I was supposed to write an intro on Brian Merchant here, but he didn’t have a bio at the end of his article so I can’t really be arsed. I know he writes about AI (which is why I started getting notifications about his articles) and I’m pretty sure he had a piece in Wired or something. What I mostly remember is that he’s higher up on the anti-AI side of the fence.

I just read his latest article ‘The slop layer: How AI has encrusted our culture and social sphere in a sedimentary layer of slop’ and walked away feeling pretty assured that AI has won.

You see, I think his article was meant to be some kind of rallying cry (if not victory lap) around that old anti-AI chestnut of “look at how bad it is! It’s slop!” but it certainly didn’t come off that way to me.

You can’t tell me that SNL is doing sketches about bad AI photos, Coca-Cola made a commercial using AI, and an AI-generated country song became a chart-topper, and then proceed to tell me AI is losing. Merchant wants to call these examples slop — an entire layer of slop from years of people generating things with AI —  but…

When SNL can joke about it, it’s a sign of acceptance. People are laughing because they get it, not because they’re scared of it. It’s shows normalization.

So Coke used AI on a commercial? There’s a 99% chance I never would have seen it if he hadn’t put it in his article, but now I’ve watched it and I’m ambivalent. A bunch of animals looking at trucks driving by in an advertisement? This came out of a marketing department, not an artiste‘s loft, so who really cares? And don’t give me some forced “think of the artists” answer on that — who really cares? I’ll bet the marketing staff who got paid to make it are fuckin’ thrilled, to be honest.

 

And the AI-gen country song thing? Well — it’s a country rap song…and they all sound alike anyway. This is one example where I’d say our own human taste and culture need to be questioned, not the AI. But I would, again, say the anti side falls flat because in reality: “if it’s good, and if it does the job, who cares?”

Now, that might not be a conscious thought we’re having, but it does impact the outcomes here.

(Note: As long as AI use is transparent. I only advocate the ethical use of artificial intelligence, so I am very against the idea of using AI and trying to pass it off as a different type of work.)

People who want to fight against AI are more and more having to create battlegrounds to do it. That’s because there’s not really much to fight against. As I’ve said for a year now, much of the anti-AI rhetoric has been so illogical or contradictory that there’s not much to stand on — and that’s making the fight even harder to sustain.

AI already won. It won a very long time ago, actually. Why? Because it fills a need. It serves a purpose. And I feel like a lot of the people who are so pissed at AI are angry because they don’t see themselves filling a purpose. It’s fear based on looking in a mirror. It’s fear based on harsh realizations and getting kicked in the stones by Reality™.

So here is the OP, back in the trenches of “AI is bad because it looks bad” — the hilarious product-based stanced, and the weakest argument against AI. Consider:

• If AI looks or performs as badly as he’s claiming, then you have nothing to worry about. If it can’t do X very well, then it cannot replace a human who does X…really simple math on that one. If someone like Brian Merchant has to spend hours convincing the public that it’s bad, then the badness must not be intrinsic. In fact, one of the most innate qualities of art is that it causes heated debates over value and contribution. Nothing is being argued about on those terms more than AI-generated art right now — so by fighting against it, people are actually making it more like art. The irony!
• If AI does a task with less creativity or attention to detail than a human but the audience doesn’t care, that says more about us than it does about AI. Again, not every meal has to be cuisine. People eat McDonalds all the time. Gonna advocate to shut down all the fast food restaurants because chefs aren’t making the food? Nah.
• If AI makes a creative task accessible to more people, then that blow to gatekeepers is probably worth it in the long run. Hollywood and big game studios might be scared right now — but they deserve to be scared. They are producing garbage, and the more their protective, elitist umbrella and/or corporate structure erodes, the better it will be for all of us.

My point being that maybe AI is making slop, but so are a vast ass-load of humans. What has Hollywood put out in the last year that’s better than AI-generated video of a cat playing a banjo? I seriously can’t think of an example.

We shouldn’t be railing against AI when the more important task at hand is to examine why the people who are supposed to be entertaining us are failing so miserably at it.

