The Profit Motive Behind Artificial Intelligence

In November 2022, the release of ChatGPT signaled a transformative moment for users exploring its capabilities across various creative tasks. While initial excitement surrounded the novelty of generating songs, menus, and other creative outputs, it has become increasingly clear that this technology represents a significant turning point in our interaction with machines—and a potential threat to the livelihoods of those in creative professions.

The essence of today’s conversation around AI revolves around its capacity to mimic and potentially replace human creators, be it writers, artists, or musicians. Although current iterations of AI may not completely replicate human creativity, the rapid development of these technologies is concerning as they continue to improve in sophistication and efficiency. This situation parallels that of a relentless predator, like the Tyrannosaurus rex from Jurassic Park, always getting closer.

The reaction to this challenge has varied. While some individuals have resigned themselves to the machine’s capability, exemplified by Lee Sedol’s retirement after his defeat by AlphaGo in 2016, others defend human art as being intrinsically superior, insisting that true creativity arises from deep personal experiences, an argument notably voiced by musicians like Nick Cave.

While the defense of human creativity is understandable, ironically, these perspectives may oversimplify the complexities of artistic value. Should our cultural narrative reduce the significance of creativity to only grand expressions of suffering, neglecting the importance of all creative endeavors, including design, literature, and more?

A more nuanced understanding of human creativity appreciates the act of creation itself—its craft and the emotions involved in the process. What makes a work valuable is not solely its end product, but the transformative experiencing inherent in the act of making. Unlike the sterile output of generative AI, the genuine effort of creation encompasses a rich interplay between the creator’s mind, body, and their work that embodies understanding and presence.

However, generative AI shifts this equation toward profit motives at the expense of genuine human artistic expression. It essentially results in an outsourcing of imagination and creativity to corporate entities seeking financial gain, rather than promoting individual or societal benefits. The relentless marketing of AI as a tool for productivity masks the corporate objectives of extracting value from industries historically rooted in human creativity.

This reality compounds the threats posed to the creative industries, where the ability of AI to produce stories, images, and multimedia has far-reaching implications. To generate such outputs, AIs require extensive training on data from publicly available works, raising complex issues around copyright and ownership. The majority of the content used for training models like ChatGPT is not in the public domain and includes the works of countless creators.

Rather than merely diminishing the rights of creators, AI technologies are positioned to replace them altogether. As artist James Bridle notes, this scenario parallels the historical enclosure of commons—a systematic appropriation by Silicon Valley shareholders, often compared to theft on a massive scale.

Despite attractive slogans of connection and liberation, the tech industry’s model thrives on exploitation and disruption, evident in numerous sectors. Google’s practices of compiling creative works, file-sharing technologies’ impacts on the music industry, and Uber’s labor practices showcase a pattern of prioritizing corporate gain over creators’ rights. AI epitomizes these trends by generating profits while neglecting to compensate the source material’s original authors.

This harsh reality evokes parallels to the broader crisis of climate change, as both present an overwhelming sense of helplessness in the face of systemic transformation without viable alternatives. The tech giants have thrived under existing regulatory frameworks that enable their unchecked growth—the very conditions that need reevaluation and reform.

Creative professionals must advocate for meaningful changes to copyright laws to protect their work from being misappropriated for AI training. There is a pressing need for audits and regulatory frameworks ensuring clarity regarding the datasets used while imposing penalties for copyright infringements. Additionally, global agreements centered on safeguarding artists’ rights against corporate interests must be a priority.

Ultimately, we must grapple with the fundamental question of why human artistry matters, beyond its economic implications. The focus should not merely be on resisting or regretting the losses incurred by AI technologies, but to articulate the intrinsic value of creativity itself. As AI technologies permeate every facet of life, there is an urgent need for a proactive re-examination of the role of creativity in a technology-dominated world.