The Infinite Mirror of Chat GTP and The Destruction of Soulful Creativity
The one time I'm a troll is when I see ads on social media for ChatGPT, often selling prompt packages to improve business content and increase sales. I'm very likely to drop an acerbic line such as 'or, you can learn to write your own content' or the like. Or pay a copy writer, or spend time crafting something original.
It does worry me that the Internet is becoming an infinite mirror, repeating the same content back at each other til the end of days, nothing original, nothing new, nothing truly creative and soulful.
Chat GTP is a useful, convenient tool. I used it today to find our the term for reflecting things back, in infinite reflections.
The phrase you might be looking for is "infinite recursion" or "recursive reflection." This refers to a situation where something is defined or repeated in terms of itself, creating an endless loop of reflection or repetition. In the context of mirrors or reflective surfaces, it would describe the phenomenon where reflections bounce back and forth between mirrors, creating a seemingly infinite sequence.
Thanks, Chat GTP. My son swears he'll always use it for cover letters as he can't stand writing them himself.
Yet, he'll go over it with a fine tooth comb so it sounds authentic - because of course, we all know authentic, honest and genuine matters, even if we're cutting corners ourselves.
But the more we use it to replace writers, the less we're going to be capable of writing at all. What's the point, when it can do it for us? For someone who takes pleasure in reading and writing, that upsets me. It's also becoming evident that we need people who are good at reading and writing to spot where Chat GTP doesn't cut the mustard - where it repeats itself, spouts untruths, is overly hyperbolic, repetitive and hallucinatory.
This week I read Nick Cave's response to someone who was enjoying getting Chat GTP to write song lyrics. Like this verse in a largely reasonable song written by Chat GTP:
Every thought, a repetition's embrace,
Originality lost in this mirrored space,
Voices bounce, yet nothing's new,
Caught in the cycle, old thoughts grew.
Searching for a spark, a break from the norm,
Breaking free from the mirror's swarm,
A flicker of change, a chance to renew,
Breaking the cycle, a world born anew.
It's not a human response, but it gets the idea. Without the spark of creativity, the world is old and stale and endlessly repeating.
Nick's response to someone writing a song 'in the style of Nick Cave' was impassionated:
“This is part of the authentic creative struggle that precedes the invention of a unique lyric of actual value; it is the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering.”
Ah. There's that word again - 'authentic'. It's the problem I have on Hive when work is passed of as one's own. Did you struggle for it? Is it your unique voice? Is it something true, the inner workings of your own blood? He argues the act of song writing is not a convenience, but:
the breathless confrontation with one’s vulnerability, one’s perilousness, one’s smallness, pitted against a sense of sudden shocking discovery; it is the redemptive artistic act that stirs the heart of the listener, where the listener recognizes in the inner workings of the song their own blood, their own struggle, their own suffering. This is what we humble humans can offer, that AI can only mimic, the transcendent journey of the artist that forever grapples with his or her own shortcomings. This is where human genius resides, deeply embedded within, yet reaching beyond, those limitations.
In another letter, he responds to the 'faster and easier' aspect of Chat GPT. I have to include the whole letter - it's a beautiful argument against the commodification of creativity and argues that Chat GPT threatends to the very soul of the world. I've highlighted the sentences that resonated for me.
Dear Leon and Charlie,
In the story of the creation, God makes the world, and everything in it, in six days. On the seventh day he rests. The day of rest is significant because it suggests that the creation required a certain effort on God’s part, that some form of artistic struggle had taken place. This struggle is the validating impulse that gives God’s world its intrinsic meaning.
The world becomes more than just an object full of other objects, rather it is imbued with the vital spirit, the pneuma, of its creator.
ChatGPT rejects any notions of creative struggle, that our endeavours animate and nurture our lives giving them depth and meaning.
It rejects that there is a collective, essential and unconscious human spirit underpinning our existence, connecting us all through our mutual striving.
ChatGPT is fast-tracking the commodification of the human spirit by mechanising the imagination.It renders our participation in the act of creation as valueless and unnecessary. That ‘songwriter ‘you were talking to, Leon, who is using ChatGPT to write ‘his’ lyrics because it is ‘faster and easier ,’is participating in this erosion of the world’s soul and the spirit of humanity itself and, to put it politely, should fucking desist if he wants to continue calling himself a songwriter.
ChatGPT’s intent is to eliminate the process of creation and its attendant challenges,
viewing it as nothing more than a time-wasting inconvenience that stands in the way of the commodity itself.Why strive?, it contends. Why bother with the artistic process and its accompanying trials? Why shouldn’t we make it ‘faster and easier?’
