Nate Gaylinn

Being a manager taught me to think like an organization and how to argue with one on their terms. Now that I have a little distance from that experience, and am facing it again in academia, I'm noticing just how ugly that is.

Like, ostensibly Google serves its users and a University serves its students. The people in leadership positions really care about doing that.

But what I've learned is you never argue from the perspective of what's good for people. Sometimes that works, but it's not reliable. To convince an organization, you argue why a decision is good for business and for people. You show the business need first, and helping people becomes icing on the cake. Do that, and it's really hard for them to say no. They'll feel good about helping people, and use that as the public justification.

This is alarmingly psychopathic. Yet this behavior is implemented by people who really care very deeply. They've just internalized their role within the uncaring machinations of an institutional process.

I was listening to a podcast where the guest argued: when it comes to art, today's AI is like a tool, but in the future, maybe it could be an artist.

As he explained why, it became clear why I disagree with him. He defines "art" as a product that is valued by art critics and by consumers. I agree that AI generated content may become more common and broadly accepted in the future, but I don't think that's a good thing, and I wouldn't call it art!

I see art as more of an activity than a product. An artist does art. Whatever the output of that process is, valuable or not, is also called "art."

Am I saying only humans can make art? Not at all. But to be "art" it has to be self-expression. The artist must have something to say. As long as we are designing the AI, training it, and prompting it, then it will be a tool. Without us it has no initiative, no opinion, and no creative urge.

#ai #art