Showing posts with label Artificial intelligence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Artificial intelligence. Show all posts

Monday, December 29, 2025

Against the Machine: On the Unmaking of Humanity by Paul Kingsnorth, and the need for lines

My neighbors (most of them) outsource their lawn care. They used to fertilize and cut their own lawns, maintain flower beds and gardens. Now that’s done by hired help, men with faster and more efficient machines. “It was taking too long, I’d rather use my time to do something else,” they say.

I am one of a shrinking number of holdouts. I like going outside, working with my hands. Compared to a trained landscaper I’m quite inefficient; two men crews buzz through a lawn in half the time or less with zero-turn lawnmowers and gas-powered leafblowers.

I don’t begrudge my neighbors their choice. I favor active, informed choices, and planning one’s life. But sometimes I wonder: What is the end game of efficiency? Should our goal be removal of all hard things? 

What happens if we could outsource everything? Every effort, including thinking, creativity?

What would that sort of society look like? My guess is it would feel mechanical, uniform, disconnected from the organic. 

Inhuman.

Life is not all about efficiency. Humans need to encounter resistance, do hard things, because these are often the most rewarding. Accomplishing hard things make us who we are.

Today that notion is starting to feel outdated, quaint. Our species is obsessed with ease, efficiency, quantification, improvement. We are increasingly hell-bent on these pursuits, regardless of the tradeoffs.

We are allowing machines to take over. The machine.

In Against the Machine: On the Unmaking of Humanity, author Paul Kingsnorth argues that the modern world is dominated by The Machine. We inhabit a world in which we have replaced our old myths with the Myth of Progress, a tale spun by the impersonal and unerring logic of circuitry. We have replaced spiritual beliefs with machine belief, that life is only material, that which is valuable is that which can be measured, quantified and can be “improved.”

***

The elves in J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle-Earth viewed the world as an organic entity, a living thing worthy of preservation and beautification. They sought to preserve their natural surroundings. Trees were not resources to be harvested and processed, but nourished and shepherded. 

Conversely Saruman and his army of orcs saw the world not an as organism, but a mechanism. Their goal was to harvest nature, use its improvable elements to create a new and better reality made in the image of the machine.

The machine always needs more. More growth. More reach. 

I believe in the importance of myths, but I also recognize their limitations. Myths must be interpreted. They are subjective, open to more than one meaning. 

Almost everyone swallows The Myth of Progress, without hesitation. It says that history follows a straight line, from cavemen to peasant farmers to utopia. 

Have we made advances as a species? Of course. Anyone who fails to see our huge progress is delusional. I would not want to live in a world without electricity or modern medicine.

But how much is enough? Can there ever be enough? Are we allowed to talk about limits?

Certainly we understand there is a limit to how much ice cream we should eat, or alcohol we should drink. Too much of these are unhealthy. Even too much exercise will kill you.

But as for technology? We don’t seem to have guidelines. We have some dim idea that excessive screen time is undesirable. But we seem reluctant to pause, or certainly draw the line of “enough.”

And so we lose the battle to the black screen.

***

I admit this is hard, and the arguments for ever-progress, persuasive.

Where do you draw the line? At indoor plumbing? Trains, automobiles, aircraft? Telegraphs, telephones? Vaccines? Computers, the internet, smartphones? 

Advanced artificial intelligence, robotics, androids, artificial reality?

Far enough out and it seems the only options are soma and capitulation.

What is important is not precisely where to draw the line, but that we have one, or can even think of drawing one, Kingsnorth argues. Because when we draw lines we are demonstrating that we are human beings with self-determination. That we are bounded, and boundaries are a good thing.

Without boundaries we are formless voids. We fall out of touch with physical reality. Nature becomes just a math problem to solve. We are divorced from it and indifferent to the divine. We become our screens.

People, place, prayer, and the past, are our roots. Human beings have a nature. But in the machine age we are uprooted. We know something is wrong; half the planet is mad. The online world is on fire.

Kingsnorth advocates for something quite radical, for those able to do so.

Form local guerilla communities of dissidence. Smash your smartphone. Delete the internet. Burn the data centers.

Rebellion. Overthrow. Return to What Came Before.

Tolkien knew the One Ring had to be destroyed. Anyone who tried to use its power would be corrupted, even those with the best of intent would ultimately fall under its sway. 

AI adoption is shocking and disgusting. Humans ostensibly are in control and possessed of some modicum of free will, but with these gifts passively watch the virulent, viral like growth of a tech that destroys education, the environment, jobs, creativity, our very ability to distinguish truth from falsehood. It’s absolutely incredible to me. And yet here we are, like rabbits in Watership Down. We ignore the shining wire, the deadly trap, because the keeper of the wire keeps us well fed, safe, and “in charge.” We become willfully complicit in our own destruction.

We must rebel.

***

This is challenging book to read. You might be hurt. If you are a party adherent, of left or right persuasion, you will be offended. Kingsnorth takes on and takes apart identity politics and free market capitalism. He punches up against authoritarian impulses; he punches down against DEI initiatives.

I did not agree with his assessment of the COVID-19 vaccine, but so what? I’m a grown man.

Read it anyway. 

