I actively seek out writers who produce authentic content. To be honest, I don’t pay close attention to the attached images because I want the words to tell the story. I think because my father was a Hollywood guy and the other half of my family is involved in politics, I am not interested in visual imagery aside of what I have seen in fine art museums or nature and I loathe everything “fake”. I appreciate your writing because I don’t need imagery when your story-telling is so good. I read a lot, to the point I receive gifts such as coffee mugs that state, “Yes, I really DO need this book” thus, I believe I am able to discern authenticity relatively well. It never entered my mind that you used AI in your writing because I detect feeling in your words and I do not believe AI is capable of emotion.
Beautiful comment. AI images work on a subtle layer, as Hollywood junk. And I agree on searching for authentic content. And AI is never authentic. I have decided for myself to cancel paid subs with AI content because money is energy and I would rather not energize AI.
Oh my! “Money is energy and I would rather not energize AI.” You GET IT!!! Thank you for getting it! I feel the same way! I began to be very careful with where and how I spend my energy/money in as many facets of my life as possible a decade ago (after many years of not doing that, unfortunately) and it is wonderful when I encounter others who are doing the same! Thank you!
I've said before and will say again, generative AI is a tool best suited for amateurs. Total novices won't be able to tell when the AI has made a mistake and therefore use it badly, and experienced artists, writers and programmers will do the job faster and better without wasting time fixing the mess the AI has made.
If you have any ambitions in any area you think AI might be of help, tread carefully. It will not make you better at what you're trying to do, it'll only stunt your development.
Otherwise, have at it, as long as you present it honestly and don't imagine you're outdoing anybody with real skills.
Aside, personally I don't see much point in interrupting your articles with fake art. I appreciate when writers highlight artists who are doing visually something related to the content of the article (or have illustrated it intentionally). But an AI image is worth zero words and doesn't really add much other than distraction.
I produce simple and quite amateurish imagery every day, and I don't see AI as any kind of threat or competition. What it's mostly good for is producing weird meme templates that cannot be produced economically using traditional methods (e.g. who would spend two hours to photoshop a rat onto a hoverboard if it's for one-time use).
IMHO, AI is only good at producing «too little thought, too much effort» art, and it's the only type of art it threatens.
It is a question of respect and solidarity, I as an artist respect and read your articles and I choose not to read articles by AI if they say it’s AI , out of solidarity to you, as also an artist, but one of words. Artists spend the same time and hard graft as writers, only for writers to dump our humanity, our humanness of creating, for cheap AI pics.
Stone, there but for the grace of God go you. It is the slippery slope. When writers are no longer employed because it’s cheaper and on the surface better to use AI, we will both have a lot of time on our hands, so let’s go for a drink and reminisce of the good ole days, when ALL artists were humans producing works for humanity. Love ya bro, Lauren 🥰😁🙏
I appreciate your thoughts here, Lauren - while this article is firm, its use is still something I am always running through my brainpan. After all, if we are not willing to question - and challenge - our own thoughts... how can we ever evolve? I do that with pretty much everything - except my love of bacon. That is unquestionable, and eternal ;-)
So... thank you sincerely for speaking your mind here *salute
All artists will always be humans, until/unless we figure out how to stuff a soul into a silicon chip.
But we were awash in soulless fake art long before programmers figured out how to automate the process of generating pablum for public consumption.
The machines that make fake art are no more artists than the machines that make fake food are chefs, and fake art is no more a sufficient substitute for art than fake food is for nourishment. That plenty of people get fat and sick stuffing their faces with cheetos does not prove chefs are obsolete either. Fake art makes the soul fat and sick.
It's a blessing that humans may no longer be reduced to making fake art to earn a living, even if it means they'll have to find some other kind of employment. Maybe the new work will inspire some real art, less suited to mass consumption and thus more irritating to soulless meatbags, as art should be.
Stone! Stone, Stone, Stone. Your example of everybody using AI via the spellcheck is not a good one. Here's why: The dictionaries, thesauri, and even the recommended punctuation change all the time. There is nothing one can depend upon in its usage. Anyway, you know how I feel about the AI pictures that attempt to look like "real" people, places, and things: Too perfect. Too glossy. Too not real. Besides, those who use it get used to it and next thing you know they are sucked into the next phase of it and before you know it they're all Commies. (Insert winking emoji here!)
