I love the idea of The Analogue Resistance. I’ve been using the idea of Re-wilding in my digital illustration process, with the aim of bringing back more physically made elements into how I make my art. Although not strictly about AI, the efficiencies gained by digital tools come at a cost—in my case, the loss of a sense of discovery and the satisfaction of seeing a work come together in ways I couldn’t have planned. Digital has made my process less interesting to me.
AI generated content is a stupid answer to a stupid question. Instead of starting with something worth expressing, we start with the pressure to feed the machine with content. If we’re calling what we produce and post “content”, we’ve already lost, and perhaps we might as well just let computers write (and read) it for us.
Would love to hear more about the "re-wilding" of your illustration process. In the book "Revenge of the Analog", Sax describes how Facebook set up an archaic printing press (which they called the Analog Research Laboratory) that produced hand-printed designs for their Facebook slogans. Illustrators who include the physical world in their work will set them selves apart! Thanks for reading :)
Very glad you are honing in on the topic of 'trust' with regards to AI Peco and Ruth and a great piece.
For me, trust is the biggest and most fundamental issue with it. I don't want to live in a society where I am forced to doubt whether everything I read, every photograph I see, every audio I listen to is made by a human or not, let alone if the mountain (to take an example) in the photo is a real place or not. Such a world is disorientating, ugly, and repressive. Societies where no one can trust anyone are defined by these adjectives (just think of China or North Korea) - AI risks turning our societies into such defined places. One could argue that our digital ecosystems are already far down this path with no return.
Hope you don't mind me putting my Refuges of Authenticity essay in the comments in case anyone wants to read my anti-AI manifesto!
Hadden, just added your piece to the "Further Reading" section! Fully agree that a world where we have to doubt the authenticity of everything is "disorienting, ugly, and repressive". So glad to have writers like you alongside!
I saw my first fake AI photo in a well respected newspaper this week. It made me double take and think “something isn’t right” - and lo and behold that was the case (if one looked closely!)
It made me sad that even in well-respected parts of society AI is being used instead of the real and the good.
Also, the giveaway for AI photos, especially of people, is that they look artificially too perfect (flawless, unblemished skin, perfect pearly white smile etc). Thus artificial standards of perfection are being pushed on us - but the more they are pushed on us the uglier they become.
You should write to them and express your disappointment in stepping away from human quality toward AI fakery. If they hear that this is decreasing trust in their publication they may take note...
Oh, and I was in a coffee shop recently and was surround by students. Almost all of them had ChatGPT open. It really is an academic nightmare. Students are sacrificing learning for a mere letter - and a letter that is fast becoming utterly worthless as an indication of competency and mastery.
I’m a college English professor and for most of my career I’ve taught over half of my classes online. I teach first-year writing classes to senior major classes. One strategy to combat both AI and students’ phone addictions, I designed an honors class that runs completely analog until their final research project where they’re allowed to use the electronic database in the library, but this coming fall I’m now required to offer students the option to use electronic textbooks as a first-day access to books. So now they’ll be bringing laptops and phones back into my class. Since many of the students are high school dual/enrolled students, this is the only way they can get their book for free; those students can no longer rent hard copy textbooks for free. It’s disheartening. I sometimes feel like there are many forces, not just the AI, working against faculty trying to deal with this issue.
This was beautifully considered, thank you. Our increasing alienation and the managerial tools that stand in for trust are a concern of mine, and I think my work in both the trades and the arts has helped me recognize those patterns. Skeptocracy is an excellent label.
One choice I've made as a Substacker is to turn off the feature that lets AI scan my publication. Unfortunately this reduces my reach, and it would be wonderful to see the algorithms correct for that, but it's worth it regardless.
I really appreciate that you've included actionable suggestions for people in different contexts.