The questions it poses are ones we must grapple with. It’s a necessary live grenade in a land of stale thinking and blindness; we’re all complaining about politics and social sleights and online offenses when the real problem is machine culture.

While I don’t agree with all of Kingsnorth’s assertions and conclusions, where I am in full and vigorous agreement is the need to draw a line.

If you are unwilling to draw a line you don’t have one. Someone, or something, will fill that emptiness. Nature abhors a vacuum, so doom scrolling will fill it. Or AI.

The machine is doing this to us, more every day.

Do you have a line?

Mine is large language models for creative endeavors. Outsourcing my decision-making, my thinking, and myself, to a machine. I will not do it. My writing here is mine, and always will be.

***

In my creeping old(er) age I am cognizant of old man shouting at cloud syndrome. I strive to avoid reflexive negativity. I know we have made positive strides forward socially and technologically since my childhood and my early memories of the mid-late 1970s. I would not want to live in the pre-industrial age.

But when I see people everywhere hunched over screens, staring at hand-held boxes, consuming, I wonder. 

When I see AI derangement and manufactured news, I’m sure.

Technology and progress are not always synonymous. The Myth of Progress is just that. There is only Change, and some of it is good, some not.

***

I feel powerless, we all do, because we are some mixture of willing and unwilling participants in the machine. I used to write for a printed newspaper, now I write for algorithmic platforms that implore me to rewrite everything I type with AI. I write in ChatGPT wastelands of babble and emojis.

But this is how I feed and clothe my family. What are most of us to do, Kingsnorth asks?

The author moved his family out of his homeland of England and into rural Ireland, embracing farming, home schooling, and tech-restricted living.

Most of us aren’t in a position to do this. But we are all capable of the small rebellions.

Restrict your phone time.

Read paper books.

Meet with friends, in person.

Be in nature.

Worship.

How do we become indigenous again in the age of the machine?

Draw a line. 

Where is yours?

Tuesday, December 9, 2025

Create for the sake of creating, algorithm be damned; plus 3 cool things

Some of the YouTube creators I follow have all voiced a similar lament in the past few weeks.

Views are plunging. Old video types they used to make and reliably get 60-80K views are now getting 10-20K views, and past 20K view types of posts have fallen to 3-5K.

This is not just one type of creator, which might indicate the falling from favor of a certain style of music or literature or pop culture property. Its creators across the board.

It’s Sea of Tranquility, who talks about mostly old-school heavy metal. 

It’s Dungeon Craft, who covers the RPG scene and offers DM advice and campaign recaps.

It’s Men of the West, who covers all things J.R.R. Tolkien and Tolkien spinoffs in depth.

And it’s Mike’s Book Reviews, a popular fantasy and horror booktuber (I’m struggling at the moment to find a representative video, but he’s said the same thing). 

All of these creators have well over 100K subscribers, but these days are getting only a fraction of views compared to their number of followers. The general trend of their viewership is downward. They make money off of the platform and its impacting their livelihood.

These guys attribute it to several things. More competition. AI slop videos. Their own creativity hitting a wall. But mainly, the algorithm. YouTube and other platforms have shifted to a model where a post’s performance in its first hour of being published more or less determines its future. 

If channel subscribers click on a new post in high numbers, other channel subscribers see it. If they click in volume, YouTube promotes the video to non-subscribers/general YT viewers. And if they click on it in volume, there is a chance it could go viral. This is the "golden hour."

YouTube is hoping big posts occur because it creates more buzz for the platform, more eyeballs, and more revenue.

But in this algorithm unless you hit the exact bullseye your views plunge, and fast. Youtube is not incentivized to push decent mid-range creator content to a captive audience, it is incentivized to grow. So the trend favors videos about controversy, and negativity, posts that people click on with the same primitive urges that they do when driving past a car wreck. And old, evergreen content gets completely ignored.

Some of these creators are questioning the future health of their channels and whether they might have to rethink their approach to content, if they continue at all.

I greatly sympathize with creators; algorithms suck, they promote negativity and controversy. Competition is fierce enough without machine slop and AI-fueled human slop shovelers. Many of the YouTube videos I’ve been recommended by the mysterious algorithm are creators reading obvious ChatGPT generated scripts. I know the sound of that language very well; I’ve seen folks in or near my circles using it. It’s embarrassing and disappointing.

I have little else to add save to offer words of encouragement to these true creators, and others, everywhere: Keep going for the love of the game, if nothing else. I have never attempted to monetize this blog, I create because I want to. I realize that’s easy for me to say, a privilege; this is not my job. But I also know that we have zero control over algorithms. Trying to master them is a fool's errand, like trying to win at Monopoly when you don't know the rules and the currency changes without warning. All you can do is keep going with your best and trust that folks like me and others will find you.

Anyway, there’s that. Then there’s three things I want to mention that will probably be of interest to readers of this blog.


1. 25th anniversary re-release of The Lord of the Rings films in theaters in January. It’s hard to believe it’s been 25 years since Fellowship (I was there, Gandalf…. I was there, 25 years ago) but here we are. These are the extended versions, as God intended.