I had a feeling you might comment on this one - call it a hunch ;-) Actually, you were one of the people to whom I was referring when speaking of the "well-reasoned and passionate arguments against it." I valued that discussion, and value your point-of-view - in fact, I still mull over it from time to time, when generating photos.
So while this article is pretty straight-forward? I still question using it, because I am always questioning EVERYTHING ;-) And our previous discussion is a part of that.
And if I ever start to go 'commie?' You have my full permission to kick me in unpleasant places LOL
I hear you there - I tried so hard to find quality stock images, but at best I found barely-relevant shots... and at worst, I failed miserably at finding ANY usable image. So, to me AI generation was/is a blessing.
I really enjoy the AI-generated images in a writing sample. It makes the piece perfectly unique in every aspect, and what more could a reader or a writer hope for? That being said, I have come across several images on Substack that are being presented as original photography and it bugs me.. I don't like attacking people either, but when your "original photo" depicts horses grazing in dirt, I become skeptical. I have come across enough of these images that I have left the occasional comment questioning the authenticity of said image. In all instances the author has not refuted my claim that AI was used, and others have even agreed with my assessment. Anyway, the integration of AI generated images, with full disclosure of course-as is your method, only enhances the writing and I love it.
Really depends on how broadly you want to define AI. The generative AI systems that have created so much buzz and controversy over the past few years are one thing, built on linear algebra vaguely simulating neurons. They have about as much relation to how real brains work as Minecraft's terrain generator has to geology, but like Minecraft, produce a momentarily fascinating facsimile of the real thing.
There are other approaches to AI that get less buzz now but were all the rage before "artificial neural networks" - deductive reasoning systems with preprogrammed logic about the relations between objects. This is more or less how your spell checker works.
And there are goal oriented behavior systems, most familiar in video game and simulation AI, which try to reason about the best way to prioritize activity and achieve predetermined goals with limited information about the operating environment of the game/simulation.
But it would be a big stretch, and one few programmers or researchers would endorse, to say that all computation is AI. At that point you're committing to a sort of panpsychism that reduces to even rocks being intelligent because they can react with their environment by way of physics and chemistry.
So what do you mean by AI? What do you mean by "intelligence" at all? Ask ten people, get twenty answers. When discussing the merits of specific technologies it's best to keep one's definitions narrow so you can discuss the same thing instead of devolving into bikeshedding. When speaking of generative AI it is not helpful or informative to ask whether it is meaningfully different from a pocket calculator since they both do math. Clearly it is or we wouldn't be talking about it as a separate thing.
The only AI image generator I've messed with is the one here on Substack. I was having fun with it, having it make silly images. It has the worst time with fingers (because it's not real AI and doesn't "know" what fingers are). It can make some pretty impressive realistic looking images, but the people in the picture will have six gnarled fingers on one hand, or two hands coming from one wrist!
I have used it for a few posts, where I needed something that I couldn't find a good picture for online.
I've used pics from web image searches for a long time. Many of the pictures I find aren't copyrighted, and on more than one occasion, they're cached, the webpage they originally come from is lo longer available.
On that note, I don't think that I've ever given credit to the person who created them. Mostly because they are public domain. Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, they display them without citing the author. They're making billions on advertising revenue -- while displaying other people's images. So...
However, like the web search engines, I never claim that any of the images I use are my own creation.
Likewise, I've seen where other people have used images that I have personally created. Ones that were snips I've used from Spreadsheets I created to show calculations.
I don't really care though. It's not worth worrying about it. Just as I do, they didn't claim that they created it, they just used it.
Everything I write is my own. AI "churches things up" too much and rambles about insignificant things constantly. It sounds like something written on the side of a sustainably sourced coffee product! 🤣😂
I need to do a post about that. Some of the stuff I've seen is definitely written by AI, not so much on here, but on housing websites, like Zillow. It's funny because you will see the same stupid words used all the time. Words like "nestled" and "Idyllic." Nobody says "idyllic" I had to look it up, because I didn't know the meaning!
idyllic /ī-dĭl′ĭk/
adjective
- Of or relating to an idyll.
