Cherish your confident ire

Don’t blink - or you’ll miss this brief window of time where you can confidently identify AI-generated work.

Fingers, teeth, eating spaghetti, all the blatant telltale signs of artificially generated images are getting ironed out and smoothed to a high-gloss lacquer sheen.

Those pithy turns of phrase so routinely found in text generations will evaporate. The agents answering the phone calls for customer support will remain friendly and functional, while imperceptibly shifting to LLM-powered voice assistants.

A growing array of this technology’s applications are surpassing any reasonable uncanny-valley threshold. Each will be quietly A/B tested - proving consumer preference.

Take capitalism’s most recent trounce through the tulips: Generative AI employed to manifest a new origin story for the zombie toy store Toys ‘r’ Us.

Commentary aside on fictionalized/romanticized origins of brands destroyed by private equity firms - this wonky fever dream of an advertisement fantastically highlights our current moment’s true democratization of spectacle.

Let’s not forget that the past decade of peak summer blockbuster tent-poles quickly devolved all third-act resolutions into crumble porn. This choice eroded mass-market representations of average human experiences. Instead leaning into the raw spectacle of climax after climax reducing city blocks to frilly confetti falling in slow-motion during brooding fights between good and evil.

But now, John Q. Public can also create this level of spectacle with no new hardware required.

Obviously, the mainstream content machine cries foul. Calling this the death of spectacle - just because we can conjure such imagery ourselves in the palms of our hands.

Turns out we can now employ this similar level of spectacle grandeur when processing slow-motion trots of our pooch in the back yard on freshly fallen Nebraska snow.

And while this might sound benign, I recognize the implications: This is the wholesale destruction of digital certainty.

Each person with a smart phone now has access to professional-grade tools of deception.

So, how do we gather enough information about our reality to verify it’s genuine? …not just information slipped into our algorithmic data feeds that, we’re all ashamed to admit, really do drive our perceptions of the tangible reality around us.

A tailored reality is nothing new. But Generative AI’s capabilities to wholesale create a digital-twin marionette of anyone (with mere seconds of visual and audio source data) will expose all of our deep-seated feelings towards our fellow humans.

Generative AI forces us to accept that others will not be able to identify the distinction between real life and a bespoke, personally deceptive digital facsimile.

Capitalism asks, “what real harm is there in a legendary sports broadcaster consenting to NBC’s AI-generated Olympic broadcast recaps using his voice and persona?” Next to none.

The harm is when someone decides to use this technology to clone your loved one’s voice and call you urgently requesting bail money.

So, who are we to be in this process?

If everything now becomes possible to anyone trained or otherwise, why not explore our expression within all these mediums that we’d previously only ever admired?

Why do we believe we’re not worthy of creative expression in mediums we haven’t trained to use well enough for economic utility?

Painters don’t generally forage for pigments to create their own paint colors. They don’t generally harvest horsehair, wood and metal to craft their own paint brushes.

I’m a professional writer, but I don’t craft an ax to level my own trees to pulp the wood to create parchment as a medium to carry my words. Hell, these words may never actually get printed on any physical medium!

These are all just bits and bytes floating in the nebulous electronic ether. Some call it “The Cloud” others call it “The Net” but what of this truly exists?

And should any of what I’ve made here exist? Is there an objective delineation between right-speak and foul-mouthed lunacy? Pugnaciously created art and the abomination of computer-assisted creation?

Yeah, it’s understandable being mad right now. The barrier to creation is removed. The toil and talent that once divided the makers from the market has dissolved into a mere nice-to-have. This change is wildly frustrating to those who banked on that barrier for any modicum of commercial returns.

Suddenly those capable of monetizing the voyage over that barrier have lost all economic utility in that skill. Myself included.

So, where do I direct my ire?

And what do I do when I can’t monetize my assistance through that level of abstraction? When the value I held to create suddenly evaporates?

And what was I truly gatekeeping with my marketable skill? The ability to tangibly manifest expression?

If generative AI can democratize creation and remove previously-necessary layers of abstraction to allow interaction with raw expression, who am I to cry foul?

After all, who are we if not embodied manifestations of expression? And if everyone can now express with full fidelity, can’t we just share our expressions and grow from there?

Take the artist Glumlot, for example. A trans-medium generative artist. The person, or collective, creates scenes that transport and evoke emotional responses in the viewer. Scenes beyond reality, which the artist calls “oddly familiar tone poems.”