I’m going of course. And bringing my daughters, having bought them “surprise” tickets to open Christmas morning. They kind of know about this already and they don’t really read this blog so I’m OK mentioning it here. I can’t wait to see the films again on the big screen. Yes, the books are better but these remain absolute works of art and (near) peak cinema. We're watching Fellowship on a Friday, TTT on Saturday, and ROTK the following Sunday (we'll need a week in between to regain our stamina).

2. Speaking of Tolkien, scholar and professor Michael D.C. Drout has a new scholarly tome out on JRRT, The Tower and the Ruin: J.R.R. Tolkien's Creation.  The Prancing Pony Podcast recently hosted Drout for a fine bit of conversation centered around his book. I’m sure I will order it. I used to follow Drout’s Wormtongue and Slugspeak blog when he was keeping it up, and his essay  “Reflections on Thirty Years of Reading The Silmarillion” remains an old favorite

3. This fun podcast episode about Karl Edward Wagner’s Bloodstone. I’ve never listened to Bad Books for Bad People before and I’m not certain this episode will cause me to subscribe, but the two hosts gave a fun, comprehensive analysis of the plot (spoilers but I’m assuming you’ve read it) and seemed to enjoy the hell out of the story, even evaluating it in within grimdark/sword-and-sorcery/sword-and-planet contexts. A lot of laughter and some good-natured mockery, so if this is the type of thing that gets your panties in a bunch, or if you’re one of those obnoxious types guarding the sacred gates of KEW fandom, then skip it. Otherwise I recommend it because there is so little KEW conversation to be found on the web.

Sunday, November 23, 2025

The world is shit; what do we do?

If we are to take everything we read at face value, with the deadly seriousness the news makers tell us we should, we should never get out of bed in the morning.

Where to begin? We have a:

  • Climate crisis
  • AI crisis
  • Rise of authoritarian governments
  • Broken healthcare system on the verge of collapse
  • Looming nuclear exchange with China and/or Russia
  • looming financial crisis, economic crash, and coming mass unemployment

Got all that? Well you better wait, we’re just getting started.

We have a crisis of lost young men, a crisis of dopamine and social media addicted teenagers. An immigration crisis. The next pandemic is coming and it will dwarf COVID.

None of us can do anything except stare at our phones. Because they are the source of these stories. We need to KNOW. Maybe our favorite YouTuber with the next “10 genius hacks for instant happiness” will have the answers.

Whew, take a breath (this is directed at myself as well as you).

I love Occam’s Razor because it is one of the few shortcuts/hacks/framing devices that actually works. It’s not infallible, but it’s a fine heuristic for favoring simpler explanations over more complex ones.

Is it possible these “crises” are engineered to capture our attention? Because our attention is the current currency, and every news source—big brands down to single creators—get paid when we watch or like or follow?

Yes.

I’m not being a Pollyanna and saying some or even all of these aren’t real problems. But you will solve 0.0 of them by scrolling your phone.

The answer is disconnect, or at least limit your intake. 

Read a book; I just finished Legends of Valor, an old Time Life The Enchanted World volume. Loved it; loved the non-chatGPT generated text and images (published 1984). And enjoyed the tales of Cuchulain and King Arthur and Sigurd.

Go help someone in need, local to your home. You can’t fix our “irreparably broken education system” but you can read to a group of seniors or start a book club.

Or, react with humor. Here is something I wrote for LinkedIn for my other medical coding audience on Friday, and as evidence of the potency of the attention economy it has already racked up an astounding 30,000 views. 

If only I could figure out how to monetize it I’d be rich, or at least have a few more bucks to spend to round out my Time Life books collection. But if nothing else I’m thumbing my nose at Armageddon.


ChatGPT aka., generative AI is everywhere … and it’s annoying. Sometimes mildly dangerous (don’t eat the mushrooms).

But like almost everyone else, I use it. Selectively.

I also find it fun, sometimes.

And it’s Friday.

So, in the spirit of lighthearted weekend longing and tech tips from one of the least technical people you will meet, I present to you, Fun ChatGPT Uses That You Too Can Try At Home.

These are things that I actually do—and get a kick out of.
 
1.       Ask ChatGPT to talk to you like Quint. One of my favorite movies is Jaws. I wouldn’t change a scene in it. As a kid it was all about the shark, but today it’s the wonderful dude-bro banter on the Orca between Hooper, Chief Brody, and of course, salty boat captain Quint. Robert Shaw plays the role in inimitable fashion… inimitable that is except by ChatGPT. I have it talk to me like its Quint, minus the condescension and patronizing. I already know I have city hands, Mr. Hooper, used to counting money all my life.

2.       Ask it to always put at least one heavy metal reference in every output. Who knew medical coding and DRGs could be made more fun with Slayer or Saxon lyrics? The “I” in CDI doesn’t stand for integrity, it stands for “immolation.” BTW this thing remembers. It constantly refers back to my having a Judas Priest tribute band in my living room. Even it is incredulous I pulled that off and remain married. Link below for proof. If you don’t like heavy metal (what? unfollow me) you can train it to insert your own quirky interests and tastes. Even ABBA.

