“I don’t like it, therefore AI.”
Don’t understand the image? AI.
Don’t like the music? AI.
The writing sounds too polished? AI.
Too strange? AI.
Too complicated? AI.
Too clean? AI.
Too unlike what you would have done? Definitely AI.
It is becoming the cultural equivalent of pointing at the sky and shouting “weather.”
The irony is that many of the people using “AI” as an accusation seem to have only the vaguest idea what AI can actually do, what it cannot do, and how much human direction, selection, revision, judgment, failure, and outright labor can sit behind a finished work.
AI can generate possibilities.
It cannot retroactively explain everything you dislike.
It cannot magically supply an artist with taste, intent, a point of view, a body of work, or years of accumulated decisions. It cannot turn confusion into plagiarism simply because the viewer would prefer an easier explanation.
And no, “it looks AI” is not analysis. Neither is “it sounds AI,” unless you can explain what specifically you mean beyond the fact that something made you suspicious.
There are perfectly legitimate arguments to have about authorship, originality, labor, training data, attribution, and the role of generative systems in creative work.
Those are interesting arguments.
But using AI as a synonym for “thing I don’t understand” is not one of them.
Sometimes a strange image is just a strange image.
Sometimes an unfamiliar score is simply unfamiliar.
Sometimes a complicated idea was made by a person who likes complicated ideas.
And sometimes the artificial intelligence in the room is not the problem.
It is the natural intelligence refusing to do any work.
No comments:
Post a Comment