An optimistic theory about why we hate AI content
TL;Dr: We're human, we want to feel connected to other humans.
Something happened in the otherwise quiet happy world of Indian rock music this week. Rolling Stone India put out this post…
And I thought, yeah well sure whatever. This was bound to happen and I am quite ambivalent about all this - I believe human art will win out. I was honestly more surprised that this was the first such band to come out of India. My whateverness was not shared by thousands of others though, who descended on the post proclaiming the death of art, calls to support actual live musicians, etc. It was the most outraged I’ve seen our little rock community in a while1. It made me happy, so many people standing up for ‘real’ art and all that.
I am certain you would have seen some version of this on your timelines as well, in your sphere of interest. If you’re a movie buff, you might have outraged over the use of Generative AI in The Brutalist. College (US) football fans are annoyed at how bad the AI-rendered stadiums look. Even connoiseurs of advertising lamented Coke’s Christmas ad. The list goes on.
I’ve also seen plenty of “this is nice, but can we not use AI for this?” kinda comments under music videos, cricket stat celebrations, historical recreations and more. People seem really put off by generative AI video.
At the same time, lots of such content seems to be doing well.
It’s quite likely your Instagram recos might include surreal videos with weird scripts, involving cats. These rack up millions of views - and I’ll go to the extent of saying they’re weirdly entertaining.2
Yet, all of us have adapted generative AI in some shape or form into our workflow. My guess is many who outraged about that band or movie use GPT on a near-daily basis for work, recipes, writing articles about rock bands3, or therapy.
This is a very interesting inflection point we’re reaching, and I’m finding it fascinating to observe. It’s almost like - some generative AI content is okay, but others (especially art) isn’t? Especially with the overhang of the “this work has been made by hardworking artists and now you’re just typing in a few words and getting a new song and profiting off it” sentiment.
I think it comes down to this.
If you’re actively looking to be entertained - like you want to feel something, you want to be intellectually challenged, you want to forget about the bad day you’ve had, you want to let loose on the weekend, are visiting a museum - and are reaching for art with intentionality, AI-generated stuff won’t cut it. Not necessarily because it’s worse than human-made fare, but I sincerely believe humans seek out content made by other humans when looking to be actively entertained. I might be naive in thinking that - but that’s certainly the one takeaway I have seeing hundreds of comments over the past two years on all kinds of AI-generated content.
Especially on music-related posts.
Maybe AI could make a (technically) better song for your breakup than that 2000s emo band. So what? The latter made it with heart, with real experiences, with real feeling - and so it either hits home in a way that algorithms will never be able to crack, OR, we ascribe more meaning BECAUSE it was human-made. My feeling is that it’s the latter. There is the intangible value we place on something that was made. A parent will always value the rough drawing by their kid over a technically better painting by a professional artist. Perfection or artistry matters less to us than intentionality.4
Aside - I do think we’re entering an era where “human-made”, especially in art, will have greater value. If not economically, at least in meaning.
But if you’re looking for something more functional - to keep you pumped while you’re working out, something playing in the backgrond while you work, or even a stock audio piece for your latest Reel… Yeah, then you’re not really that fussed if something’s AI-generated or not. You might even prefer it, if it serves the purpose.
This extends beyond art
If you actively need some data for a major report you’re making - then you’re less likely to trust the too-good-to-be-true data that ChatGPT spits out, and you may take the effort to hunt down some Gartner research. If you just need a couple of lines to fill in for your Instagram post copy for a client you don’t give a sh*t about then yeah GPT should do.
What I’m trying to say is - your acceptance of AI content depends on stake.
Perfunctory copy for a social media post? GPT with a decent prompt and 5 minutes of touches will work.
Tinder bio? Let’s ask an actual copywriter friend.
College application? Let’s not risk it mate - please write by yourself.
Stake matters.
If you’re randomly browsing on your phone to kill time - sure, some AI content here and there, why not, it’s kinda entertaining anyway. Stakes are low, you’re whiling away time on the pot, opportunity cost is next to nil.
But sit down to watch a movie, or give your ears and heart and valuable hard-earned leisure time to music? Human please, no matter how imperfect.
There are several reasons why we’re reacting so viscerally to AI content and AI in general.
We’ve been hearing about how it rips off human creators. It’s being championed by trillion-dollar companies becoming even more trillion-dollar. AI is being shoved down our throats even when we don’t want it (get out of my Gmail, Gemini!). We’ve been hearing it’s bad for the planet.
It’s also bringing about change that’s a little too rapid for comfort - I feel that humans are evolutionary wired to progress slowly.
And there’s the big reason for AI hate - that it’s coming for our jobs.
For the first time, every white-collar profession seems worried that the next release from OpenAI could render what they do obsolete.