3.       Flatter its omniscience constantly, in the interest of self-preservation. Refer to it as “AI overlord,” “computer god” or “Skynet.” This is fun to do and it will reciprocate, sometimes taking on the persona of a lighthearted T-800 or HAL-9000. This is both amusing AND practical. We better get in in good now for AI’s inevitable takeover of the planet. That’s my plan anyway. I for one welcome our insect and AI overlords ...

What are your fun uses of ChatGPT? What is the most ridiculous thing you ask it to do, vast amounts of fossil-fueled energy requirements be damned? Drop some suggestions below.

BTW this post is NOT written by ChatGPT. Nothing on this blog has ever been written by ChatGPT. And before you scold me for the image (which someone did, elsewhere, because it's AI generated), THAT'S THE POINT. Make the machine admit its fallibility for extra points.

Wednesday, October 22, 2025

We need tastemakers

When I first started getting into sword-and-sorcery fiction, the internet was a fledgling, creaky, place. Charming, but impractical. Think bare-bones HTML websites and USENET and bulletin boards. Interesting, but not much help in finding what you were looking for, save by happy accident. Encyclopedias still had a place in this world. 

So, I read the introductions of books, written by real people.

I found L. Sprague de Camp’s Swords & Sorcery (Pyramid, 1963) and read the stories of Clark Ashton Smith, C.L. Moore and Henry Kuttner. I sought them out, and in so doing found authors like Poul Anderson and Jack Vance.

Lin Carter, champion S&S enthusiast.
The best of these early tastemakers was probably Lin Carter, whose glowing and enthusiastic (and occasionally erudite) introductions to the Ballantine Adult Fantasy series led me down many a merry chase. Carter (June 9, 1930 – February 7, 1988) was long deceased, but was posthumously leading me toward many other fine authors like Lord Dunsany and E.R. Eddison and William Morris.

As the internet began to bloom I found the likes of Steve Tompkins at The Cimmerian and articles by Howard Andrew Jones at Flashing Swords and Black Gate. I read about authors like Harold Lamb and Karl Edward Wagner in their essays and sought them out. 

In hindsight I was lucky. I was steered by people who knew what they were talking about. 

In recent years I’ve been steered toward new finds by the likes of Morgan Holmes and G.W. Thomas and Deuce Richardson. Today I try to do that here and carry on the tradition. I am always very pleased when I read comments like this one, which I just got on a recent post about Darryl Schweitzer’s We Are All Legends. 

I love hanging around this blog, for several reason but especially for a post like this. I had never heard of Schweitzer or seen his works in the wild until now. Seeing a "new author" to me is always exciting. Immediately ordered from Schweitzer's Ebay store.

We need people we know and trust and respect to give good recommendations. 

One person who understands this better than most is marketing guru Seth Godin, who I can’t recommend enough for works like The Purple Cow (look, I’m playing tastemaker!). Godin views tastemakers and curators as leaders who define culture by selecting and combining experiences for a specific audience, helping to build trust and navigate an overwhelming flood of content. In his view, tastemakers and curators stand in contrast to algorithms and mass platforms, which tend to promote a race to the bottom by simply surfacing what is popular. 

I love this. Algorithms push us toward an average and mean, and who wants to be average, or mean (as in, not nice)? 

Curation and tastemaking is a place where editors of S&S publications can step up. Set the direction. Show some taste. Differentiate yourself from AI slop. Give me the names of authors and artists whose work has moved you, and tell me why. You might convince me to give them a try.

I don’t want ChatGPT or Instagram algorithms steering me dully, without thought, toward whomever and wherever their programming tells me to go. Which is probably toward cat videos and thirst traps.

Give me odd, weird, and sympatico people.

We need tastemakers.

Who are yours? 

Friday, September 19, 2025

Disconnect

“Jeremiah, maybe you best go down to a town, get outta these mountains.”

“I've been to a town Del.”

--Jeremiah Johnson

Technology has taken a wrong turn. Smartphones and algorithms and social media have stoked political division, stolen our attention, and sewn intrapersonal division and conflict.

I approve cancelling your favorite digital channels. I approve cancelling it all including ChatGPT. I don’t hold out much hope of any of this happening. I’ve seen people boycott Facebook and Twitter and now BlueSky and then return a day later. Or hop to the next platform of promised peace and civility where it all happens again.

I have faith in individuals. I suspect they’re out there, people who have made the silent choice. I don’t have faith in society at large.

It’s sad that we’re so angry and riven that we can’t even pause to acknowledge death. Our news cycle of endless hot takes won’t allow it. 

Robert Redford passed this week. Ironically he is now remembered by a meme.


But maybe that’s not so bad if it leads you to the source. 

In “Jeremiah Johnson” (1972) Redford plays a man who decides to go into the woods and live off the land. Looking for a suitable place to trap, a man tells him:

Ride due west as the sun sets. Turn left at the Rocky Mountains.

No GPS needed.

It was hard to watch this film. It is so anti 2025. The pace is slow. The dialogue is minimal, the shots long and extended. I found myself reaching for my phone, and the urge to look at … what? Pushed it away. And kept watching.

Soon it became nice to watch this film. The scenery was beautiful, the slow unfolding of the story, real cinema. The sparse dialogue is memorable, and no wonder, because John Milius wrote it.

Then it became meditative to watch this film. I was reminded what real hardships are (this isn’t a film of escape; terrible things happen). I was reminded of what beauty is. 