When the God of the Bible looked upon what He had created, He did so with a sense of accomplishment and saw that ‘it was good‘. ‘It was good ‘because it required something of His own self, and His struggle imbued creation with a moral imperative, in short love. Charlie, even though the creative act requires considerable effort, in the end you will be contributing to the vast network of love that supports human existence.
There are all sorts of temptations in this world that will eat away at your creative spirit, but none more fiendish than that boundless machine of artistic demoralisation, ChatGPT.
As humans, we so often feel helpless in our own smallness, yet still we find the resilience to do and make beautiful things, and this is where the meaning of life resides.
Nature reminds us of this constantly. The world is often cast as a purely malignant place, but still the joy of creation exerts itself, and as the sun rises upon the struggle of the day, the Great Crested Grebe dances upon the water.It is our striving that becomes the very essence of meaning. This impulse – the creative dance – that is now being so cynically undermined, must be defended at all costs, and just as we would fight any existential evil, we should fight it tooth and nail, for we are fighting for the very soul of the world.
As an excercise, I asked Chat GPT to write a counter argument to Nick's letter. Whilst it made some reasonable points, it lacked the creativity of Nick's argument - it was a fast tracked response that lacked the grebe dancing on the water, and instead gave something generic and soulless. I reject having to modify prompts to lend a sense of soul to it's efforts - I know I'll end up with something nonsensical and hyperbolic that needs a human editor to make it sound more human.
The more I see Chat GPT being used to 'create', the more I reject it. And I hope I'm not the only one hoping that the soul of the world is retained by human effort.
With Love,
Are you on HIVE yet? Earn for writing! Referral link for FREE account here
I didn't even know what it was until reading this post.
This is what scares me about technology, people will have no imaginations left, they'll no longer have yo even think for themselves although lets be honest there are a few like that already. But you know what I mean.
Me I still prefer a pencil to a pen. Xxxxx
Yeah look it's a tool and a useful one. I can get it to check for errors, ask it things I don't know eg what does an x thing sound like. But to cheat at creativity isn't creativity, it's just fucked up.
And Nick, of course, says it so well. Love him.
I think, first off, that Nick is such an amazing person and I don't know if anyone could summarise the emergence and dependency on chatGPT so accurately.
I think the referencing of the Bible is apt. It took something from God, which is why after six days of creating the world and looking it over to see that it was good, he rested.
I know chatGPT is helpful. I use it myself when I want to get the various synonyms to a particular word. But for someone who derives so much joy in writing, am I not cheating myself by submitting that power to something else?
Nailed it! Yes! I think @dbooster says something simliar below (just about to read his). We get pleasure in the struggle of creating, a sense of a job well done, and we learn and grow through it. When we submit that power to Chat GTP, we're just giving over something we are meant to do as human beings. Where does that leave us, emotionally, psychologicallY?
We are entering a strange era in which, as you say, infinite copies of copies will permeate everything. Scary thought. And sometime soon the only things ChatGPT will use to learn from will be its own responses.
But I like to think of ChatGPT as a peer or someone who can immediately respond to your work and ideas and even help with some editing. People who yearn to write with creative ideas but who cannot express themselves clearly, might actually get those creative thoughts out. As a non-native speaker of English, writing in English always serves as a stumbling block for me. But the creation still resides in me as the author of the idea. But to what extent is the “package” (or language) part of the overall creation? That is, where is the line between intellectual property and the way in which the IP is presented?
This is something I am struggling with because in the academic space language is a big thing and I have received rejection slips for article due to bad grammer. Editors in my country is so expensive that it is almost never worth it sending your work to them unless you have infinite money.
Sorry for the long winded response and musing! But its such an interesting space we are entering now in which ChatGPT can help those who need that extra bit of help for a fraction of the price but it can also so easily be abused and creativity will become mere copying what has already been copied.
Very well said by Nick ! This AI thing is a double edged blade. Like any useful tool, it can also do a lot of damage. But I have faith that human creativity will always outpace the competition. My greetings from Havana, and I join the army of defenders of the soul in creation 🙏
People will keep using AI to cheat, and as AI improves we won't be able to tell at all and their cheating will look original. But there is a cost. The cost isn't to society, it is personal, a cost to our soul if you will.
That's a great letter. I liked this bit:
I think that's just it. Putting aside all else, when we don't do it ourselves we don't have that sense of satisfaction at having struggled and done it ourselves. So what's the point?