- Tranquil and carefree.
"an idyllic childhood."
- Scenic or picturesque.
"an idyllic town by the sea."
AI picks out rarely used descriptive words, to make things sound more "fancy." 😂🤣
Oh yeah, the mangled-fingers thing is insane LOL It's why I started using Grok 2, much higher-quality images. I still use Substack's tool, however, especially for the more 'ethereal' shots (their "Epic' filter is the bomb).
I'm largely on-board with your point, except... well, I have used 'nestled' in my writing... and use 'idyllic' in both writing AND speech ;-) However, your point about the repetitive usage is spot on, and a clear sign of AI-written material.
I'm still gobsmacked anyone would refer to that ai image as sexualized. But okay…..
I have a friend that is an artist, she works in graphic design for major companies. She does NOT use AI in her real work, but as a side hobby she runs a page where she also creates ai art.
Also I have another friend who is an artist, not professionally but as a hobby. She doesn’t do AI. However I asked both of them if they could do something specific for me once and they both told me I should try AI 🤣both of them blew my mind after all the online discourse around it,
Well, as we know from years on-line (especially living through the MySpace insanity LOL), folks have different views of what 'sex' IS - I knew when I posted the shot it may be seen as provocative at minimum, so it didn't really surprise me.
The story of your artist friends is fascinating to me, especially - like you - when I consider most of the the online commentary I have seen (and even some of the comments on this very article)! I reckon there are some who just have a different view, but still... it DOES surprise me! ;-)
Appreciate you sharing this, my friend - good info to have for future reference <3
Big fan of your work and I agree with most of this article. But I think that your argument about using AI art because you can’t afford to hire an artist is the weakest one. Please indulge me—I am nitpicking at one flaw in an otherwise solid piece, so that we might shore it up and thus strengthen the whole.
Is this very different from saying that ultraprocessed food is cheaper than whole food, so it’s OK to buy supermarket poison? Or that Facebook is free, so there’s no problem with giving it access to your info? Is the fact that AI art is “free”, a seductive lure that tempts you to do something you otherwise wouldn’t?
Good explanation but I’d urge not paying attention to the peanut gallery that would issue with your choice of imagery. Whatever—as they say. Carry on. 💪🏻
I use Freepik.com for any images that are not my own. Again—whatever.
Sometimes you just can't get the image you want from stock photos. And if you're like me, you can't get them from AI, either, so you have to resort to (badly done) "photoshopping."
I mostly have pretty good luck with generating pics; I have to fiddle with the prompts, and be super-patient at times, but I usually get what I want. Usually... 😉
I seldom-to-never find what I need from the free stock-photos, however... 🤦🏻
It's apparently not obvious to many people. Which is why we've got weird little creeps running around accusing every 2nd unaccredited piece of art as being AI generated when it clearly isn't, and people sending money to fake charities posting fake pictures of fake suffering.
But I think the people fake art works for probably don't care in the first place that it's fake. One of my long standing litmus tests for whether someone is meaningfully human is whether he can tell the difference between junk food and real food and demonstrate a preference or at least articulate the difference between the two. Add fake art to the list of humanity tests.
I actively seek out writers who produce authentic content. To be honest, I don’t pay close attention to the attached images because I want the words to tell the story. I think because my father was a Hollywood guy and the other half of my family is involved in politics, I am not interested in visual imagery aside of what I have seen in fine art museums or nature and I loathe everything “fake”. I appreciate your writing because I don’t need imagery when your story-telling is so good. I read a lot, to the point I receive gifts such as coffee mugs that state, “Yes, I really DO need this book” thus, I believe I am able to discern authenticity relatively well. It never entered my mind that you used AI in your writing because I detect feeling in your words and I do not believe AI is capable of emotion.
I appreciate your thoughts here, Elizabeth - I will continue to work to justify these kind words, and your generous support ☺️
Beautiful comment. AI images work on a subtle layer, as Hollywood junk. And I agree on searching for authentic content. And AI is never authentic. I have decided for myself to cancel paid subs with AI content because money is energy and I would rather not energize AI.