Thanks for reading Sage :) Yes, I hope that Substack might follow some of these suggestions. It will definitely take deliberate effort for a platform such as this not to drown in AI in the near future. After publishing the post yesterday, I read that apparently bullet-lists of suggestions are considered a surefire sign that the writer used AI (that won't make me stop using them :)
It's just so sad about students. My old colleagues teaching at a US university are really struggling with how to navigate this. Funnily enough, the pontifical university system in Rome is so old it's new again: they never really moved away from in-person oral exams (from the 16th c or earlier!) so now they are leading the way in not succumbing to AI.
Agreed, it is a sad trajectory. It seems like the pontifical university system could have a major comeback as the "leading educational system of the past, and the future" :)
I don't quite have it worked out yet, but it seems to me that the privitization of morals is a big factor in the loss of trust. When we each have a different idea of what it means to be happy or polite or fulfilled then a common trust among people is already crumbling.
I have tried asking this question before of another author, to no avail. Reading this article, it occurred to me that you two are the perfect people to pose this question to, and will hopefully get a response. I like to write, and am someone who likes old-fashioned things. But, to date, I do most of my writing -- other than occasional scribbling on my diary and letters -- on my computer. I feel drawn to writing things by hand, as other authors do, but I need help as to how to go about it. How do "paper authors" write? More specifically... I was raised in a home where we were very careful not to waste paper. Because of this, I cannot help but think of all the paper I would waste by writing things out by hand until I thought my work was "perfect" (not in the strict sense). Looking back, it seems like people did not worry so much about wasting paper when it was the only thing they could write on. Another thing is neatness. On my computer, I can delete every mistake I make. When writing on paper, do you just cross out sentences or words you decide to take out, then write what you consider the correct thing afterwards? Doesn't such "messiness" ever affect your state of mind while writing? Also, writing by hand takes more time. Do you ever find you lose inspiration because you can't type everything out in an instant?
I apologize for all the stubborn questions, but it seems like you would know the answer to these. I am tired of screens, but I like the commodity, though I am very much willing to take the trouble to teach myself that there is a better way!
Andrea, thanks for your question(s)! I’ll share a few thoughts about my own writing process when it comes to using paper, but everybody is pretty individual, so don’t take this as a template. When writing stories (fiction), I use a regular ballpoint pen and lined paper in a notebook. Typically, I only handwrite first drafts, where I’m really trying to catch the emotion or feeling of the story, more than the fine details. The other time that I go back to paper is during later drafts, especially if I discover any longer passages that need to be fully rewritten. During the actual writing process on paper, I draw a line down the center of the paper and write in two columns. To save space, I also (often) write two lines of text for every single line (i.e., two lines of text squeezed between the two blue lines). This doesn’t just save space (because the writing is one half the usual size, effectively doubling the amount of writing that can fit on one page), but also forces me to write more neatly (as my writing is otherwise a bit messy). Once I’ve written my first draft (or rewritten a passage that needed more work), I transcribe everything onto the screen, often improving and editing spontaneously as I go along.
So, the above process is what I use for writing fiction, but when writing essays, I write using the same method, but much more of it is brainstorming and just getting the ideas down, in any order, and trying to see if any particular metaphors, turns of phrase, or ideas stand out. Usually I go back after the fact and circle or underline ideas that I like, and then I take these onto the computer and develop them more fully. The two photographed pages within the essay above show you a couple of handwritten pages I used to brainstorm ideas for the essay.
Again, this is just my own process, and even my own process has evolved over time, so it’s quite possible that next month or next year there may be new variations that develop. The motivation for maintaining the handwriting process is that there is something about the connection between the head and the hand while writing, and something about the pace of the writing, that for me produces the most spontaneous and energizing creative work.
Thank you so very much for your reply! It is very helpful! I feel a lot more enticed to try writing by hand now that I have an idea how other writers do it.
One member of a writing group I participate in raised the disclosures of AI use issue, she was discouraged to find that since she used AI as a thesaurus, the box would have to be checked.