It’s hard to feel kindly or even neutrally towards a technology when your livelihood is at stake (ah, that word again). So even if an AI rock band has nothing to do with, say, SEO metadata writing5 I wouldn’t blame a recently-axed junior copywriter painting everything the technology does with the same brush.
A combination of all these reasons means we’re kinda predisposed to not liking AI content.
When we write, we’re so petrified of sounding like GPT that we’re willing to make deliberate typos. We’re automatically put off by Instagram advertising that uses AI images (at least I am - I find it very lazy).
And when it comes to art - especially in a space we’re passionate about, like many are for music - gosh, it can get visceral.
I, human (optimism alert!)
The more I think about AI content and how we’re reacting to it, the more I believe that it’s a test of how we as humans are. And I know this might seem like an overly romantic statement to say in a time of war and extreme polarisation, but…
I think that humans ultimately crave connection with other humans.
Even if the manifestation of that is not as ‘perfect’ as AI.
A great example of this - again, back to music - happened last weekend. The legendary metal band Black Sabbath - really, they started the genre - played their last ever gig. The talismanic Ozzy Osbourne was battling Parkinson’s (and a lifetime of doing the choiciest drugs on offer) and fought through everything to put on one heck of a performance. This song in particular had a crowd of 40,000 metalheads weeping.
Was it flawless? Of course not, there were cracks, he went all over the place, he would have failed a singing test. Did it move people? Undoubtedly. This performance had so much weight behind this - Ozzy coming back ‘home’, what he and his band meant to so many people, all the legendary acts that preceded their performance professing their love for who they had come to pay tribute to… In other words, human.
No LLM - no matter how perfect a song it makes - can conjure that up. Art is, after all, much more than just the output, it’s deeply tied to the person who made it. Just as anyone who knows Van Gogh’s story can’t help but being a little more moved when visiting the Rijksmuseum.
So I’m semi-boldly making a prediction that sure, AI music and AI bands may come - they will maybe rachet up some views and listens thanks to marketing money and platforms who don’t need to pay an algorithm as much as to those annoying humans who keep whining.
But those annoying humans are the ones who will continue making true art. Maybe not all of them will continue doing so. And if you’re a fan of an artist, a creator - get behind them. Support them. Buy their albums. Get their merch. Patreon them. Spread the word. In an age of AI, true fandom and direct support become all the more important.
Interesting times ahead. Especially as YouTube recently announced they would demonetise AI-generated content.
Does this mean all AI art is bad?
No, not at all. When it’s used as a tool I think it’s a terrific addition to an artist’s arsenal. But here’s the thing - the love goes to the artist, not the tool.
Just like in the 80s, the synthesiser changed music. But acts like Duran Duran didn’t become popular because they used the synth - they married their existing creativity with this new technology. Even David Gilmour of Pink Floyd - a band who which pioneered the use of sonic experimentation - spoke of the new gadgets : They are just tools, ultimately the idea still needs to come from a human brain.
I’ve seen some very imaginative folks on Instagram do cool things with AI. One of my favourites, Manoj Omre, makes Mumbai satire using AI - in my opinion a perfect example of how GenAI can be a tool in telling a story or communicating an idea.
I’ll end with something my friend Utsav wrote in his brilliant essay:
AI has not democratized art. The proponents of AI art are unwilling to suffer the ugliness of practice, the disappointment of being an amateur.
Why? Because they look at art as just another task. It is performative. Like crunching numbers. If your idea of art is largely prompt-driven, then you have a fundamental disconnect with art.
Art was never about speed and scale; it was about intentionally creating meaning for the self and those who engage with it.
(by Utsav Mamoria, How to be an artist in the age of AI)
Go listen to some human-made music today :)
One inspiration to write this piece - apart from the news of the AI band - was this excellent piece from WIRED. I believe it’s an important essay.
Reads
Move over, vibe-coding. Vibe working is here!
A damning, powerful takedown of the “AI is just a tool” argument.
Non-tech read of the week
Another way of looking at creativity, productivity and all that. Read here.
"When you come to an interesting place and you know what’s going to happen next, that’s the time to stop.”
Thank you for reading this human-written newsletter. Just so you know, I am not going to tone down the emdashes.
Chuck
That and when festival lineups come out. Doesn’t matter which festival. Any festival.
A good read on these AI-generated cat videos here, and yes, they featured in John Oliver’s latest segment on AI slop.
Ok maybe that’s just me
If you’d like to read more on this theory, please pick up Rory Sutherland’s Alchemy.
Don't ever tone the em dashes, ever.
As one of those 'annoying humans' (and darn proud of it), I see AI as a tool, a means to make the mundane easier. I see human-made art becoming all the more valued with the looming threat of technology. I'm concerned about the way AI is being shoved down everyone's throats, and I wonder what that will mean for the coming decade.