That reminds me of the post I just read from @coinjoe (here). He put some degree of effort in and fixed his garage door instead of just letting the fixit guy do it. Forget the money saved, the effort to do it himself rewarded him.
I have no doubt ChatGPT and AI in general will just keep improving and improving until they can do everything better than us, including songwriting. At that point, our own efforts may look dull and unoriginal when compared to the wonders AI can give us. We will be in a world where we won't need to do anything and all our needs will be provided for. I would tend to believe this utopian future is coming more than I believe the dystopian visions wherein the rich take even more power and enslave all of us to an even greater extent.
Yet is it really utopian? I think that future would be incredibly dull. The human spirit needs to work to feel alive. Not work as in this soul-crushing 9-5 daily grind that we all hate, but work as in some kind of creative activity that gives us a sense of accomplishment when we do it.
I see a future very similar to the Star Trek one. Where despite technology that can do everything for us, people choose to continue working at jobs they love. There will always be people who just sit back and let AI do it. But for the people who have looked inward and realized the joy to be gained by struggling to do it ourselves, they will still attempt the work.
Yes, as @jhymi also says above. There's a joy in creation - if we hand this all over to AI, we sacrifice the satisfaction we feel after nutting through a problem. I've thought a lot about the peace we get out in the bush when we are constantlyproblem solving: getting water from the creek to boil for a shower, where to get wood, lighting a fire, making the food we have last the week, and so on and so forth. The joy of making a meal. Fixing a bike. All that stuff matters, and we're losing those skills at a steady rate. It's definitely dystopian for me to consider a world where all my needs are met. Do nothing and be happy doesn't compute for me, and I can't imagine this is what anyone really wants. There's only so long we 'relax' without the human need to create.
Yes. I look at young people going back to old world skills - carpentry, woodworking, film photography. They find value in it in a world that's automated, easy. I hope, like you, there will be a critical mass of people who do this - not because they're luddites in the basic sense (anti tech, rather than fighting for the rights of people to earn a living) but because they recognise that creating in this way - because it is 'good' is a necessary part of being human.
Hey, thanks for the mention buddy. You are correct, I did save money, but the satisfaction of doing it myself with my son was a great feeling.
Maybe ChatGPT is showing us that humans are not as creative as we once thought. So, for instance, if you ask ChatGPT to write you a poem, a story, a script, etc. It will do a reasonably good job. I recently asked it to write a myth about the beginning of light, and it did a fantastic job (copied below). How could it do this?
The study of myths and stories from cultures native to a region has been of interest to anthropologists. They really get into the mechanics of story telling. Their work has shown that stories from indigenous cultures follow a particular structure that expresses itself in the used words, phrases, sequence of events, etc. This is similar to how most Hollywood stories follow a familiar structure with stories that have a prescribed beginning, middle, and end. So, all chatGPT is doing is recognizing this structure and adding the details. For chatGPT, story telling is not rocket science. There is a structure that one can follow. Humans are fascinating in that we can also consciously decide to not follow a typical recipe (like Tarantino's Pulp Fiction). But for the most part we stick to what is tried and true. Though it may appear creative on the surface, once you analyze the constituent components of human generated stories, they're not that different from one another.
In the myth created by ChatGPT (copied below), the story begins with "in the time before time". Here we recognize a pattern, the idea that there was a time before time. A great number of myths from different cultures believe that there was indeed a time before time. There was a beginning when things were not the way they are now. This includes the Christian myth of creation which describes the beginning as God creating heaven, earth, and other things before he gets around to making light. Somehow, chatGPT has figured out this general pattern of myths. The AI then does something very clever, it personalizes the natural phenomena of light by putting it in opposition to darkness and giving them names (Lumina and Nocturna). Many cultures personalize their myths in a similar manner. The ancient Hindus were masters of it. Shiva for example, represents the interplay of various natural phenomena personalized in the famous avatar of the multi-armed deity popular in Hinduism and hippy homes. In Christian myth, they do the same by encapsulating the concept of evil in a snake with an apple. So here we have another rule or pattern that the bot has recognized. We can really get down to very narrow levels of analysis that include the syntactical or lexical rules of a story, but I think these examples demonstrate the point that so called human creativity may not be so creative at all. There are rules that we follow, and the AI has simply figured them out because they're not that complex to begin with (generally speaking).
I think the dialogue of AI vs humans is getting bogged into whether the AIs are more intelligent, creative, and so on. We're missing the most existentially profound aspect of this technology: the AI is a mirror of our own robothood. We are artificial genetic intelligences following prescribed rules of logic and reasoning, even when they seem spontaneous and free flowing.