I am curious how far this extends? In my personal writing, I often will search for a word, or some facts I have in mind and now the AI at the top of the search engine provides a sufficient answer. For example, "How soon can childhood anxiety be diagnosed?" which brings up an answer along with some surrounding helpful information to help frame aspects of the story.
Would readers here consider that AI use? Or would the line be for specific text that goes into the piece? Support with a plot, character development, structure, etc?
It is difficult to see the line. For me, it comes down to are you claiming the creative aspect as your own. I um under the assumption AI is everywhere in top results and am not sure how to avoid it.
This is a fabulous, engaging, and very timely post Ruth and Peco .. I like how you presented Peco’s handwritten text. That may be something I adopt. Not only because of AI, but it also builds trust when the reader can see your thought process. I really like it. And what a wonderful idea about the letter.
Iain Mcgilchrist points out recently on his Substack The Matter with Things that a real hazard driving AI excess is quantification, the craze for multiplying output. This is, of course, only a cargo cult invocation of "productivity."
I'm seeing dabbling in A I already begin to smother the hard-won honesty, humility, and wide-ranging inventiveness of my most self-aware writer friend. I myself tried A I to summarize a favorite Bible story, and am laboring to forget the whole effect.
/s/ With eagerness to compose a letter or poem for you, independently drafted on a screen, I fear, but repeatedly revised with a gnawed pencil.
I have been seriously thinking about dumping ALL my electronic communication devices. I've started downloading all photo's and data to an SDD. And then I want to go naked and drop off the grid. Maybe snail mail will make a comeback.
It means a huge mindset change.
My kids will probably divorce me. My friends can't contact me -unless face to face.
We will have a generation of readers and that's awesome. Language will evolve faster - now that we have translation. No need to spell - simply screenshot everything. Don't need maths - AGI can do that for you. I've seen a 4 year old who can swipe herself to her favourite channel.
The downside - Can't read an analogue clock. Can't do mental maths. Can't read a real book. Attention span is short. Easier now to persuade, manipulate and coerce on a global scale. And an increase in cancer.
Not naked yet - still working on it. My grandparents did it and they survived. Perhaps generational families living together will make a comeback . Food for thought.
I love the idea that analogue is not nostalgia, its real life. Go me thinking.
Analogue has limits - like a healthy body.
Analogue eventually succumbs to mortal death and relies on a sort of resurrection in the form of memory and personalised succession for reproduction and on going (eternal?) life.
Analogue is relational - a 'chain of trust' born of a hierarchy of relationships supported by tradition.
Digital promises unlimited expansion - Giantism?
Digital claims immortality - yet its likely to end up a wraith-like existence (devoid of trust as you have shown!)
Digital is totalitarian - it seeks to usurp all relationships to become "the" validator and authenticator (...mmmm.. computer says 'no'...)
Great piece. I think that "Analog Renaissance" will be a way forward for everyone who treasures their mental faculties, but more importantly, the genuine humanity that we impart in the physical work we produce. Digital world is a force multiplier for what we can achieve, but the actual craft has to show up "in the flesh", as it were, to be actually expressed.
I find my own work both more satisfying and a lot clearer if I start with handwritten notes and ideas jotted down on one of my multiple notebooks, and from there I can chew on them, without having my attention pulled away by a screen.
As a civilisation we are still learning to use and adapt digital technology to our lives, so we are only going as fast as we can integrate the tool well enough for our use. The damage it does when misused is what we have to contend with, so perhaps relegating the entire digital world into a position of a tool will do us much more favour than trying to meld the virtual and the real into hyper-reality we seem to be drifting into.
A disclosure badge or paragraph should be requisite for writing on substack. I personally have never used it (unless you count spellcheck as AI), but I realize I am in the tiny minority. And yes, it takes much longer to edit and arrange and write than if I took the AI shortcut.
Beautifully expressed! As Jacques Ellul observed a long time ago, technological innovations are thrust upon us without our consent. Nobody knows what the consequences will be until it's already too late to put the genie back in the bottle. That's certainly the case with AI.