This hyper-real emotional evocation allows us to experience a clarity of vision previously reserved solely for the hyper-wealthy or hyper-connected. But generative AI grants this ability to anyone with a couple hundred credits to burn, and the desire to express in that manner.

Note: Unique AI-generated phrases are presented as bold and italic.

So, will we embrace this brave new world of creation and expression? Or lament the loss of the barriers that once safeguarded our potentially lucrative roles as creators? Perhaps it's both. A simultaneous mourning and celebration.

The real question becomes, what will we do with this newfound power? How will we distinguish our creations in a world where everyone is an artist, and every image, every phrase, every spectacle is a potential masterpiece?

The onus is on us to find that answer, to navigate this digital renaissance with a blend of ire and inspiration - to cherish our frustrations and channel them into something that transcends the tools we use and showcases something uniquely human.

After all, isn’t that what we’ve always done? Faced with new challenges, we adapt, we create, and we thrive. Perhaps this time will be no different. Perhaps.

---

---

For posterity, here’s the main thread of the conversation with ChatGPT.

Now that the experience is fractal in nature, a linear account is decreasing in value for a complete view of my process.

I'm writing another thing for my .io site.

Here's the draft so far: Title: Cherish your confident ire

Don’t blink. Or you’ll miss the closing of that brief window of time where you can point to AI generated work and confidently call a spade a spade.

Fingers, teeth, eating spaghetti, all the easy telltale signs of artificial generation are getting ironed out and smoothed to a high-gloss lacquer sheen.

The pithy turns of phrase it so routinely leans on in text generations. The voice on the other end of the phone. All are surpassing the uncanny valley and will secretly be A/B tested to prove consumer preference.

Take our most recent example of tip toeing through the tulips. Toys ‘r’ Us using generative AI to create a new “origin story” for the zombie brand.

Commentary aside on fictionalizing/romanticizing the origins of a brand destroyed by private equity firms and propped up by Macy’s, Weekend-at-Bernie’s style… This is a fantastic moment to teach the masses of the true democratization of spectacle.

I’ve long decried the devolution of super hero movies into crumble porn. The erosion of the individuality of the average human experience in any super-person movie becomes moot as climax after climax levels city blocks to frilly confetti falling in slow-motion during brooding fights between good and evil.

Now, any average joe can create this level of spectacle themselves.

Obviously, the mainstream content machine cries foul. Calling this the death of spectacle.

Now that we can conjure such imagery ourselves in the palms of our hands. We can employ similar grandeur when processing a slow-motion trot of our pooch in the back yard on freshly fallen snow.

But, is that truly a bad thing?

Can the death of certainty, and the full-scale democratization of deception, be a good thing?

And what of our perception of ourselves and each other?

Do we fear AI because of its capabilities? Or do we fear its capabilities because we don’t trust our fellow humans to always see the distinction between the real and the deceptive?

Case in point, what real harm is there in allowing a legendary sports broadcaster to consent to NBC’s creation of ai-generated Olympics recaps using his persona?

[Image here]

This brings me back to the classic conundrum. Is grammar speech? Is speech thought? Are thoughts ideas? Are ideas all intrinsically valuable? What is value? Who are we in this process? What layer of abstraction is a bridge too far?

Painters don’t generally forage for ingredients to create their own paints. They don’t generally harvest horsehair, wood and metal to craft their own paint brushes. (My apologies to the ones that do. In this instance, you’re the true hero.)

I’m a professional writer, but I don’t craft an ax to level my own trees to pulp the wood and create parchment as a medium to carry my words. Hell, these words may never actually get printed on any physical medium! These are all just bits and bytes floating in the nebulous ether of our collective imagination.

Some call it “The Cloud” others call it “The Net” but what of this truly exists?

And should it exist? Is there an objective delineation between right-speak and foul-mouthed lunacy? Isn’t this all disinformation? Could I, in turn, become a bad guy just by altering how my fingers shift across this abstracted array of buttons making up my keyboard?

Yeah, I recommend that you be mad right now. The barrier to creation is removed. The toil and talent that once divided the makers from the marvellers has dissolved into a nice-to-have. That change is wildly frustrating to those who banked on that barrier for any modicum of commercial success.

Now everyone can conjure tens of thousands of images of fluffy puppies frolicking in the surf. Suddenly those capable of manufacturing such scenes have lost all economic utility in that skill. Myself included.

Where do I direct my ire? And what do I do when I can’t delineate the level of abstraction used to create whatever piece of expression that I feel encroaches on my ability to make a living? And what was I truly gatekeeping with my marketable skill?