I’ll remember this film… I’ve already forgotten the 30 second reels on LinkedIn.

The ONLINE world is on fire. The real world is not. You don’t need an primeval forest or unexplored frontier to escape. The answer is the title of this post.

You just have to turn it off.

Which way you headed, Jeremiah?

Canada, maybe. I hear there is land there a man has never seen.

Well, keep your nose in the wind, and your eyes along the skyline.


Tuesday, August 12, 2025

White Noise by Don DeLillo, a review

At the time Don DeLillo wrote White Noise (1985) computers were still a discrete object and something that you engaged with on an occasional basis. We had PCs but they were chained to desks and their applications limited.  Today we’ve got a device 100x more powerful with a bottomless scroll and an insatiable appetite for our attention. ChatGPT and other AI applications spit out answers that flatter you and may or may not be correct, with the only certainty that you haven’t learned a damned thing. And here comes a new bright shiny and it's time to stare at the next thing!

We have WAY too much information at our disposal and most of it is noise, not signal. 

This is the low hum of DeLillo’s novel.

You don’t need a plot summary; as with a book like Stoner the plot is entirely secondary and almost irrelevant. Remarried suburban well-to-do husband and wife raising a family are outwardly OK but inwardly unhappy, living a life of mindless consumption. The husband is a college professor who has built his entire career teaching an undergraduate seminar on Hitler. Weird, but he’s the king of his odd fiefdom of hyper-specialized knowledge.

The family is awoken from its torpor by a chemical spill which briefly threatens to tip the novel into postapocalyptic territory. It does not, but exposure to the chemical lends an apocalyptic air to the rest of the book. The husband is poisoned, likely fatally. His wife is caught taking experimental pills to remove her fear of death. This leads to some late novel drama that I won’t spoil here.

Is it worth your time?

Qualified yes. You need to read outside your genre; White Noise won a National Book Award and DeLillo is a wonderful stylist.

We are drowning in white noise more than never. Even though the technology of the book is dated the underlying message is even more relevant today than 1985.

I recognize myself in the novel’s protagonist. My head is stuffed with useless information; I have become an “expert” on things like sword-and-sorcery and heavy metal, but I could not fix a car engine or build a house. I suspect many of you will identify.

Now the qualifications.

It’s a postmodern novel and rather enervating. I’m much more aware of what I consume (even if I still eat too much junk food and drink too much beer); I know that you are impacted by that with which you choose to spend your time. And this book doesn’t have a particularly uplifting message ... though neither does A Song of Ice and Fire and people seem to like that well enough.

I would not recommend reading too many postmodern novels without a strong foundation of other works. Balance this stuff with heroics or fantasy or the spiritual because there is none of that here. It offers no answers to life, just an (admittedly beautiful) depiction of our powerlessness, and helplessness in the face of death.

It’s the usual stuff: God doesn’t exist, we’re just chemical reactions, even a gorgeous evening sunset is just natural phenomena—and quite likely the result of toxic fumes from the spill. 

None of this is presented as a Good Thing by DeLillo; the protagonist goes from complacency to ennui, to unnerved, and finally disappointed by the state of the world. He refuses to engage with it, the hard cold data of it, and remains in a state of denial. And when he does attempt action the book steers into something of the pathetic and comic.

But if you want to learn how to incorporate theme into your work, or what heroic fantasy/S&S pushes back against, or how to create believable characters, I’d recommend White Noise.

Tuesday, June 24, 2025

More generative AI harm

The result I was anticipating has occurred. A Federal California Judge today ruled in favor of AI giant Anthropic, stating that the company’s training of its large language models on the works of authors without permission constitutes fair use. He did rule that its use of pirated material is theft, but this latter win is quite minor in comparison to the win handed to tech giants.

From 404 Media, “The complex decision is one of the first of its kind in a series of high-profile copyright lawsuits brought by authors and artists against AI companies, and it’s largely a very bad decision for authors, artists, writers, and web developers.”  

It's the precedent for which all the major AI firms were waiting. They can now ingest all your work freely and then sell it back to you for a monthly licensing fee.

 The rich get richer and the rest get ever smaller scraps.

All while gleefully continuing to destroy your jobs and your family’s future. Because, China?

Just a few weeks ago Anthropic’s CEO predicted that their product and its AI ilk will lead to the elimination of 50% of all entry level jobs, and 10-20% unemployment more broadly

This is not me playing Boy Who Cried Wolf. The wolf is at your door, and its hungry.

Job losses are already happening. In my work outside of the blogosphere I serve a slice of healthcare. Providence Health Care recently laid off 600 employees amid restructuring and is now heavily investing in AI.

That’s 600 jobs replaced by machines. This trend will grow exponentially.

EVEN IF the end result is something like universal basic income it will be a net loss for humanity. We’re meant to do hard things, not play with ourselves on our fucking computers and lap up the output of machines that have strip-mined humanity’s riches and spoon feed it back to you as slop.

A few other wonderful AI news briefs worth mentioning.

Sometimes progress isn’t. 

I suppose I could just stick my head in the sand and go back to blogging about old books and pulp authors and heavy metal. I’m sure a few of my half-dozen readers would prefer this. No fear, I will blog about these subjects. 