I agree with a lot of this, but I don't think that disclosure of AI use is the solution that it's often set out to be, for several reasons. First and foremost, I don't think that knowing that something was created using AI technology actually mitigates the destructive effect of the technology (explored at greater length in my most recent Substack essay), although obviously it does permit the individual to choose whether or not to engage with the content in question. But setting that aside, I think many people are actually extremely ignorant about the extent to which AI has been used in the things they create--anyone who reads anything online is using something that falls into the category of AI--so a claim not to use any AI whatsoever suggests to me that someone is actually just ignorant of what they are, in fact, using--which, in turn, makes me more suspicious of their claims not to have used AI-assistive technologies, since it is apparent to me that they are not able to identify said technologies.
My own rather pessimistic approach these days is to assume that all writers, artists, etc. are using AI technologies unless I have reason to believe otherwise. I think the most feasible approach at this point is an intentional declarative opt-out for those who want to proceed without such tech, combined with an effort to disclose and explain their own creative process. It's clunky, granted, and still requires trust, but I don't see a better way forward given the lack of clarity in discussion and understanding.
I do personally endeavour to avoid algorithmically-generated content, and I especially try to avoid "creation" using such technologies, but they creep in everywhere. Consider that most modern smartphone cameras are fabricating images without their users' knowledge, and even more online content becomes suspect.
(And re-reading parts of your essay, I think I actually repeated some of what you said in different words--forgive me; I'm discontinuing a medication with brain effects, so my thinking is not quite up to snuff right now!)
I love the idea of The Analogue Resistance. I’ve been using the idea of Re-wilding in my digital illustration process, with the aim of bringing back more physically made elements into how I make my art. Although not strictly about AI, the efficiencies gained by digital tools come at a cost—in my case, the loss of a sense of discovery and the satisfaction of seeing a work come together in ways I couldn’t have planned. Digital has made my process less interesting to me.
AI generated content is a stupid answer to a stupid question. Instead of starting with something worth expressing, we start with the pressure to feed the machine with content. If we’re calling what we produce and post “content”, we’ve already lost, and perhaps we might as well just let computers write (and read) it for us.
Great article. Thank you!
Would love to hear more about the "re-wilding" of your illustration process. In the book "Revenge of the Analog", Sax describes how Facebook set up an archaic printing press (which they called the Analog Research Laboratory) that produced hand-printed designs for their Facebook slogans. Illustrators who include the physical world in their work will set them selves apart! Thanks for reading :)
Thanks Ruth! I've seen some of those Facebook workshops (or at least something like them) online, which are actually very inspiring and creative. You can find my essay on Substack, here: https://mrtomfroese.substack.com/p/re-wilding-my-digital-art-process
Thanks for sharing the link Tom. That was splendid!
You're welcome. Thanks for reading! You're a fast reader!
Reading Substack essays is fast, reading War and Peace is slower :)
Very glad you are honing in on the topic of 'trust' with regards to AI Peco and Ruth and a great piece.
For me, trust is the biggest and most fundamental issue with it. I don't want to live in a society where I am forced to doubt whether everything I read, every photograph I see, every audio I listen to is made by a human or not, let alone if the mountain (to take an example) in the photo is a real place or not. Such a world is disorientating, ugly, and repressive. Societies where no one can trust anyone are defined by these adjectives (just think of China or North Korea) - AI risks turning our societies into such defined places. One could argue that our digital ecosystems are already far down this path with no return.
Hope you don't mind me putting my Refuges of Authenticity essay in the comments in case anyone wants to read my anti-AI manifesto!
https://overthefield.substack.com/p/a-refuge-of-authenticity
Hadden, just added your piece to the "Further Reading" section! Fully agree that a world where we have to doubt the authenticity of everything is "disorienting, ugly, and repressive". So glad to have writers like you alongside!
Thanks Ruth, that is kind of you.