We're also missing the most thrilling aspect of this technology- it's capacity to help us escape our own robothood. It may be the case that the bot will be able to develop new artistic, scientific, and engineering processes that haven't occurred to humans yet. It will accelerate our development into new forms of reasoning and communicating based on the basic rules developed by the ABC word processor of the human brain. There is no need to write more poems about red roses and blue violets, there's now an entire garden of delights waiting for us. 🍎
ChatGPT query
Tell me an original myth about the creation of light in 300 words
ChatGPT
In the time before time, when the cosmos was an endless expanse of shadow, there dwelled two ancient entities, Lumina and Nocturna, embodiments of light and darkness. They coexisted in a delicate dance, their energies intertwined yet separate. Lumina emanated a soft, radiant glow that warmed the void, while Nocturna cast elegant swathes of darkness that cradled the universe.
For eons, Lumina and Nocturna played their roles without question, until a whisper of curiosity stirred within Lumina. She yearned to see the beauty that her light could bring to the unknown realms of existence. Nocturna, however, was wary, fearing the potential disruption this exploration might cause.
Lumina's longing grew stronger, and with her persistent plea, Nocturna reluctantly agreed. Together, they wove a tapestry of collaboration, fusing their powers in a harmonious symphony. In a burst of celestial energy, they birthed the first world, a canvas of swirling colors and primordial elements.
As Lumina's radiant fingers brushed this nascent creation, it sprang to life, its surface aglow with ethereal luminosity. Nocturna's gentle embrace draped the world in velvety shadows, creating a delicate balance between light and darkness.
From this new realm, life sprouted, basking in the interplay of these two cosmic forces. Stars ignited, painting the heavens with gleaming constellations. Oceans shimmered with Lumina's kiss, and forests whispered secrets beneath Nocturna's cloak. Every corner of this world flourished, echoing the dance of its creators.
Over time, Lumina and Nocturna watched over their creation, witnessing the marvels born from their collaborative spark. The myth of their cosmic partnership spread through the inhabitants of the world, teaching them the value of balance and cooperation.
And so, the creation of light became a testament to the power of unity between contrasting forces. Lumina and Nocturna, once cautious companions, revealed the splendor that arises when darkness and light harmonize, forever illuminating the tapestry of existence with their intertwined brilliance.
Yes, story telling has 'mechanics' - they are points of reference for humans to think: ah, this is a story, and I understand this. They say there are only seven plots to all the stories ever written. However, even this argument is flawed. It oversimplifies the diversity and complexity of human experiences, and ignores our unique perspectives - cultural, historical, individual. It also ignores how genres blend and evolve (if Chat GTP isn't fed data past a certain date, can it come up with things we already have in the subsequent years?) - it's hard to pigeonhole genres, and modern stories that intentionally subvert traditional plots are trying not to mirror, but suprise us and thus get us to respond in different ways. I believe we are always coming up with new things, because we are so ridiculously unique. Sure, Shakespeare's plots and characters still stand 500 years later because we relate to these universal stories of grief, rage, ambition, love and so on, but there are many incredible writers since that have touched our very souls with their approach.
Chat GTP can write a story, granted. The question is, should it? As I read the story I think it's nothing new, because I've read enough creation myths to understand this. It is a functional story, but the fact I know it was written by Chat GTP makes me less inclined to care about it or connect to it. Why, when I can read original creation myths, with their rich history and humanity? And if I'm lied to about the fact it's AI, well, that is just morally wrong, in the same way as the ongoing debate about lying about any kind of authorship.
Cave's response to Chat GTP coming up with a Cave like story is justified. It's abhorrent because, whilst Chat GTP might 'create' something in the image of, it's empty of the true creative process. Think of the works of art we admire because of the unique individual, cultural, social story that brings them into being.
Chat GTP might do a good job of mirroring through formula, but it's not true creativity - it's just reflections.
It might be bringing a new story or poem 'into being' a.k.a. 'creation' - but it's not being creative in the way that humans are, can be, and will be, if allowed and nurtured.
I think of Virginia Woolf asking for six guineas and a room of her own to be able to write. If woman weren't supported to create, we'd lack that richness they brought into the world in all kinds of ways - Kahlo's painting, Potter's botanical drawings, Plath and Dickinson's poetry. I doubht Chat GTP can struggle through something and create something truly connected, truly beautiful, truly moving, truly thought provoking. It's just giving us echoes.
