A case against the divine right to progress in the AI space

"Embrace the technology, or be left behind."

These are the words that seem to be constantly echoed in the halls of LinkedIn regarding Artificial Intelligence as it stands today. I primarily see this either through advocacy or, more often, to argue against potential sanctions or regulations for the technology. Environmental Impact? A cost of making progress. Social Impact? You can use the technology too. Cultural Impact? Embrace it, or get left behind. Take a look at the discourse on this LinkedIn post regarding a recent open letter by Meta to get an idea of both sides' arguments.

As a result of the art business I run with my partner, I've also been exposed to a great deal of artists, writers, photographers, and other creatives that are flat out refusing to use any component of AI. Many of them have never even tried ChatGPT for simple questions, and are adverse to hearing anybody saying more than "I hate it" in their general vicinity.

This juxtaposition between my tech career and creative endeavors has left me...confused. It's all felt a bit strange to experience for me, especially since it seems from my perspective that companies and individuals maximally involved in AI, who I will affectionately refer to as "AI Bros," don't seem to care about the whole impact AI will make, not just the potential positives. On the flip side, the anti-AI crowd is also not willing to come to the table for anything other than the destruction of the technology.

Through this post, I'd like to advocate for more sustainable, more ethical, and overall mindful usage of AI in our society. I'm not the first (or the last) to propose having some sort of balance between unfettered AI Bro initiatives and the idea of shutting down AI tech completely. However, I think it's important to put my thoughts out there and try to inspire further discussion when I can.

A bit of a long essay, but I'm hoping it's worth it for those willing to read on.

This all seems a little familiar...

Those of you that have been involved in tech over the past 4-5 years may remember a similar field when you hear "left behind." That's right, I'm referring to the crypto-currency and Web3 movement that really started taking off in 2021.

A quick Google search yielded a talk from the Monetary Authority of Singapore, Ravi Menon, who also said about the same in November of 2021. Even recently, you have people like U.S. Senate Candidate David McCormick advocating for the U.S. to embrace crypto in June of 2024. So this notion of "being left behind" seems to reverberate occasionally in the tech space.

You can look even farther and find articles from 2014 advocating for embracing customer relationship management (CRM) tech to not be left behind. Chasing that idea, I've found articles from 2003 off of cursory glance. As new technology emerges, there are people for and against the new "innovation." We go through this vicious cycle of discourse until the next big wave comes. The biggest question in my mind is: Can we equate AI technology to game-changing advancements like the printing press, the car, or even the wheel?

The AI Mandate of Heaven

Going back to recent events, the letter produced by Mark Zuckerberg and several other AI bros speaks to this notion that the EU is halting progress and innovation within its borders by applying restrictions to the kind of data companies can collect from EU citizens. Yann LeCun calls this "regulatory restrictions on the use of content posted publicly by EU users." but I think we can read between the lines.

Does a want for innovation necessitate unfettered progress though? There seems to be a clear sentiment of inevitability. It will happen, whether you like it or not. It's crucial to stay ahead in today's digital economy. Who is really making this crucial? Surely not the leaders of companies who own AI solutions. There's so much potential good that come out of the AI movement, surely this means I can build more data centers with reckless abandon?

I propose, with many new and "exciting" solutions being presented, we need to be mindful of who is saying these things and what their stake is in the movement. Would you believe that there's a benefit to returning to the office from workspace design consultants or the healthiness of vaping from a supplier of e-cigarettes? Not to discount their perspectives, however they do monetarily benefit from you believing what their saying. Take it all with a grain of salt.

Who is getting left behind in all of this?

For every handful of AI Bro advocates wanting unfettered AI progress, there's voices that push for pausing or stopping AI altogether. The impacts of recent AI advancements have been hitting the humanities the hardest, so that's where a lot of the push back from my perspective seems to originate from. AI Art is winning competitions. Writers are concerned they'll be cast aside by their industry. Copyrighted work is being largely consumed and regurgitated by language learning models. The list can and will go on.

