I used to feel proud to be part of humanity.
It felt good, because human beings had done wonderful things. We created majestic works of art, wrote magnificent books, sang joyous songs. We built cathedrals and pagodas, carved temples out of stone, and raised cities from the ground. We eliminated smallpox, split the atom, and stood on the moon.
Of course, we have also done terrible things. Atrocities, wars, cruelty beyond measure. But you cannot deny the Sistine Chapel, Saint Peter’s Basilica, the Taj Mahal, Angkor Wat, Machu Picchu. You cannot deny the poetry of Emily Dickinson and Yeats, the novels of Dostoevsky, the music of Bach, Beethoven, Gershwin. The songs of Joni Mitchell and Leonard Cohen. Humanity has proven itself capable of staggering beauty.
Growing up, I felt part of that story. When I read the books, visited the sites, sang the songs, I felt I belonged to a lineage of creators. It seemed to me that I was part of a species with limitless creative potential, because of what we had already achieved. Surely there was so much more ahead of us. And maybe—just maybe—I could play some small part in it.
Lately, though, another thought troubles me: What happens when we stop creating? What happens when the machines do it for us—the image-making, the music-writing, the story-spinning, the thinking itself? What happens to humanity’s sense of itself when we outsource the very acts that once defined our spirit and soul?
In the film The Social Dilemma, technology critic Tristan Harris speaks of a paradigm shift. For the first time, he says, we have invented a technology that is not merely a 'tool'. From the wheel to the printing press, from the telephone to the personal computer, technologies have historically been designed to help us accomplish tasks more efficiently. They extended human agency. The printing press spread ideas. The telephone allowed voices to carry across distance. These were tools that worked for us.
But social media—and now machine learning systems—work on us. They use us as much as we use them. Algorithms learn our preferences and in turn shape our thoughts, desires, and behaviors to serve commercial or political ends. The more we rely on them, the more they influence us.
In some sense, this is not entirely new. Newspapers, television, and radio were always used to persuade and to sell. But the intimacy of today’s technologies is unprecedented. Our phones are not just media channels; they are companions, advisors, decision-makers. They mediate every aspect of life: work, shopping, travel, communication, entertainment.
And now, increasingly, they mediate creativity itself, which is troubling to me.
Art is not just another domain of human activity. It is where we meet our own soul. Through stories, music, paintings, films, poems, we connect to one another and to the depths of our humanity. Art is not decoration. It is recognition: the proof that someone else has felt what I feel, seen what I see, longed as I long.
What happens when machines make the films we watch, the music we listen to, the stories we read? What happens when the mirror of human experience is replaced by the reflection of aggregated data scraped from the internet and optimized for engagement, but untethered from lived life?
I fear that as we outsource creativity to machines, we risk losing our faith in ourselves. We risk ceasing to believe in the potential that human beings are capable of. If beauty no longer carries the weight of human struggle, love, or imagination behind it, then it will not connect us to one another in the same way. It may dazzle us, but it will not bond us.
And without that bond—without that sense of belonging to a lineage of creators—we become disconnected, apathetic, and lonely. Just as great art once elevated our sense of humanity, machine-made art may begin to flatten it. If we consume only the reflections of algorithms, we will become their reflection: soulless, mechanical, cut off from our own depth.
The danger, then, is not simply that machines will replace us. It is that we will forget who we are and care less about each other. The moment we stop creating for ourselves, we risk losing the very thing that once made it feel so good to be a member of the human race.
4 comments:
That's a beautifully written love letter to our one true world-making activity. When I was 6 someone sang at me that the hills are alive with the sound of music, and I got it. Now I've been appointed to a GAI committee at my school - not sure what the mandate really is, but neither is anyone else, so we might as well critique it not advocate for it. The kids are alright - artificial intelligence is not intelligence, but it is artifice, so we are safe. :)
Thank you. A GAI committee at your school - the thought of it sends shudders down my spine. As someone in the biz of art and education I have a question for you. How are the students now viewing what they training to do? As a 'job'? A hobby? A 'calling'? And how do they see the role of art? An act of rebellion, a political statement? A way to advance humanity and civilization but challenging conventions? I guess I'm asking, what it means to them. Big questions, I know.
I come from an ancient gen. of artist - your brother and I worked in an atmosphere wherein art was an act of resistance, and a lever to pry open everything -- expose the bad, at least point at the good, and spread the word that the hills were alive, etc... (I think so and I think he does too, although I once saw him fit 30 Goldfish crackers into his mouth at once). According to some recent stat I came across, 70% consider "influencer" a job that they want to pursue. I find that disheartening but again, ancient wisdom is hard to justify . There are pockets of intensity, but its all rather bland and oriented towards notoriety.
30 Goldfish crackers. Pepperidge Farm would be impressed. Anyone who conceives of shooting a laser into the sky to create the largest drawing in the universe, doesn't qualify as coming from an ancient generation. So I guess with the next generation of artists it's all about the fame. I guess they're not fans of David Bowie - "bully for you, chilly for me" - fame ain't all it's cracked up to be. And anyway, are visual artists famous anymore? No more rock stars. And what passes for fame...influencing... is a flash in the pan. And speaking of Bowie, and my brother, I learned this week for the first time that he was never a fan. The lesson I am gleaning is that if you're going to work in obscurity, may as well make it enjoyable.
Post a Comment