Oh my! “Money is energy and I would rather not energize AI.” You GET IT!!! Thank you for getting it! I feel the same way! I began to be very careful with where and how I spend my energy/money in as many facets of my life as possible a decade ago (after many years of not doing that, unfortunately) and it is wonderful when I encounter others who are doing the same! Thank you!
I've said before and will say again, generative AI is a tool best suited for amateurs. Total novices won't be able to tell when the AI has made a mistake and therefore use it badly, and experienced artists, writers and programmers will do the job faster and better without wasting time fixing the mess the AI has made.
If you have any ambitions in any area you think AI might be of help, tread carefully. It will not make you better at what you're trying to do, it'll only stunt your development.
Otherwise, have at it, as long as you present it honestly and don't imagine you're outdoing anybody with real skills.
Aside, personally I don't see much point in interrupting your articles with fake art. I appreciate when writers highlight artists who are doing visually something related to the content of the article (or have illustrated it intentionally). But an AI image is worth zero words and doesn't really add much other than distraction.
Perfect. AI is satanic junk.
I produce simple and quite amateurish imagery every day, and I don't see AI as any kind of threat or competition. What it's mostly good for is producing weird meme templates that cannot be produced economically using traditional methods (e.g. who would spend two hours to photoshop a rat onto a hoverboard if it's for one-time use).
IMHO, AI is only good at producing «too little thought, too much effort» art, and it's the only type of art it threatens.
Very well put, Rat - agree 100%! 🙂 BTW, I dig the imagery you use - heck, I've become quite fond of that 'simple' rodent 😁
It is a question of respect and solidarity, I as an artist respect and read your articles and I choose not to read articles by AI if they say it’s AI , out of solidarity to you, as also an artist, but one of words. Artists spend the same time and hard graft as writers, only for writers to dump our humanity, our humanness of creating, for cheap AI pics.
Stone, there but for the grace of God go you. It is the slippery slope. When writers are no longer employed because it’s cheaper and on the surface better to use AI, we will both have a lot of time on our hands, so let’s go for a drink and reminisce of the good ole days, when ALL artists were humans producing works for humanity. Love ya bro, Lauren 🥰😁🙏
I appreciate your thoughts here, Lauren - while this article is firm, its use is still something I am always running through my brainpan. After all, if we are not willing to question - and challenge - our own thoughts... how can we ever evolve? I do that with pretty much everything - except my love of bacon. That is unquestionable, and eternal ;-)
So... thank you sincerely for speaking your mind here *salute
All artists will always be humans, until/unless we figure out how to stuff a soul into a silicon chip.
But we were awash in soulless fake art long before programmers figured out how to automate the process of generating pablum for public consumption.
The machines that make fake art are no more artists than the machines that make fake food are chefs, and fake art is no more a sufficient substitute for art than fake food is for nourishment. That plenty of people get fat and sick stuffing their faces with cheetos does not prove chefs are obsolete either. Fake art makes the soul fat and sick.
It's a blessing that humans may no longer be reduced to making fake art to earn a living, even if it means they'll have to find some other kind of employment. Maybe the new work will inspire some real art, less suited to mass consumption and thus more irritating to soulless meatbags, as art should be.
100%, good sir Fukitol. Humans create. Robots calculate.
Stone! Stone, Stone, Stone. Your example of everybody using AI via the spellcheck is not a good one. Here's why: The dictionaries, thesauri, and even the recommended punctuation change all the time. There is nothing one can depend upon in its usage. Anyway, you know how I feel about the AI pictures that attempt to look like "real" people, places, and things: Too perfect. Too glossy. Too not real. Besides, those who use it get used to it and next thing you know they are sucked into the next phase of it and before you know it they're all Commies. (Insert winking emoji here!)
I had a feeling you might comment on this one - call it a hunch ;-) Actually, you were one of the people to whom I was referring when speaking of the "well-reasoned and passionate arguments against it." I valued that discussion, and value your point-of-view - in fact, I still mull over it from time to time, when generating photos.
So while this article is pretty straight-forward? I still question using it, because I am always questioning EVERYTHING ;-) And our previous discussion is a part of that.
And if I ever start to go 'commie?' You have my full permission to kick me in unpleasant places LOL
Love it!
😉 done
I’m a writer & not an illustrator.
I use AI to make Me pictures to illustrate points I write ✍🏽 about.