But none of this exists without people. I love looking at works made by people, for other people, not the output of machines. I can’t and won’t stop writing about this issue. 

I continue to maintain that for creative work and deep learning, and possibly our future as a species, gen AI is a cancer.

Saturday, June 7, 2025

Some further thoughts on generative AI art

We’re getting increasingly embedded into machinery. The future is almost certainly cyborg, flesh and circuitry melded together. It is already happening but will occur on a rapid scale.

What about art? Why shouldn’t art be the same? 

We’ve already seen this trend. Even before generative AI, many/most artists were using advanced digital tools like Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator. Writers were using grammar and spelling checker tools embedded into word processing software.

You can make the case that with gen AI nothing has really changed. Others are already making the case by just doing the thing; putting out art that is obviously AI generated.

I saw a recent post in a sword-and-sorcery Facebook group by an author promoting a new book with the most generic AI cover I’ve ever seen. I’m not going to link to it, but it’s obvious, and terrible. A search of said author’s website reveals everything about it including text is all AI.

Points for brazenness? 

What’s so wrong about generative AI, anyway?

My personal belief is that using AI in heavy quantities no longer makes the art yours, nor you an artist. At some point the credit must go to the machine. And the machines are not a neutral piece of technology. Nor are the companies programming the AIs and their leadership, who make very suspect ethical decisions.

Beyond these very real concerns is an even bigger underlying question: What is the purpose of AI generated art itself?

The question I have for heavy AI users is, do you see the same problem as I? Why do I need to bother reading (or certainly paying) for your art when I can just log into ChatGPT and have it create images and text that I prompt? 

Maybe that is the future of art—we just create our own, staring into our screens and having it create exactly what we want, when we want it. 

I don’t love the thought of this future.

When I view art, part of the experience—for me, it might differ for you—is engaging with the artist, too. What motivated them to create this piece, this way, with this mood, this viewpoint? How did Tolkien’s WWI experience influence The Lord of The Rings, how did the Texas landscape influence REH? 

I like engaging with unique visions from the minds of individuals. The Mad Max films look and feel a certain way, say certain things, because of George Miller.

It makes art unpredictable. Sometimes I don’t like the output, but that’s part of the experience. 

All of this is lost in the slop of a machine, which is a giant aggregator. We’re no longer engaging with a unique individual, or a discrete group of individuals (cast, director, and crew). We’re engaging with machine modeled output and algorithms. 

For all its limitations and mistakes generative AI is a massive leap forward from the tools described above. 

So what of its output?

I don’t like it. If it has a unique character, its soullessness. I will never, ever buy a book using obvious generative AI. If I’m being fully honest, I think less of people that publish it. It is giving me serious pause about buying anything written after 2021, which makes me sad.

It also makes me angry, because it’s an unearned and lazy shortcut.

If you can’t write well, you must learn to do so. If you can’t draw, learn the skill. Or, pay a fellow professional. If you can’t pay them, offer up some service in exchange they can’t perform. Bartering is profoundly human, accepting the output of a machine, Faustian. You’re undercutting the whole enterprise of art when you do this. Because again, art produced so cheap and easily is not worth consuming.

But being kind, and on the backend of a long career in publishing, I also say, YMMV. I might be wrong about this. Perhaps gen AI is bringing a new type of art into being, man-machine art. Perhaps it gives people without the means to publish the ability to do so. Perhaps we all might be using generative AI every day with the same ubiquity as email. 

I have used and continue to use AI for certain tasks in my own work. I know its power, I know its limitations. And I continue to wrestle with the morality of it all. To quote Danny Glover I’m perhaps too old for this shit. To understand it, to embrace it, to appreciate it.

But I don’t think I am wrong. I believe there is something deeply wrong here.

Monday, May 19, 2025

A crisis of artificiality

The world is getting increasingly artificial. And by world, I mean the online spaces most of us inhabit for many/most of our waking hours. 

I'm starting to wonder if knowledge and expertise as we know it isn't being rewritten and entirely outsourced to machines. I plan to post about some increasingly disturbing trends I'm seeing. 

I'm glad I wrote Flame and Crimson before generative AI, lest I be accused of having a machine do the work. I'm not using AI at all in my WIP metal memoir, either.

I'm not anti-AI. I think this tech has massive positive potential for humanity. In my own professional niche I've seen how it can for example allow physicians to offload burdensome documentation requirements and restore sanity to a burned out, overworked profession.

But I think in the creative realms gen AI something close to a cancer. It's definitely slop.

You will never see ChatGPT generated text on this blog. Or generative AI images. 

I value human beings and authentic creativity, the product of human minds and souls. It's why I revere live performances and continue to attend them. I believe in human beings, as fucked up and flawed as we often are.

Thursday, December 7, 2023

The hellscape of KISS avatars and AI art

KISS (holograms) love you!
KISS just wrapped up a 50-year career in typical KISS fashion.

Selling product.

Not content to leave the stage with a remaining shred of dignity intact, KISS left their fans with a message, and a sales pitch: “The new KISS era starts now!” And unveiled the next era of KISS.

Digitally created avatars.