I saw my first fake AI photo in a well respected newspaper this week. It made me double take and think “something isn’t right” - and lo and behold that was the case (if one looked closely!)
It made me sad that even in well-respected parts of society AI is being used instead of the real and the good.
Also, the giveaway for AI photos, especially of people, is that they look artificially too perfect (flawless, unblemished skin, perfect pearly white smile etc). Thus artificial standards of perfection are being pushed on us - but the more they are pushed on us the uglier they become.
You should write to them and express your disappointment in stepping away from human quality toward AI fakery. If they hear that this is decreasing trust in their publication they may take note...
Oh, and I was in a coffee shop recently and was surround by students. Almost all of them had ChatGPT open. It really is an academic nightmare. Students are sacrificing learning for a mere letter - and a letter that is fast becoming utterly worthless as an indication of competency and mastery.
I'm glad you linked this piece, it's one of yours that I hadn't read before! thanks.
I’m a college English professor and for most of my career I’ve taught over half of my classes online. I teach first-year writing classes to senior major classes. One strategy to combat both AI and students’ phone addictions, I designed an honors class that runs completely analog until their final research project where they’re allowed to use the electronic database in the library, but this coming fall I’m now required to offer students the option to use electronic textbooks as a first-day access to books. So now they’ll be bringing laptops and phones back into my class. Since many of the students are high school dual/enrolled students, this is the only way they can get their book for free; those students can no longer rent hard copy textbooks for free. It’s disheartening. I sometimes feel like there are many forces, not just the AI, working against faculty trying to deal with this issue.
This was beautifully considered, thank you. Our increasing alienation and the managerial tools that stand in for trust are a concern of mine, and I think my work in both the trades and the arts has helped me recognize those patterns. Skeptocracy is an excellent label.
One choice I've made as a Substacker is to turn off the feature that lets AI scan my publication. Unfortunately this reduces my reach, and it would be wonderful to see the algorithms correct for that, but it's worth it regardless.
I really appreciate that you've included actionable suggestions for people in different contexts.
I hope Substack takes your suggestions to heart.
Thanks for reading Sage :) Yes, I hope that Substack might follow some of these suggestions. It will definitely take deliberate effort for a platform such as this not to drown in AI in the near future. After publishing the post yesterday, I read that apparently bullet-lists of suggestions are considered a surefire sign that the writer used AI (that won't make me stop using them :)
It's just so sad about students. My old colleagues teaching at a US university are really struggling with how to navigate this. Funnily enough, the pontifical university system in Rome is so old it's new again: they never really moved away from in-person oral exams (from the 16th c or earlier!) so now they are leading the way in not succumbing to AI.
Agreed, it is a sad trajectory. It seems like the pontifical university system could have a major comeback as the "leading educational system of the past, and the future" :)
I will mention this to their marketing team! If they even actually have one :)
I don't quite have it worked out yet, but it seems to me that the privitization of morals is a big factor in the loss of trust. When we each have a different idea of what it means to be happy or polite or fulfilled then a common trust among people is already crumbling.
I have tried asking this question before of another author, to no avail. Reading this article, it occurred to me that you two are the perfect people to pose this question to, and will hopefully get a response. I like to write, and am someone who likes old-fashioned things. But, to date, I do most of my writing -- other than occasional scribbling on my diary and letters -- on my computer. I feel drawn to writing things by hand, as other authors do, but I need help as to how to go about it. How do "paper authors" write? More specifically... I was raised in a home where we were very careful not to waste paper. Because of this, I cannot help but think of all the paper I would waste by writing things out by hand until I thought my work was "perfect" (not in the strict sense). Looking back, it seems like people did not worry so much about wasting paper when it was the only thing they could write on. Another thing is neatness. On my computer, I can delete every mistake I make. When writing on paper, do you just cross out sentences or words you decide to take out, then write what you consider the correct thing afterwards? Doesn't such "messiness" ever affect your state of mind while writing? Also, writing by hand takes more time. Do you ever find you lose inspiration because you can't type everything out in an instant?