I usually can’t find a stock image that is as particular to My subject matter as I can get from a fine tuned AI image.
Plus more & more of the stock images available are generated by AI.
I wish I was truly skilled in illustration so I could do it all My self.
AI is amazing & gross at the same time
I hear you there - I tried so hard to find quality stock images, but at best I found barely-relevant shots... and at worst, I failed miserably at finding ANY usable image. So, to me AI generation was/is a blessing.
Appreciate your thoughts on this! 🫡
I really enjoy the AI-generated images in a writing sample. It makes the piece perfectly unique in every aspect, and what more could a reader or a writer hope for? That being said, I have come across several images on Substack that are being presented as original photography and it bugs me.. I don't like attacking people either, but when your "original photo" depicts horses grazing in dirt, I become skeptical. I have come across enough of these images that I have left the occasional comment questioning the authenticity of said image. In all instances the author has not refuted my claim that AI was used, and others have even agreed with my assessment. Anyway, the integration of AI generated images, with full disclosure of course-as is your method, only enhances the writing and I love it.
Thanks, Beth - appreciate that. And I agree 100% - when someone tries to pass off AI as original work, it bugs me too! 💯
How many are actually using an AI device, in which case, is not everything done on a computer, tablet, I-phone, I-pad, etc. using AI?
https://www.tomshardware.com/laptops/what-is-an-ai-pc
THANK YOU, Gwyneth! So very true!
Only if those devices are connected to the internet, even AI is useless if not connected to the internet.
How many people do you know who power up a device and do not connect to the internet?
Maybe just the people who are as paranoid as I am.
Really depends on how broadly you want to define AI. The generative AI systems that have created so much buzz and controversy over the past few years are one thing, built on linear algebra vaguely simulating neurons. They have about as much relation to how real brains work as Minecraft's terrain generator has to geology, but like Minecraft, produce a momentarily fascinating facsimile of the real thing.
There are other approaches to AI that get less buzz now but were all the rage before "artificial neural networks" - deductive reasoning systems with preprogrammed logic about the relations between objects. This is more or less how your spell checker works.
And there are goal oriented behavior systems, most familiar in video game and simulation AI, which try to reason about the best way to prioritize activity and achieve predetermined goals with limited information about the operating environment of the game/simulation.
But it would be a big stretch, and one few programmers or researchers would endorse, to say that all computation is AI. At that point you're committing to a sort of panpsychism that reduces to even rocks being intelligent because they can react with their environment by way of physics and chemistry.
So what do you mean by AI? What do you mean by "intelligence" at all? Ask ten people, get twenty answers. When discussing the merits of specific technologies it's best to keep one's definitions narrow so you can discuss the same thing instead of devolving into bikeshedding. When speaking of generative AI it is not helpful or informative to ask whether it is meaningfully different from a pocket calculator since they both do math. Clearly it is or we wouldn't be talking about it as a separate thing.
Thank you. My question was sincere, but this is not my field of expertise.
All your arguments for using AI-generated images in this way are eminently sane. 👌🏾
Thank ya kindly, Ms. Sane - appreciate the gracious words ☺️
The only AI image generator I've messed with is the one here on Substack. I was having fun with it, having it make silly images. It has the worst time with fingers (because it's not real AI and doesn't "know" what fingers are). It can make some pretty impressive realistic looking images, but the people in the picture will have six gnarled fingers on one hand, or two hands coming from one wrist!
I have used it for a few posts, where I needed something that I couldn't find a good picture for online.
I've used pics from web image searches for a long time. Many of the pictures I find aren't copyrighted, and on more than one occasion, they're cached, the webpage they originally come from is lo longer available.
On that note, I don't think that I've ever given credit to the person who created them. Mostly because they are public domain. Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, they display them without citing the author. They're making billions on advertising revenue -- while displaying other people's images. So...
However, like the web search engines, I never claim that any of the images I use are my own creation.
Likewise, I've seen where other people have used images that I have personally created. Ones that were snips I've used from Spreadsheets I created to show calculations.
I don't really care though. It's not worth worrying about it. Just as I do, they didn't claim that they created it, they just used it.
