent, it'll be fascinating to watch the lawsuit unfold over what's likely to turn into a years-long courtroom battle. More on Midjourney: Self-Styled "AI Artist" Furious That People Are "Blatantly Stealing My Work"

Two Hollywood Giants Sue AI Image Engine Midjourney Calling It A 'Bottomless Pit Of Plagiarism'
Two Hollywood Giants Sue AI Image Engine Midjourney Calling It A 'Bottomless Pit Of Plagiarism'

Yahoo

time31 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Two Hollywood Giants Sue AI Image Engine Midjourney Calling It A 'Bottomless Pit Of Plagiarism'

Disney and NBCUniversal are going after Midjourney, a generative-AI tool trained on internet data that can be used to make everything from silly memes to short films made entirely of AI slop. The two Hollywood companies filed a lawsuit against the self-funded startup in Federal Court on Tuesday 'to stop its theft of their intellectual property.' The complaint accuses Midjourney of profiting off user subscriptions in return for letting them generate images based on copyrighted material ranging from Deadpool and Darth Vader to Shrek and the Minions, Variety reports. Like other generative-AI tools, Midjourney is more or less indiscriminately trained on whatever data exists on the internet, no matter who it belongs to. Disney and NBC Universal even reference a past interview with the company's founder, David Holz. Asked back in 2022 by Forbes whether it gets permission for any of the work it copies, he replied, 'No. There isn't really a way to get a hundred million images and know where they're coming from.' The lawsuit alleges Midjourney made $300 million in revenue last year off of roughly 21 million users. 'By helping itself to Plaintiffs' copyrighted works, and then distributing images (and soon videos) that blatantly incorporate and copy Disney's and Universal's famous characters — without investing a penny in their creation—Midjourney is the quintessential copyright free-rider and a bottomless pit of plagiarism,' the lawsuit reads. 'Piracy is piracy, and whether an infringing image or video is made with AI or another technology does not make it any less infringing. Midjourney's conduct misappropriates Disney's and Universal's intellectual property and threatens to upend the bedrock incentives of U.S. copyright law that drive American leadership in movies, television, and other creative arts.' This is the highest-profile legal attack yet on a generative-AI company, following lawsuits by The New York Times and others against companies like OpenAI for copying written work. The outcome in court would have major consequences for the viability of a technology that companies like Microsoft, Google, and Meta are investing billions in. Without the ability to essentially copy the internet for free, the entire business model behind a lot of generative-AI and large language algorithms falls part. 'Midjourney's bootlegging business model and defiance of U.S copyright laware not only an attack on Disney, Universal, and the hard-working creative community that brings the magic of movies to life, but are also a broader threat to the American motion picture industry which has created millions of jobs and contributed more than $260 billion to the nation's economy,' the companies claim in their lawsuit. 'This case is not a 'close call' under well-settled copyright law.' . For the latest news, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

CoreWeave to offer compute capacity in Google's new cloud deal with OpenAI, sources say
CoreWeave to offer compute capacity in Google's new cloud deal with OpenAI, sources say

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

CoreWeave to offer compute capacity in Google's new cloud deal with OpenAI, sources say

By Krystal Hu (Reuters) -CoreWeave has emerged as a winner in Google's newly signed partnership with OpenAI, sources familiar with the matter told Reuters, in the latest example of the voracious appetite for computing resources in the artificial-intelligence industry and the formation of new alliances to meet them. The so-called neocloud company, which sells cloud computing services built on Nvidia's graphics processing units, is slated to provide computing capacity to Google's cloud unit, and Alphabet's Google will then sell that computing capacity to OpenAI to meet the growing demand for services like ChatGPT, the sources said. Google will also provide some of its own computing resources to OpenAI, added the sources, who requested anonymity to discuss private matters. The details of the arrangement, first reported by Reuters on Tuesday, highlight the evolving dynamics between hyperscalers like Microsoft and Google and so-called neocloud companies like Coreweave. Hyperscalers are large cloud service providers that offer massive-scale data centers and cloud infrastructure. The insatiable hunger for computing resources has generated major investment commitments and turned rivals into partners. Backed by OpenAI and Nvidia, Coreweave signed up Google as a customer in the first quarter. CoreWeave, Google and OpenAI declined to comment. CoreWeave, a specialized cloud provider that went public in March, has already been a major supplier of OpenAI's infrastructure. It has signed a five-year contract worth $11.9 billion with OpenAI to provide dedicated computing capacity for OpenAI's model training and inference. OpenAI also took a $350 million equity stake in CoreWeave in March. This partnership was further expanded last month through an additional agreement worth up to $4 billion, extending through April 2029, underscoring OpenAI's escalating demand for high-performance computing resources. Industry insiders say adding Google Cloud as a new customer could help CoreWeave diversify its revenue sources, and having a credible partner with deep pockets like Google enables the startup to secure more favorable financing terms to support ambitious data center buildouts across the country. This could also boost Google's cloud unit, which generated $43 billion in sales last year, allowing it to capitalize on the growth of OpenAI, which is also one of its largest competitors in areas like search and chatbots. It positions Google as a neutral provider of computing resources in competition with peers such as Amazon and Microsoft. CoreWeave's deal with Google coincides with Microsoft's re-evaluation of its data center strategy, including withdrawing from certain data center leases. Microsoft, once Coreweave's largest customer, accounting for about 62% of its 2024 revenue, is also renegotiating with OpenAI to revise the terms of their multibillion-dollar investment, including the future equity stake it will hold in OpenAI. CoreWeave, backed by Nvidia, has established itself as a fast-rising provider of GPU-based cloud infrastructure in the AI wave. While its public debut in March was met with a lukewarm response due to concerns over its highly leveraged capital structure and shifting GPU demand, the company's stock has surged since its IPO price of $40 per share, gaining over 270% and reaching a record high of $166.63 in June. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store