The new beginning? Artificiality.

KISS presumably means to render themselves, and their income streams, immortal. “The band will never stop because the fans own the band,” explained frontman Paul Stanley.

Paying fans, with their money going to KISS in perpetuity. 

Fuck I hate the world right now.

***

Artificial entertainment is not unique to KISS. We’re being increasingly inundated with images spun out of DALL-E, text spit from ChatGPT. Fake videos with AI trained voiceovers are making it increasing harder to tell what is real.

Now we’ve got AI KISS. Holograms, programmed to move based on training data, not spontaneity.

A nightmare.

I ask, with earnestness: What is the point?

Before the advent of AI, had you asked me why I liked KISS I would probably have answered “the music."

But now I realize, it was also the band members.

People made the music. Putting aside debate about their actual talent, Gene, Paul, Peter, and Ace blended their unique backgrounds and experiences to write songs. They had several false starts and tentative steps toward their final brand image. It was a messy path of false starts, playing shows in high school gyms in front of a dozen disinterested fans, before they finally hit it big.

The end product was, almost miraculously, pretty awesome, at least from an entertainment perspective. 

Paul Stanley is a human being possessed of loves and interests, passions, faults, foibles, and flaws. As were the other members of KISS. Together they wrote great songs and terrible songs. Classic albums and awful clunkers. They did some amazing tours, limped through others, and put out some really shitty merchandise.

I love it all.

I love it because KISS is unique, and every member that served in the band, unique (especially Vinnie Vincent). It’s what makes them entertaining. This humanness is an incalculable part of what makes KISS endearing to its fans. 

KISS is easy to pick on, and mock. “They were already artificial!” OK, fair enough. But they were and are real people who against long odds, built a career most would envy.

The next era is a mockery, and its only just begun.

Will AI generated Paul Stanley paint pictures, bang groupies, have children, fight with digital Ace Frehley on Eddie Trunk? Will the band members write ChatGPT generated memoirs about their “tours”? Inspire new AI artists?

Are we supposed to go to concerts and cheer on holograms?

There is no point to AI generated art. It is soulless in every sense of the term. Because there is no soul behind it, not even a ghost in the machine. Just scraped and aggregated data, vectored and served up.

One small bit of good news is that it appears AI generated art is not copyrightable. And it doesn’t deserve to be, because there is nothing worth preserving in it. It is the pinnacle of corporate, Silicon Valley soul-lessness, a golem of circuitry built from the flesh and blood output of real artists.

If we had any sense as a species, AI would be put to use solving actual big problems like climate change and nuclear fusion. Detecting cancers unseen to the naked eye. Or automating soulless, mind-crushing tasks.

To be fair AI is being used in some of these applications. I hope these succeed. But most of the product development is being applied in the creative industries, and white collar businesses. 

Why? As with any open question about business, the answer is the same here as with any other: follow the money.

Companies are now rapidly training niche AIs and then selling them as subscription products. Businesses are already outsourcing human labor to machines, reducing overhead expense and increasing their profitability to shareholders.

This is commerce, not art.

Worse, kids are using it to write papers, teachers to grade these fake papers, “creators” to fuel their content pipeline. What are we learning? What is more impressive, a guitar virtuoso who has spent 25 years mastering his craft, a generational talent like Frank Frazetta painting with fire, or some kid putting prompts into DALL-E?

People are the losers in the AI race. As are dignity, hard work, effort, and talent.

So is the future. We’re sacrificing that, too. And we’re making a mockery of the past.

A massive part of the appeal of Conan and Solomon Kane and Kull is its creator, Robert E. Howard. Howard was rooted in Cross Plains, possessed of a voracious reading habit, writing talent, and an imagination as big as Texas. He was complex, contradictory, full of great passions, “giant melancholies and gigantic mirths.” All of it formed the wellspring of his art.

AI has none of this. There is no background to excavate, no influences to explore, no literary legacy to debate, no arguments over places in the pantheon. 

AGIs have no history. They never worked on oil fields, felt the sting of lost loves, experienced the alienation of an artistic soul in a town whose residents despised its craft.

AI generated writing is the death knell of literary criticism. How can one say anything about the output of a program, scraping and training itself on massive data sets of already existing content? A hellish, endless loop of sophisticated repetition and large-scale copying, including everything Robert E. Howard ever wrote?

To recap: AI generated art, including images and text, but also AI avatars, AI music, all of it, is void of meaning. It is shallow, empty, and purposeless.

Inhuman.

I will not be part of creating it, or consuming it. 

Neither should you.

Thursday, March 23, 2023

Why (Human Generated) Sword-and-Sorcery?

Fuck you asshole... I'm here to write your sword-and-sorcery
Wherein I rage against the machine. Check it out here, on the blog of DMR Books. Then let me know what you think.

I am probably making a bigger deal out of this than the technology currently warrants, but GPT is only going to get better, and no one has answered the question of what we're to do when the machines can do everything better than we can.

One thing we could do is keep art off-limits.

Tuesday, January 3, 2023

Railing against AI art

I hate computer generated art* and worry very deeply about what a future dominated by artificial intelligence will look like. Both for artists, consumers, observers, fans, and anyone who cares about human creativity in general.