I apologize for all the stubborn questions, but it seems like you would know the answer to these. I am tired of screens, but I like the commodity, though I am very much willing to take the trouble to teach myself that there is a better way!
Andrea, thanks for your question(s)! I’ll share a few thoughts about my own writing process when it comes to using paper, but everybody is pretty individual, so don’t take this as a template. When writing stories (fiction), I use a regular ballpoint pen and lined paper in a notebook. Typically, I only handwrite first drafts, where I’m really trying to catch the emotion or feeling of the story, more than the fine details. The other time that I go back to paper is during later drafts, especially if I discover any longer passages that need to be fully rewritten. During the actual writing process on paper, I draw a line down the center of the paper and write in two columns. To save space, I also (often) write two lines of text for every single line (i.e., two lines of text squeezed between the two blue lines). This doesn’t just save space (because the writing is one half the usual size, effectively doubling the amount of writing that can fit on one page), but also forces me to write more neatly (as my writing is otherwise a bit messy). Once I’ve written my first draft (or rewritten a passage that needed more work), I transcribe everything onto the screen, often improving and editing spontaneously as I go along.
So, the above process is what I use for writing fiction, but when writing essays, I write using the same method, but much more of it is brainstorming and just getting the ideas down, in any order, and trying to see if any particular metaphors, turns of phrase, or ideas stand out. Usually I go back after the fact and circle or underline ideas that I like, and then I take these onto the computer and develop them more fully. The two photographed pages within the essay above show you a couple of handwritten pages I used to brainstorm ideas for the essay.
Again, this is just my own process, and even my own process has evolved over time, so it’s quite possible that next month or next year there may be new variations that develop. The motivation for maintaining the handwriting process is that there is something about the connection between the head and the hand while writing, and something about the pace of the writing, that for me produces the most spontaneous and energizing creative work.
Thank you so very much for your reply! It is very helpful! I feel a lot more enticed to try writing by hand now that I have an idea how other writers do it.
One member of a writing group I participate in raised the disclosures of AI use issue, she was discouraged to find that since she used AI as a thesaurus, the box would have to be checked.
I am curious how far this extends? In my personal writing, I often will search for a word, or some facts I have in mind and now the AI at the top of the search engine provides a sufficient answer. For example, "How soon can childhood anxiety be diagnosed?" which brings up an answer along with some surrounding helpful information to help frame aspects of the story.
Would readers here consider that AI use? Or would the line be for specific text that goes into the piece? Support with a plot, character development, structure, etc?
It is difficult to see the line. For me, it comes down to are you claiming the creative aspect as your own. I um under the assumption AI is everywhere in top results and am not sure how to avoid it.
...I do know that a lot of the time the AI summary at the top of search engines is actually wrong...so that's a definite issue.
This is a fabulous, engaging, and very timely post Ruth and Peco .. I like how you presented Peco’s handwritten text. That may be something I adopt. Not only because of AI, but it also builds trust when the reader can see your thought process. I really like it. And what a wonderful idea about the letter.
Iain Mcgilchrist points out recently on his Substack The Matter with Things that a real hazard driving AI excess is quantification, the craze for multiplying output. This is, of course, only a cargo cult invocation of "productivity."
I'm seeing dabbling in A I already begin to smother the hard-won honesty, humility, and wide-ranging inventiveness of my most self-aware writer friend. I myself tried A I to summarize a favorite Bible story, and am laboring to forget the whole effect.
/s/ With eagerness to compose a letter or poem for you, independently drafted on a screen, I fear, but repeatedly revised with a gnawed pencil.
I have been seriously thinking about dumping ALL my electronic communication devices. I've started downloading all photo's and data to an SDD. And then I want to go naked and drop off the grid. Maybe snail mail will make a comeback.
It means a huge mindset change.
My kids will probably divorce me. My friends can't contact me -unless face to face.
