Bast and the controversy over artificial intelligence, how far will anger against machines go? | Technology

This article is part of the weekly Technology newsletter, sent every Friday. If you would like to register to receive it in its entirety, with similar themes, but more varied and brief, You can do it at this link.

This week was the Superbowl. In addition to an American football match, it is the annual conclave of the best advertisements for the most notable products. Microsoft has released one for its artificial intelligence (AI) tool, Copilot. The advert features images of relatively young people in unglamorous environments: snow, rain, buses, bridges over highways. They are solitary individuals who try to progress despite their conditions. With these backgrounds, we have the following great phrases: “Decían que nunca abría my propia empresa o conseguiría mi título”, “decían que nunca haría mi película o construiría algo”, “decían que nunca poría mi película o construiría algo”, “decían que soy demasiado viejo para aprender algo nuevo, demasiado joven para cambiar the world”.

And at the end, with a change of music: “But I say: look at me.” Copilot appears there and gives answers to the protagonists’ questions: he prepares questions for exams, gives logo options for a workshop, writes code. At the end, the slogan appears: “Your AI assistant for every day”.

This announcement is an obvious attempt by Microsoft to frame the social image of AI. Is this help or theft? Does this contribute to progress or does it suppress labor rights? Microsoft has its answer, even if it cheats a bit: helping to get a degree (something personal) is not the same as making a movie, which is very difficult to be something individual. But his message is clear: If you stop complaining, you’re never “too old to learn something new.” Wake up.

This generative AI has been popular for less than two years. ChatGPT appeared in November 2022. Microsoft launched Copilot in September 2023. Google just launched Gemini that same month. We’re at the start of something, but it’s pretty big. The big debate is obviously its impact on society, that is to say on work.

He Financial Times published this week a lengthy report on “How AI is revolutionizing the advertising industry.” All the newspapers make the same headlines with “AI is revolutionizing” every imaginable sector. For once, it looks like the revolution will be real.

The example of advertising allows us to imagine its impact. Personalized audiovisual advertisements are now possible: how many thousands of hours of work would it take to produce hundreds of thousands of advertisements or different web pages for each consumer? Or the reflection behind each product. The FT cites the example of a new vegan product: “Instead of paying tens of thousands of euros for a team of people to design a new name and logo, (the marketer) simply asked six ideas for an AI chatbot and selected the best one,” the paper explains. It’s not something that’s going to happen. This is already happening.

All sectors see examples like this coming: fashion, journalism, law, universities. Few will escape. Tasks requiring work, thought and experience will be completed in minutes by an AI and replicated as many times as necessary.

Faced with this development, we have two general options: accept it in the hope that it will create more wealth and jobs, or concentrate primarily on litigation and legislation. In Spain we see the best public example with illustration. Almost every day, examples of covers or posters created with AI circulate on X (formerly Twitter) which go viral thanks to complaints from hundreds of illustrators.

Some recent cases are a cover of Destino, a poster of the Ministry of Youth or the cover of the new Estopa album, which is precisely called EstopIA.

In the summer of 2022, I published an article about the start of this conflict. It was titled “The emergence of AI provokes war in the world of illustration”. In less than two years, the result of this battle can almost be published. I asked how some of those who appeared in this article view it now: did they see it coming that the wave was only going to grow? Yes, what solution do you see? It is complicated.

Unlike cryptocurrencies or virtual reality, it’s hard to meet someone who has used a creative generative AI tool for the first time and not say “wow.” This is the best example that he won’t be able to stop. If there is demand, there will be supply: “Legal and copyright issues escape people who are not specialized in the matter,” explains Diego Areso, artistic director of EL PAÍS. “This is why so many public administrations are blithely using AI, without realizing that almost all of them, at the moment, rely more or less on image theft,” he adds.

Estopa’s coverage is particularly interesting because the duo is amazed by the controversy. They seem sincere. This is what they said to Goya on the EL PAÍS buses: “We didn’t know that we were so important and we also didn’t know that there was such an interesting debate. Honestly, we don’t understand. The one who experiences it is the one who knows it. We were laymen in this matter. AI is like nuclear power, it can be used for better or for worse: as long as it doesn’t eliminate jobs, it is just another tool. We gave work to a designer, we didn’t do it ourselves. Creativity will be above any machine. This is a good summary of the issues, average stuckwith what they heard about the controversy.

What is the problem?

AI touches the core of our value as humans. AI writes, translates, draws, composes, designs, programs like a human. And then what value do we bring? “A computer, tablet, stylus, or drawing and color software like Clip Studio or Photoshop are tools that help you draw and do your work better and faster. An AI, on the other hand, does not help with drawing: IT ELIMINATES THE DRAWING FUNCTION (sic). And if you don’t need to draw with it, it can’t be considered a tool,” says illustrator David Rubin.

This is the crux of the problem: now someone who has grace, but no skill, can draw. From the outside looking in, this is a good thing: there are more people creating more drawings, some interesting and some terrible. The same thing will happen in other arts. But from the inside, they logically see it as an invasion and theft of rights. Especially since the AI ​​has learned from millions of illustrations and drawings made over decades by humans. How can a machine effortlessly create what took years of sweat and ink?

“Artificial intelligence can be used in several ways. “Almost everyone is familiar with the platforms where you type four words and come up with a picture,” writes Estopa cover writer Jandi, in your clarification message in X. “The process of creating this triptych was truly complex and laborious.” In other words, only a person with knowledge could do it, sketch by sketch and improvement using AI.

Javi López comes from the business world and after months of testing generative AI, he created a tool to improve illustrations with more AI. He even improved Estopa’s coverage:

López also believes that illustrators still have a long way to go if they accept AI as another tool: “In the case of Estopa, he is an established artist with more than 30 years of experience. He’s been creating things for so long that he’s moved from techniques like using photocopiers and magazine clippings to digital publishing and now generative AI,” says López. Just like “the camera does not make the photographer, generative AI does not make the artist.” Generative AI tools are another tool. Artistic direction continues to be the responsibility and work of the artist,” adds López.

In this debate, the challenge is whether AI causes what conceptual artist Marina Rubio says: “Art, by definition, is something human, and we have too easily entrusted it to machines. »

This war comes too late. He New York Times denounced OpenAI precisely for feeding on its texts for its model. He Times It is an institution that has resources. And he’s not sure he’ll win. And if he wins, he will receive a few million dollars. But ChatGPT will still work. Even if there is compensation for a select group of people affected by AI, there is no going back.

“There is no point of return. From now on, only multinationals will be able to protect their intellectual property,” says illustrator Jon Juárez. “As a society we need to understand what this means. The AI ​​does not generate Copyright. If a customer pays for the rights to exploit an AI product, they are being ripped off. We have the right to know if the AI ​​engines participated in the creation of an image, text, sound, etc. Hiding or lying about it is a scam, it should be considered a crime, and it is a practice that is becoming normalized in Spain.

It affects everyone. Maybe there will be Estopa music without Estopa creating it. Illustrators know they are just the first in a long list of people affected. Anger will increase and perhaps it will no longer be strange to see people blowing up machines as happened with a car. self-drive tour in San Francisco There are days.

You can follow EL PAÍS Technology In Facebook And X or sign up here to receive our weekly newsletter.

_