Everything I write is my own. AI "churches things up" too much and rambles about insignificant things constantly. It sounds like something written on the side of a sustainably sourced coffee product! 🤣😂
I need to do a post about that. Some of the stuff I've seen is definitely written by AI, not so much on here, but on housing websites, like Zillow. It's funny because you will see the same stupid words used all the time. Words like "nestled" and "Idyllic." Nobody says "idyllic" I had to look it up, because I didn't know the meaning!
idyllic /ī-dĭl′ĭk/
adjective
- Of or relating to an idyll.
- Tranquil and carefree.
"an idyllic childhood."
- Scenic or picturesque.
"an idyllic town by the sea."
AI picks out rarely used descriptive words, to make things sound more "fancy." 😂🤣
Oh yeah, the mangled-fingers thing is insane LOL It's why I started using Grok 2, much higher-quality images. I still use Substack's tool, however, especially for the more 'ethereal' shots (their "Epic' filter is the bomb).
I'm largely on-board with your point, except... well, I have used 'nestled' in my writing... and use 'idyllic' in both writing AND speech ;-) However, your point about the repetitive usage is spot on, and a clear sign of AI-written material.
Great comment, OGRE - appreciate it!
I'm still gobsmacked anyone would refer to that ai image as sexualized. But okay…..
I have a friend that is an artist, she works in graphic design for major companies. She does NOT use AI in her real work, but as a side hobby she runs a page where she also creates ai art.
Also I have another friend who is an artist, not professionally but as a hobby. She doesn’t do AI. However I asked both of them if they could do something specific for me once and they both told me I should try AI 🤣both of them blew my mind after all the online discourse around it,
Well, as we know from years on-line (especially living through the MySpace insanity LOL), folks have different views of what 'sex' IS - I knew when I posted the shot it may be seen as provocative at minimum, so it didn't really surprise me.
The story of your artist friends is fascinating to me, especially - like you - when I consider most of the the online commentary I have seen (and even some of the comments on this very article)! I reckon there are some who just have a different view, but still... it DOES surprise me! ;-)
Appreciate you sharing this, my friend - good info to have for future reference <3
Big fan of your work and I agree with most of this article. But I think that your argument about using AI art because you can’t afford to hire an artist is the weakest one. Please indulge me—I am nitpicking at one flaw in an otherwise solid piece, so that we might shore it up and thus strengthen the whole.
Is this very different from saying that ultraprocessed food is cheaper than whole food, so it’s OK to buy supermarket poison? Or that Facebook is free, so there’s no problem with giving it access to your info? Is the fact that AI art is “free”, a seductive lure that tempts you to do something you otherwise wouldn’t?
Hmm... this is actually a thought-provoking take, Al; I'm gonna have to mull it over for a bit, as I think you make a valid point here.
Glad you shared your candid opinion - thank you!
Good explanation but I’d urge not paying attention to the peanut gallery that would issue with your choice of imagery. Whatever—as they say. Carry on. 💪🏻
I use Freepik.com for any images that are not my own. Again—whatever.
Not a care in the world, brother - I answered one because I may have dropped the proverbial ball, but I've taken the rest in stride 😉
Appreciate ya, as always 🫡
Good take man, well explained 👊🏻
Very gracious of you, good sir - thank you! 🫡
Sometimes you just can't get the image you want from stock photos. And if you're like me, you can't get them from AI, either, so you have to resort to (badly done) "photoshopping."
I mostly have pretty good luck with generating pics; I have to fiddle with the prompts, and be super-patient at times, but I usually get what I want. Usually... 😉
I seldom-to-never find what I need from the free stock-photos, however... 🤦🏻
As a graphic artist for over thirty years, it's not that complicated.
It's fake.
It's obviously fake.
If the "art" is fake.
Everything else is fake.
It's apparently not obvious to many people. Which is why we've got weird little creeps running around accusing every 2nd unaccredited piece of art as being AI generated when it clearly isn't, and people sending money to fake charities posting fake pictures of fake suffering.
But I think the people fake art works for probably don't care in the first place that it's fake. One of my long standing litmus tests for whether someone is meaningfully human is whether he can tell the difference between junk food and real food and demonstrate a preference or at least articulate the difference between the two. Add fake art to the list of humanity tests.
Perfect description for satanic junk.