We will have a generation of readers and that's awesome. Language will evolve faster - now that we have translation. No need to spell - simply screenshot everything. Don't need maths - AGI can do that for you. I've seen a 4 year old who can swipe herself to her favourite channel.
The downside - Can't read an analogue clock. Can't do mental maths. Can't read a real book. Attention span is short. Easier now to persuade, manipulate and coerce on a global scale. And an increase in cancer.
Not naked yet - still working on it. My grandparents did it and they survived. Perhaps generational families living together will make a comeback . Food for thought.
What's your thoughts?
I love the idea that analogue is not nostalgia, its real life. Go me thinking.
Analogue has limits - like a healthy body.
Analogue eventually succumbs to mortal death and relies on a sort of resurrection in the form of memory and personalised succession for reproduction and on going (eternal?) life.
Analogue is relational - a 'chain of trust' born of a hierarchy of relationships supported by tradition.
Digital promises unlimited expansion - Giantism?
Digital claims immortality - yet its likely to end up a wraith-like existence (devoid of trust as you have shown!)
Digital is totalitarian - it seeks to usurp all relationships to become "the" validator and authenticator (...mmmm.. computer says 'no'...)
Great piece. I think that "Analog Renaissance" will be a way forward for everyone who treasures their mental faculties, but more importantly, the genuine humanity that we impart in the physical work we produce. Digital world is a force multiplier for what we can achieve, but the actual craft has to show up "in the flesh", as it were, to be actually expressed.
I find my own work both more satisfying and a lot clearer if I start with handwritten notes and ideas jotted down on one of my multiple notebooks, and from there I can chew on them, without having my attention pulled away by a screen.
As a civilisation we are still learning to use and adapt digital technology to our lives, so we are only going as fast as we can integrate the tool well enough for our use. The damage it does when misused is what we have to contend with, so perhaps relegating the entire digital world into a position of a tool will do us much more favour than trying to meld the virtual and the real into hyper-reality we seem to be drifting into.
A disclosure badge or paragraph should be requisite for writing on substack. I personally have never used it (unless you count spellcheck as AI), but I realize I am in the tiny minority. And yes, it takes much longer to edit and arrange and write than if I took the AI shortcut.
Beautifully expressed! As Jacques Ellul observed a long time ago, technological innovations are thrust upon us without our consent. Nobody knows what the consequences will be until it's already too late to put the genie back in the bottle. That's certainly the case with AI.
I agree with a lot of this, but I don't think that disclosure of AI use is the solution that it's often set out to be, for several reasons. First and foremost, I don't think that knowing that something was created using AI technology actually mitigates the destructive effect of the technology (explored at greater length in my most recent Substack essay), although obviously it does permit the individual to choose whether or not to engage with the content in question. But setting that aside, I think many people are actually extremely ignorant about the extent to which AI has been used in the things they create--anyone who reads anything online is using something that falls into the category of AI--so a claim not to use any AI whatsoever suggests to me that someone is actually just ignorant of what they are, in fact, using--which, in turn, makes me more suspicious of their claims not to have used AI-assistive technologies, since it is apparent to me that they are not able to identify said technologies.
My own rather pessimistic approach these days is to assume that all writers, artists, etc. are using AI technologies unless I have reason to believe otherwise. I think the most feasible approach at this point is an intentional declarative opt-out for those who want to proceed without such tech, combined with an effort to disclose and explain their own creative process. It's clunky, granted, and still requires trust, but I don't see a better way forward given the lack of clarity in discussion and understanding.
I do personally endeavour to avoid algorithmically-generated content, and I especially try to avoid "creation" using such technologies, but they creep in everywhere. Consider that most modern smartphone cameras are fabricating images without their users' knowledge, and even more online content becomes suspect.
(And re-reading parts of your essay, I think I actually repeated some of what you said in different words--forgive me; I'm discontinuing a medication with brain effects, so my thinking is not quite up to snuff right now!)