By Todd Russell
Photo: Ai-generated, text below is 100% human generated and human edited
Maybe when it comes to AI generated content, we’re looking at this wrong. In the context of using in various different places: gaming, being most relevant here, it’s worth exploring more deeply.
I’ve had this nagging thought that generational AI doesn’t fit the concept of “creation” with art as much as curation.
Museum curators. Yeah, those folks.
When we think of a museum creator, the feelings are generally positive. They curate a collection, choose what goes on display and where. It’s an important position, and I’d argue that few think of them negatively, unless they just don’t care about the art curated for display. If the curator’s choices are not appealing, usually subjective I know, that is the negativity.
The same can’t always be said about AI generated content. Some people are extremely turned off to generational AI content for a wide variety of reasons.
Let’s focus on purely a creative perspective. If more people are curating, as I’m saying here, using AI generated content, then undoubtedly, some creative works will emerge. Do you want to be deprived from this content missing from society? That’s the million dollar question. I sure don’t.
AI isn’t creating completely AI generated work — and when/where it is — dare I say it’s not very good — yet. We need that human curator, if you’ll allow that term, in the mix.
One nagging problem, at least at this nascent stage, is the ultimate inspirational source for these generations. That this source material, some/most or possibly even all of it, was from copyrighted sources. I’ve said before that if someone sampled music I’ve created — and I’ve written and created a few dozen original songs in my life and that was used to train a machine and others could generate music that drew in some part from my work that I would welcome this happening. Yes, even if it was very similar to my work. Even if it sounded a lot like me.
That’s not a perspective every other artist shares. Some feel this is outright theft. And if it’s theft, then it’s theft of a type of or style and essence creativity, or rather an idea. It is to me like copying a style. An outright clone might be difficult to spot by others and can cause confusion in the marketplace, but as long as those using this technology aren’t claiming to be me. As long as they are not marketing doppelgangers, if you will, masquerading, selling and profiting directly off of me without me being involved, I don’t see a problem.
There have been all kinds of music clones. The 80s rock band Kingdom Come is one example. Many slayed them for ripping off Led Zeppelin. Even Ozzy Osbourne, hearing their music while getting a massage, thought it was new music from Zeppelin. He had to be corrected. Kingdom Come kept making music and really didn’t make much of a splash. More recently, Greta Van Fleet, another clear similar artist in style and spirit to Led Zeppelin, and they seemed to fare a little better.
The difference is in purity. Humans playing instruments they learned to play versus a machine emulating the sounds of music played through an instrument is a much less soulful experience. The soul is what’s missing in AI. It’s not there in art, claim artists, and you can look at the image at the top of this post and decide that yourself. Hint: look at the woman’s hands. There is an extra finger, or appears to be. Human beings don’t have six fingers. Not perfect when you look at the detail.
As for AI generated text? The soul is not clear to me in text at all. I can’t get any AI to emulate my writing with any sort of consistent passion and feel that even remotely comes close to my 100% human generated writing, which is a good reason for me to not want to use AI text generation — and we don’t here at PGM. Maybe I shouldn’t bother with AI generated placeholder images here and there either, perhaps except for examples of what makes current AI suck. I’d be among the first to admit it’s a slippery slope.
What about programming? I tried making several games using AI in 2024 and explained how that worked here: Rosebud.AI Is Better Than Expected for Creating Game Code using AI, But Still Requires Human Programming. I don’t know when I’ll give AI game development another try, but might once the tech has improved. It’s just not far enough along for me to get too serious about it. If I have to help the AI too much in order to make a game fun and entertaining as well as the backend code serviceable and not stupid, it doesn’t seem like a good use of time.
But what about AI generated music? I like some of it or would not have created an AI band called AI Kills. I generated literally thousands of songs. Curated them from very specific text prompts. I spent time tweaking the prompts to provide a certain sound and feel and included topics that were personal to me. This to me is a form of creation involving human beings. Did I play the instruments, write any lyrics or sing any of the songs? No. I did strip out the vocals of one AI mix and did record, although I didn’t publish me singing one of these songs. I briefly contemplated including that in the published album, but passed. I might do that in the future. Does that make the song less AI-generated and curated? Does that make the song more … legitimate? I don’t know. Let me know in the comments.
The main problem with AI generated anything once published seems to be, at least at the time of this writing, disclosure. It’s not how it’s perceived as creation or curation, it’s whether or not human beings, us, know if when/where and how it’s AI being used or not. It’s getting harder to tell what’s AI and what’s not and that disclosure probably should not be optional for publishers. At PGM I’ve started — here and going forward — labeling AI-generated images like the one at the top of this article. I haven’t gone into the past articles — yet — but thinking about it. As noted above, the text you are reading right now, 100%, is human generated and human edited. That includes mistakes.
Some (many?) see using AI generated anything as some sort of creative weakness and/or slight to human beings that could be paid to create the work. I don’t think in the case, at least in this publication where we do not generate any income from anything we’re doing on this website as of this writing, it’s a business question that makes any sense.
But what about publishers that do make money? Should they be disclosing when and where they use AI, if anywhere? Yes, I think they should. Always. Visitors to their websites and especially those that subscribe and/or donate or click on affiliate links and advertisers should be told what’s AI generated on that site. On reason I think this disclosure is important is because a museum curator would identify the creator of the work and, at least in part, the creator of AI generated content is not only a human being. In part, perhaps great part in some cases, it’s a series of computer algorithms that create the work.
Yes, what or who is actually creating this content remains a subject of debate. I don’t think proper disclosure should be so complicated.
My AI band, AI Kills (https://open.spotify.com/artist/63ataxYlRXQGxWaJz6JFTU) has what they are in their name. AI. I didn’t hide it. I’m advertising and promoting that it’s AI. I feel like I’m doing my part to not deceive or confuse any listener.
Has this disclosure hurt the success of this AI artist? I don’t know for certain, but my guess is that it hasn’t helped. It’s calling it out in the town square and those that are turned off to AI will immediately tune out. Some might tune out — or already are — from me because I’m doing this period. I would rather have less commercial success and be honest about what’s going on than more success being dishonest. How many are choosing the dishonest path? You decide.
What do you think? Is there any merit in this concept of AI generation is being curated instead of created? That art created, whether it be music or images — I’m not at all sold on AI text generation yet (just feels way too mechanical and passionless) — then where does it fit in society?