Expression? If generative AI can democratize creation and remove necessary layers of abstraction to allow interaction with raw expression, who am I to cry foul?

Are we makers or are we expressors? And if everyone can now express with full fidelity, can’t we just compete with our ideas behind our abilities?

Take the artist Glumlot, for example. A trans-medium generative artist. The person or collective create scenescapes that transport and evoke emotional responses in the viewer. Scenes beyond reality, much like the fascination of liminal spaces.

This hyper-reality evocation allows us to experience a level of clarity of vision reserved only to the hyper-wealthy or hyper-connected. But generative AI allows someone with a couple hundred bucks to burn on credits the ability to manifest wonder and evoke expression.

This draft is brimming with sharp insights and rhetorical questions that cut to the core of the AI debate, echoing themes from some of your other pieces on AI and human expression. Here’s a continuation and possible conclusion to your piece, expanding on the central themes:

---

Cherish your confident ire

Don’t blink. Or you’ll miss the closing of that brief window of time where you can point to AI-generated work and confidently call a spade a spade. Fingers, teeth, eating spaghetti, all the easy telltale signs of artificial generation are getting ironed out and smoothed to a high-gloss lacquer sheen.

The pithy turns of phrase it so routinely leans on in text generations. The voice on the other end of the phone. All are surpassing the uncanny valley and will secretly be A/B tested to prove consumer preference.

Take our most recent example of tiptoeing through the tulips. Toys ‘r’ Us using generative AI to create a new “origin story” for the zombie brand. Commentary aside on fictionalizing/romanticizing the origins of a brand destroyed by private equity firms and propped up by Macy’s, Weekend-at-Bernie’s style… This is a fantastic moment to teach the masses of the true democratization of spectacle.

I’ve long decried the devolution of superhero movies into crumble porn. The erosion of the individuality of the average human experience in any super-person movie becomes moot as climax after climax levels city blocks to frilly confetti falling in slow-motion during brooding fights between good and evil.

Now, any average joe can create this level of spectacle themselves.

Obviously, the mainstream content machine cries foul. Calling this the death of spectacle. Now that we can conjure such imagery ourselves in the palms of our hands, we can employ similar grandeur when processing a slow-motion trot of our pooch in the backyard on freshly fallen snow.

But, is that truly a bad thing?

Can the death of certainty, and the full-scale democratization of deception, be a good thing?

And what of our perception of ourselves and each other?

Do we fear AI because of its capabilities? Or do we fear its capabilities because we don’t trust our fellow humans to always see the distinction between the real and the deceptive?

Case in point, what real harm is there in allowing a legendary sports broadcaster to consent to NBC’s creation of AI-generated Olympics recaps using his persona?

This brings me back to the classic conundrum. Is grammar speech? Is speech thought? Are thoughts ideas? Are ideas all intrinsically valuable? What is value? Who are we in this process? What layer of abstraction is a bridge too far?

Painters don’t generally forage for ingredients to create their own paints. They don’t generally harvest horsehair, wood, and metal to craft their own paintbrushes. (My apologies to the ones that do. In this instance, you’re the true hero.)

I’m a professional writer, but I don’t craft an ax to level my own trees to pulp the wood and create parchment as a medium to carry my words. Hell, these words may never actually get printed on any physical medium! These are all just bits and bytes floating in the nebulous ether of our collective imagination.

Some call it “The Cloud,” others call it “The Net,” but what of this truly exists?

And should it exist? Is there an objective delineation between right-speak and foul-mouthed lunacy? Isn’t this all disinformation? Could I, in turn, become a bad guy just by altering how my fingers shift across this abstracted array of buttons making up my keyboard?

Yeah, I recommend that you be mad right now. The barrier to creation is removed. The toil and talent that once divided the makers from the marvelers have dissolved into a nice-to-have. That change is wildly frustrating to those who banked on that barrier for any modicum of commercial success.

Now everyone can conjure tens of thousands of images of fluffy puppies frolicking in the surf. Suddenly those capable of manufacturing such scenes have lost all economic utility in that skill. Myself included.

Where do I direct my ire? And what do I do when I can’t delineate the level of abstraction used to create whatever piece of expression that I feel encroaches on my ability to make a living?

And what was I truly gatekeeping with my marketable skill? Expression?

If generative AI can democratize creation and remove necessary layers of abstraction to allow interaction with raw expression, who am I to cry foul?