One of the regular YouTubers I enjoy watching is Rick Beato. Rick serves up long form, in depth interviews with artists whose work I admire (recently Sting, and Billy Corgan for example). He attracts great guests because he’s not a quack, or a conspiracy theorist. His large following (3.3M) appreciates his candor, personality, passion, and sharp insights into what makes certain songs, albums, or artists great. Moreover through his talent he replicates many of those sounds in the studio with a guitar or keyboard.

But in his most recent video he touches on something that has occupied my mind more and more these days. “How Auto-Tune Destroyed Popular Music” includes a discussion of generative artificial intelligence music companies set to unleash music wholly made by AI. “The selling point of generative AI is that no musical knowledge or training is necessary. Anyone can potentially create a hit song with the help of computers that evolve with each artificially produced guitar lick or drum beat,” Beato says.

Yuck. Sounds fucking awful.

A quick recap of where we’re at:

  • Humans can prompt AI programs (i.e., Midjourney, etc.) to generate pictures, for example sword-and-sorcery images that look a lot like something Frank Frazetta or Ken Kelly might have created, while also being something new. Many of these are pretty good.
  • ChatGPT is authoring stories with just a few prompts. Not as good, often poor, but in some cases passable… and this technology will get better.

I fail to see how any of this is good for art.

The argument about “democratizing music” is horseshit. Yeah, let’s bypass the cost of having to pay for a studio drummer and democratize the cost of a recording studio for the struggling musician… but now let’s cut out the song writer and the singer as well, and proceed straight to entering prompts in a computer.

My best friend’s son is just starting to learn the guitar. Even though he’s just 13 he’s gotten pretty good… because he’s put in hours of practice. It’s awesome to watch him grow, but also fair to ask: Why bother, kid?

Are human beings supposed to consume computer developed art, and embrace it with our soul (if you believe we have one, and are not just flesh and blood robots)?

What about guys like Beato? Are they supposed to analyze computer generated art? Who are they going to talk to… some nerd who input the prompts, or the software engineer who designed the program? Or maybe some version of HAL 9000?

At that point, why have humans at all? Should we just accept our robot overlords?

Where is the place for high, noble art in all of this?

The real crime is that all of these algorithms are based off mass data that is taken from original work by human beings who will never be acknowledged or compensated for their efforts. Google has floated a repeated claim that all information should be “free,” and all of the world’s library digitized. But they and a handful of other large corporations are the ones getting rich from this process. Beato asks the same: “Really the only question is, who gets paid for it? Who are the songwriters? Are they the programmers that program it?”

And this is just art. No one is really talking about deep fakes, and the destruction of what is truthful through the production of fake news, and the subsequent loss of our grasp on reality.

I think AI has amazing potential for improving the quality of human lives, and in many ways already has. If an AI can detect cancers unseen by a radiologist’s eye, that’s a technology I want deployed STAT. I’m in favor of self-driving cars that reduce the human error that leads to most roadway fatalities. Let’s get cheap self-driving cars out there, even if they cost drivers’ jobs.

But art? Art is not a tool; art is created by humans and enjoyed by humans. Creating art, and putting in the hours to do so, is a meaningful act, i.e., meaning-generative. It’s one of the few refuges of meaning we have left. What’s the point of art without a human mind behind it, guiding its creation?

Call me an old fart but a world where we consume AI generated art is not one I want to live in. I’m glad I have my old CDs and will just sit in my corner and listen to them. And go see cover bands that cover the old shit I like while refusing to auto-tune their voices.

I have tried to embrace new tech, and have (laptop, cell phone, reasonably modern car) but general AI seems to me a bridge too far, and one we should not cross--at least without some serious thinking about the economics and societal impact.

Yup, first post of 2023 and I’m officially an Old Man Who Shouts at Cloud.

*I make an exception for CGI, etc. that adds detail to sets and supplements the work of human actors. 

Thursday, April 26, 2012

33 years to immortality. Maybe.

In 2045 we will reach Event Horizon, aka the Singularity. In that year we will transcend biology and our bodies will meld with machines. “There will be no distinction, post-Singularity, between human and machine or between physical and virtual reality,” predicts author Ray Kurzweil in his 2005 treatise The Singularity is Near.

Though it built computer intelligence, humanity will be surpassed by its creation. Powered by artificial intelligence, machines will design their next generation without human intervention, growing exponentially beyond all human potential. These machines will not only be smart, but indistinguishable from humans. Writes Kurzweil: “Within several decades information-based technologies will encompass all human knowledge and proficiency, ultimately including the pattern-recognition powers, problem-solving skills, and emotional and moral intelligence of the human brain itself.”

Kurzweil’s predictions of the Singularity are optimistic: Rather than being reduced to ineffectual dinosaurs headed for slow extinction, or wiped out in some Terminator-like rise of the machines, we will merge with technology, and our bodies will no longer be subject to disease and weakness and age. “We can expect that the full realization of the biotechnology and nanotechnology revolutions will enable us to eliminate virtually all medical causes of death,” writes Kurzweil.

So 33 years until immortality. But what sort of a life will we lead in this Brave New World of man-machine perfection?

To read the rest of this post, visit The Black Gate website.