Every single tool that is used to create things is misused and poorly used.

Every single tool that is used to create things is misused and poorly used. Is Merchant going to take crayons away from kids, because what they’re drawing doesn’t fit his definition of “Art”? Of course not. But kids have been churning out piles of “slop” for decades — and we’re talking literal paper waste that accumulates in a landfill (making the ‘slop layer’ metaphor even more apt in my example) — so what’s the difference?

Okay, that was too bombastic for you? I have a more realistic comparison.

The camera phone made photography more accessible to billions of people than it ever had been before. I’m sure you’ve been on social media and seen that 90% of the people taking those photos take absolutely shit photographs. And worse, most folks think their own face is the most important part of any picture — hence all the damned selfies. There is already a DENSE layer of ‘slop’ on the internet, and it has nothing to do with AI.

There is already a DENSE layer of ‘slop’ on the internet, and it has nothing to do with AI. 

Because when you make creative tools available to the masses, the masses will produce slop. That’s just how it goes…but a larger number of those people will learn to do it better. They’ll learn about composition and lighting. They’ll gain an appreciation for the medium that goes beyond “what can I shove my face in front of today for that hot selfie?” Accessibility leads to more art, better art — screw anyone who’s not being willing to suffer through the kids with crayons to get to that point.

The LOL ‘Slop’ Tax

I was about to wrap this up, but as I was scrolling down for an author bio, I found this:

Okay…this is absolutely the worst idea I’ve ever seen, and it worries me that Merchant “loves it”.

Oh wait…a lot of people “love it”, according to the comments. Hmmm…I wonder if it has anything to do with virtue signaling and whinging artists. Nah. Couldn’t be that.

I guess I’m going to have to write an entire article properly dismantling this awful Slop Tax idea, but for now I’ll summarize the salient flaws:

• Some mysterious body of “cultural workers” would control billions of dollars with full autonomy. Fuck no, please! Are you insane?
• Allegedly, those deemed worthy “cultural workers” by this body would get checks every month for $5000-$7000. So this is meant to offset perceived AI-based damages? As a creative myself, that’s more than I’ve made per month through most of my life. You know how I survived it? By living cheaply. I adjusted my life to my means so that I could afford to pursue my creative endeavors. I still do it at 43 years old. What this proposes is subsidizing the act of trying to succeed. If that’s the play, then why the hell does any artist need to actually succeed? Why try? Why live at all?
• The world of art and entertainment is being positively destroyed by creatives who have no real life experience. That’s why TV and movies suck now. That’s why books suck. Because everyone is writing off of their “lived experiences” and they have none outside of the paper-thin reality that is social media. This LOL Tax is designed to shelter creatives even further from real life. It would not be good for the arts.

This LOL Tax is designed to shelter creatives even further from real life. It would NOT be good for the arts.

Anyway, that’s just a quick take on how abysmally stupid this idea is. I’ll dig into it in the future, but the truth is that the idea would never happen — and everyone knows it. The concept is just another virtue signal from on high so that swaths of people can rally behind it without reading it.

You don’t have to be one of them. It’s okay to be free-thinking enough to actually see the nuance in AI. It’s okay to rebel against the groupthink and realize that AI is just another tool in the long procession of human invention. You don’t have to cry or rage for “the artists” just because you want to fit in with the creative crowd.

Because I’m part of the creative crowd, too. So are the hundreds of people I’ve met, work with, collaborate with, and see at shows who are not blaming AI for their problems. In the trenches — in reality — we carry on like it’s not even there. It’s the Hollywood types, the big media, the grifters who want to paint this illusion of AI running roughshod over creatives.

But you know what the truth is? AI is a scapegoat for the nepo babies, checkbox hires, and ideological shoo-ins that shouldn’t be where they are in the first place. Merit and talent will always win. Innovation and creativity will prevail. Not free money from some bullshit fund. Not some participation trophy of a paycheck from a cadre of elitist assholes who pat you on the head and say “good job trying to make it.”

Work wins. Work beats the AI. Every time.

Slainte!