Disney+ miniseries Secret Invasion debuted on June 21st and the opening credits of the show have caused quite a controversy. It features AI-generated work that is being called a “thematic choice.” Now, Method Studios (which is behind the opening) clarified the reports saying that “AI is just one tool among the array of tool sets our artists used.” And yeah, this is a BAD LOOK. It’s bad because Marvel Studios is notorious for underpaying and overworking its CGI artists, and yet they took a shortcut here. They clearly feel comfortable getting over on actual people, so using an AI creation where previous show credits have been well made and gorgeous is just a step forward in that direction.
This argument that AI is just another tool in an artist’s toolbox is an exceptionally stupid one, for so many reasons. Let me explain with a long diatribe.
1- The first issue with this argument is what I call the “Slippery Slope” view. People who are enamored with AI (for brevity, I’ll call them “Idiots”) always say AI is just inevitable technological advancement and accuse people who dislike AI of being “luddites”. These Idiots say, “People have always been scared of technological change, but the adoption of AI is no different than the switch from typewriters to computers. It’s just a new technology for the writer to use.” (I’m using writing because that is what I’m doing here, but it could just as easily be photography, film, music, or even coding.) What this Idiot’s argument assumes is that every technological advancement is just a natural evolution from technology before it. That is a faulty assumption. Look, I have no problem with technology, I use it all the time. I also accept that technology can make our lives (and jobs) easier. I’m happy I don’t have to go out and churn butter every day; my life (and popcorn) is better for it. But, also, the job of butter churner disappeared. That’s a profession that simply doesn’t exist anymore (outside of Colonial Williamsburg). My point being that there are technologies that make doing a job easier/faster, and then there are technologies that flat out replace jobs. Sometimes those technologies are one and the same, but not always. Having a digital word processor instead of an old-school typewriter hasn’t dramatically changed the job of writing, other than it makes editing and revising quicker. I still have to sit down, formulate my ideas, then type them out and edit. In that way, my process isn’t all that different from what Fitzgerald or Hemingway would have done. Alternatively, with AI, the process of writing doesn’t just get quicker, it completely disappears. (To be clear, I don’t think AI can actually write a good novel, yet; I do think within a generation it will be able to produce a James Patterson-level novel, something uncomplicated with minimal character development and a mostly coherent plot.) Farting a prompt into a computer interface (whether it be a sentence, a paragraph, or even a full-page synopsis) and then calling what comes out “my novel” is horseshit. For many reasons, not least of which is that AI isn’t actually AI, it’s just an advanced predictive text algorithm that regurgitates sentences based on popular sentence formulations. Yes, writers (artists) “borrow/steal” from their influences, but art is the process of creating something new from existing materials/concepts (I’d argue some truly brilliant artists avoid the borrowing trope altogether, but that’s a tangent for another time). AI doesn’t create something new, AI creates a distorted (some might argue defaced) facsimile of data it’s been fed. So, no, AI doesn’t make writing easier. It eliminates the process altogether so a machine can produce a novel-like thing (“I Can’t Believe It’s Not Brontë”), and it certainly can’t be called the product of writing.
2- The concept of artistic mediums exists for a reason. We define artists and art by their mediums. If I’m an artist who makes a photorealistic drawing, that doesn’t make what I’ve created a photo, even if the layperson can’t tell the difference. The medium dictates what type of art we’re talking about. An algorithm that can spew out a “novel” or a “photo” or a “movie” isn’t actually creating any of those. It’s creating something in a different medium that resembles those other artforms. Until AI can create a wholly original artform based on the unique attributes of its design, it’s not an artistic tool, it’s a funhouse mirror merged with a photocopier.
3- People are allowed to love and praise “AI art” (whatever that is). Odds are, such Idiots weren’t ever going to buy or appreciate actual art anyway, so it’s not really a net loss for those industries. Likewise, people are allowed to use AI to create their art facsimiles. It doesn’t mean they deserve to be taken seriously as “artists.”
4- Most of this conversation is moot for the moment because, outside of some “cool” visuals, “AI art” is still absolute garbage (even most AI visuals are ugly, but that’s extremely subjective). Because AI is just predictive text, it can’t plan a story ahead of time and seed it with meaningful imagery, foreshadowing, or symbolism. It might accidentally produce something that feels symbolic to a receptive audience, but without intention, it’s just the equivalent of a Christian seeing Jesus’ face in a grilled cheese sandwich. You see what you want to see.
5- I italicized “for the moment” before because my overarching concern is for the years to come. I know this AI will get more advanced and better at what it does (already the better fake photos are avoiding some of the earlier mistakes, like six-fingered people). It’ll still never be able to create anything of truly great artistic merit (because, again, it isn’t really artificial intelligence and therefore can’t create with intention), but what it can do is create artistic facsimiles that the general audience will eat up and publishers/studios will gladly shit out, because it will be cheaper and faster to create than human-made art. And this brings us back around to my first point: the ultimate use of AI is replacing/eliminating workers. Not today, not in the next three years, but down the line. And where it can’t actually replace workers, it will make their work less valuable so they can be paid less (this will be true in almost all fields). People like Elon who are talking about the “apocalyptic” potential of AI are lying (or Idiots), because this AI isn’t going to rise up and launch nuclear bombs. What it is going to do is allow billionaires and corporations to devalue human work. No profession will be safe from that. Perhaps the AI-ification of employment is inevitable. All the more reason things like the WGA strike are so important. If we don’t safeguard workers, the looming wealth gap will make what we have now look downright equal.