Thinking of creativy as originality, uniqueness, unconfined and divergent thinking, a response to problem solving, risk taking, experimenting, inspired and intuitive insights, novel ways to look at old things, perseverence, innovation - I'm not sure Chat GTP cuts the mustard here in the way that human beings can. In fact, I know it doesn't. It's rehashing in a very quick, mechanical, formulaic way.
There's this awesome quote by Jim Jarmusch, but I loved it - it was how any work of art (in any medium) is the sum of everythign we've read, learnt, been inspired by - nothing is truly original. This suits your argument, and to that extent, I agree. Yet look at the uniqueness of his way of storytelling - sublime. Or Wes Anderson.
Chat GTP isn't coming up with anything new, or anything old, or anything human - it's just putting together a bunch of tropes.
Sorry if my response is a bit all over the shop - tired this week, and it's a really tangled subject that I think we both find fascinating!
It is a great topic to explore. I have zero problems with AI because I think that it is just an extension of our nervous system. We created them in our image! So, as far as I see it, we have to embrace it like one would embrace a lover. With passion! When it comes to AI, you don't approach it timidly. You go up to it and get on its face, then grab it against the wall, and seduce it to your will. Some people disagree with that approach, and that's alright. 🌜
The battle is lost. If not during our lifetime, eventually. Time is meaningless to a machine.
Yes that is true - and we are willing to feed it.
It is a controversial topic, but used with moderation it can be useful. However, when has the human being shown restraint? I believe that there will inevitably be a separation in the world population in the future, those who are heading towards transhumanism (which goes hand in hand with artificial intelligences) and those of us who still remain human, with a soul.
Haha yes that is true!
I don't think there's anything essentially wrong with transhumanism - it's when we have 'transferred' or 'transformed' all the human into the tech so nothing of us is left that we have the problem.
I can definitely see the separation happening too. I know if I was forced to take a side, I would turn off the machine. Many wouldn't. But then I remember the time when we didn't have the internet, so I have that to compare to.
Yes, in the same way we cannot demonize technology, thanks to it this conversation is possible 😅 It is up to each person to decide whether to get lost in it or use it to their advantage.
Alas AI suits gen z as they are in the main a bunch of lazy arsed slackers, add in the "i want it now, and i want it for free" millenials, and we are fucked.
Thank fuck I am a baby boomer brought up on hard work and rewards given for said hard work. ( i would love to see this generation deal with logarithms to solve long equations, they would go crying to mummy).
It is a sad world we live in
Not a fan.
It’s going to be like many other tools in that it’s going to assist people with doing things but can’t replace them entirely. It’s artificial intelligence, not general intelligence so it’s going to lack a lot of things even if they “refine” it. It’s also being destroyed by the censors and woke assholes. A lot of people are already saying that it’s largely a pile of shit compared to previous versions and I think it will run itself into the ground. Fully open source versions are becoming stronger and better and those we can tailor to our specifics. I’m looking forward to the day when we can plug all of the holistic medicinal papers into a LLM and have it be a wealth of knowledge and resources for our holistic needs.
Yes it’s going to be an application that attempts to supplant human creativity but that’s been the case for decades. Machines are always being attempted to supplant people and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. We will find out the long term implications of this new tech and adapt.
I know several people I respect on Hive who believe that resistance to AI 'creations' is a knee-jerk, Luddite response. I'm not naming these bloggers because I don't want to summon them from the shadows and then be obliged to answer their comments. I'll just respond with my own reaction to your blog.
Bravo.
The idea of simulation, or human emulation, is not new. It has been explored in myth, in literature, and art for centuries.
An essay by a Stanford scholar explores the use of artificial intelligence (as mythic creatures) in ancient sources. In each case, when the AI (artificial human/intelligence) is sent to earth the outcome is disastrous.
In the 19th century, ETA Hoffmann (among others) explored the essence of automata in his stories. Always there is a sinister element to this simulation of human life.
Why do some of us not see the product of AI as creativity but as simulation? What is the essence of creativity? Is a mirror of the 'real' thing the same as the original?
Why do we value an original Picasso and not its perfect 'copy'? Why is manufactured glassware valued less than handblown glassware?
What is the difference between a hand-crafted quilt and a manufactured quilt? The former might have more 'imperfections', but isn't that exactly why we value it more?
It is the essence of being human that comes through in art. Imitation just doesn't cut it. Simulation doesn't cut it. Michelangelo's Creation of Adam expresses exquisitely the notion of a divine transmission of light, of genius, of humanity. This is what we treasure in art--whatever form that art takes.