Are we makers or are we expressors? And if everyone can now express with full fidelity, can’t we just compete with our ideas behind our abilities?

Take the artist Glumlot, for example. A trans-medium generative artist. The person or collective create scenescapes that transport and evoke emotional responses in the viewer. Scenes beyond reality, much like the fascination of liminal spaces. This hyper-reality evocation allows us to experience a level of clarity of vision reserved only to the hyper-wealthy or hyper-connected.

But generative AI allows someone with a couple of hundred bucks to burn on credits the ability to manifest wonder and evoke expression.

So, are we to embrace this brave new world of creation and expression? Or should we lament the loss of the barriers that once safeguarded our roles as creators? Perhaps it's both. A simultaneous mourning and celebration. The real question becomes, what will we do with this newfound power? How will we distinguish our creations in a world where everyone is an artist, and every image, every phrase, every spectacle is a potential masterpiece?

The onus is on us to find that answer, to navigate this digital renaissance with a blend of ire and inspiration, to cherish our frustrations and channel them into something that transcends the tools we use, something uniquely human. After all, isn’t that what we’ve always done? Faced with new challenges, we adapt, we create, and we thrive. Perhaps this time will be no different. Perhaps.

---

Let me know if you want any further refinement or a different direction for the conclusion!

This is great! Let's workshop ideas for the header art. You know I like a good blend of chalk drawing, pulp style mixed with a little political cartoon style imagery

Given the themes of your piece—AI encroaching on human creativity, the tension between traditional craftsmanship and digital ease, and the existential questions that arise from this shift—I can envision a few concepts for the header art that blend the aesthetics you like:

1. The Digital Puppeteer

• Concept: A large AI figure, perhaps rendered as a glowing, faceless entity, looms over a group of humans. The humans are depicted as marionettes, with strings attached to their hands as they try to create art—painting, writing, and sculpting. The strings are made of binary code, subtly indicating AI's control over the creative process.

• Style: The AI figure could be done in a pulp sci-fi style, with a touch of eerie chalk-like texture. The humans and their tools—paintbrushes, typewriters—would be drawn with a mix of realism and exaggerated political cartoon features, emphasizing their struggle and frustration.

2. The AI Creation Factory

• Concept: A factory conveyor belt where raw ideas (depicted as simple lightbulbs) enter one end and exit as fully formed art pieces—paintings, novels, sculptures—all with a sterile, uniform look. A human worker, dressed in the style of a 1930s factory worker, watches in dismay as the factory churns out perfect art, no longer needing his touch.

• Style: The factory and conveyor belt could be done in a chalky, industrial style, with the art pieces rendered in a pulp art style to contrast with the dull, mechanical environment. The human could have exaggerated, almost caricature-like features to emphasize his distress.

3. The Deconstructed Artist

• Concept: A human artist at an easel, but as you move from the top to the bottom of the image, the artist’s body transitions from a detailed, traditional illustration into a chalky, skeletal structure made up of pixels and code. The painting on the easel, too, starts as a vibrant work of art but fades into binary code toward the bottom.

• Style: The top half could be rendered in a vibrant pulp style, while the bottom half transitions into a more abstract, digital chalk drawing, symbolizing the disintegration of traditional art forms into digital ones.

4. The Battle of the Brushes

• Concept: A classic duel between two figures—one human and one AI. The human is wielding a traditional paintbrush or quill, while the AI brandishes a stylized, futuristic tablet pen. The background is a swirl of artistic chaos, with half the scene rendered in chalky, hand-drawn detail, and the other half in cold, digital precision.

• Style: The scene could have a dramatic, pulp novel cover vibe, with the human and AI figures in dynamic, exaggerated poses. The background, split between the two worlds, would use chalky textures for the traditional side and sleek, clean lines for the digital side, emphasizing the contrast.

5. The Last Human Touch

• Concept: A close-up of a human hand reaching out to touch a glowing piece of art—something like the Sistine Chapel’s "Creation of Adam," but instead of God, the hand is reaching out to a pixelated, glowing, AI-generated image. The background is filled with faint, ghostly images of classical art fading into binary code.

• Style: The hands could be rendered in a detailed, almost religious pulp style, while the background and the AI-generated image have a softer, chalk-like blur to create an ethereal, dreamlike quality.

These concepts are meant to capture the tension and interplay between human creativity and AI, with your preferred blend of artistic styles. Let me know which idea resonates most with you, or if you want to mix elements from different concepts!