These impacts to creative industries, to me, largely stem from the capitalistic idea that art is a commodity, and that as a commodity, efforts should be made to maximize profit and minimize effort to deliver said product. Artists that want to live off of art alone must make money off of their art. To a certain extent, it makes it that much more frustrating when an AI artist generates their own content without the permission of the artists in question. The only advice given usually is to ride the wave or, frankly, "deal with it. Die mad about it. Get left behind." Why do creatives suddenly need to get with the times for technology and companies that don't care about them?

Making the already available more accessible

Consider also the perspective of AI enthusiasts in this matter. Many seem to argue about AI creating the "democratization" of the humanities, specifically in art. What does that actually mean though? As far as I know, much of what is involved with art as a practice is mostly...well... practice. Time is obviously a bit of a commodity for most who are trying to start creating art, but generally speaking practice makes consistent for producing art to any meaningful extent. The question still remains: what are we actually democratizing then?

Perhaps the notion is that, as AI tools are making it easier to produce art that is "good enough," we are then making it more accessible. Is that really the case though? Many in the creative industries think not. I implore you to hear some thoughts from the YouTuber Duchess Celestia on the topic. They go into detail describing their stance on "democratization" in the art space with AI. Long story short: nothing has changed between AI's public launch and how art was available. Sure, you can generate art quicker, but that doesn't mean you were locked from making art in the first place.

A worthwhile consideration to me is the way most people interact with AI tools at the moment. You log into some sort of web application to chat with the model. You usually subscribe to ChatGPT+ or Claude Pro or whatever the premium is to get more than just the minimum calls / day. What if you're not part of the global economic 1%? That monthly subscription means more to your bottom line if you're not from a country that is equal or greater in currency value than the U.S. of A. Is it democratization when you can only make 5 calls a day unless you throw money at it? What if Sam Altman decides tomorrow to close ChatGPT? Is that tool democratized if it can easily be removed from the public?

It's worth noting that there are open source models that can run on your computer, assuming you have one. Not everyone is a software engineer though (or really even remotely tech savvy), so I would argue it's a bit unrealistic to assume people can install these open source solutions without much trouble. You can learn how to leverage these tools though fairly easily, if you consider yourself tech-literate.

I know I'm asking a lot of questions back to the reader, and I do so intentionally. These are questions I'm facing myself in leveraging AI solutions and interacting with AI professionals, "bros," and enthusiasts.

Should we stop AI altogether then?

Not quite. There can, and should be, controls for ensuring that AI is being used ethically when it comes to training data. Much like many other creative works, AI should not be using other people's work without credit, attribution, or some sort of kickback. If these aren't possible with the current iteration of AI? I would argue there needs to be a push to make them possible through governance.

There's already tools in the market that do this, like Data Provenance Explorer, but there should be ways to prove this for legal purposes to both protect artists and developers of AI technology in their endeavors. Many countries are already advocating for measures to be put in place from a military perspective to trace data back, so I imagine it's a matter of time before these solutions disseminate to the citizen-facing government bodies.

I also believe that underrepresented and marginalized communities deserve to be educated in these technologies, so that a more holistic view of AI is gleamed. This will help ensure more diverse and equitable perspectives are included in every facet of engineering and development with models and agents. It's something that requires active effort, but I genuinely believe it will help mitigate a lot of the potential risks we are seeing play out.

Conclusion

AI is a tough topic to tackle, and I imagine people have plenty to say regarding their perspective. Whether you stand to make millions from your AI startup, or stand to lose millions from a model regurgitating your NYT Best Selling books, I think there's a point in the middle we can reach where progress can continue, without leaving others "behind." We're all in this together, at the end of the day.

Speaking of educating on AI, here's a picture of Penny (not Cha Cha, I know. Jail for father). at the CODE Magazine State of AI event in Denver recently. Follow her at @penelope_the_newfie on Instagram!