Hope you had a wonderful Solstice!
I've been diving into the discussion around AI-generated content. My personal feed on IG and FB has continually given me reels and commentary that includes opinions for and against using AI-generated content. Which makes sense as I prefer to have commentary from all sides of an issue. I like hearing from those who are proponents for it and those who are opting out.
Although I noticed a shift around this topic on Substack. There, I came across a stronger stance against the use of AI. It's likely because some people pay for subscriptions on that platform, so they may feel duped into thinking that they're getting original content (and find out they aren't). So, there appears to be a growing concern on detecting and naming when AI-generated content is at play.
Which makes me ponder: who's responsible to detect and name? As with most things, there are pros and cons on how to proceed. As of right now the onus seems to be on the consumer. If you don't want to be consuming AI-generated content, then you have to determine this yourself. You can copy and paste samples of writer's articles into Grammarly or Originiality.ai and see what results come up from the content you're scanning.
To take it into your own hands, the formula to follow is to decide your own standard regarding the content you want to read. If you want to read original content from natural writers (and minimize your consumption of AI-generated content) then learn the tells that identify how it's written. Do this in addition to using the detection sites. Deciding your own standard around writing is like deciding your own standards of consuming processed foods at a grocery store.
Trust that you can figure this yourself if you want to. Another alternative is to continue to hope that the platforms themselves will do the detecting. I recently saw an instance where Meta indicated someone's post as "AI info" - but this was the only instance I saw of this kind of indication. In theory, one might think it would be cool if the platform identified this for you. But if such regulations are put into place, how accurately and consistently will they be enforced? Do you want to give this function to an external authority?
As I sift through some of the practical concerns, I'm also wondering about the overall tech zeitgeist we're traveling through. Are these technological advancements - while partially agreed upon regarding practical use - changing other cultural agreements within modern society? Are the advancements causing some previous societal standards to become outdated?
When it comes to content creation, those who've written professionally are more inclined to know there are standards when it comes to sharing content. As they wouldn't get paid if they didn't follow those standards. Whereas perception of standards can be different for common use, especially with how sharing on social media has grown over the years. Has the omnipresence of social media changed whether previous standards matter anymore?
What is the consensus today on what the standard is? Will something like the concern for plagiarism become obsolete? If the AI large language models are taking from things previously written isn't that overriding any principle one would have around plagiarism or "intellectual property"? As the technology distribution continues to progress, are we as a society getting beyond the point of even having those precious standards amidst these new trends.
Someone may feel a particular principle or standard should be maintained around this. Yet, it's more likely that the behavior that's actually being practiced by the majority within society will shape what the accepted protocols are to be. The practices don't always match up with those standards. So if you're unable to change the practices (if the practices keep getting driven by the industry), then do the base principles need to change? These are some of the bigger questions at hand here.
Get full access to High Heart Weekly at jamesgovernale.substack.com/subscribe