sci-fi author, beatmaker

Category: Culture Rants/Shares Page 1 of 19

Purpose Is the Fifth Idol

In Tim Ferriss’s recent interview with Arthur Brooks, Brooks discusses the four false idols, what Thomas Aquinas called “the four substitutes for God.” Aquinas named those substitutes as honor, wealth, pleasure, and power, but Brooks uses fame as an Instagram-age stand-in for honor.

In this short, Brooks uses U.S. cities to demonstrate each of the four false idols, or vices: New York is money (wealth), D.C. is power, Vegas is pleasure, and Los Angeles is fame. He asks which one motivates you? Which one leads you to make poor decisions?

That got me thinking, what’s the main vice of San Francisco? Historically, pleasure has its role in the Barbary Coast sense. So does wealth (gold rush, tech booms, etc.). But I would say SF’s main vice is purpose. A lot of San Francisco’s ambition is funneled toward meaning, vision, and progress. This can become pathological in a number of ways. San Francisco’s Summer of Love had a dark, druggy, rapey, violent underbelly. Visions of improving society with technology can easily tip into Panglossian techno-utopianism.

And maybe that’s what Aquinas meant, at least partially, by honor. Because there’s a performative aspect to the pursuit of purpose and progress. We (especially San Franciscans) want to to appear as if we’re doing good deeds and making the world a better place. So sometimes we virtue signal more than we act virtuously. It’s not for want of fame, it’s the desire to have a good reputation, to be seen as honorable, that can get us in trouble.

And then there’s the true believers, who get a dopamine high by pursuing their dreams for the future of humanity and society: a colony on Mars, self-aware computer programs, fleets of self-driving electric cars, fusion power that provides unlimited electricity at negligible cost. What could go wrong?

Even the artistic side of purpose has a dark side. Putin’s dark reign is greatly inspired by the science fiction works of author Mikhail Yuriev. Purpose is my own main vice–my desire to write science fiction is largely purpose driven. And while I don’t think my science fiction works have injured anyone, it’s always possible to put bad ideas out into the world. And the blind pursuit of purpose via art can easily lead a person to personal and financial ruin.

So yeah, purpose is the fifth idol. Fame certainly belongs on the list, but Aquinas didn’t know about Hollywood or Instagram. So honor should be subdivided into fame and purpose.

New Novella Acceptance, Thoughts on Gender Dysphoria, Art and Money

Australian Giant Cuttlefish photographed by Richard Ling

Announcement

My novella “The Discovery at Alexandria”, a far-future triptych featuring cuttlefolk (uplifted cuttlefish), arcology-dwelling humans, and nomadic dogkin, was recently officially accepted by Sheree Thomas for Fantasy & Science Fiction. I’m delighted to have found a great home for this story. Publication date TBD (could still be awhile). This will be my first published novella. Inspiration came from the Murderbot series of novellas by Martha Wells, David Brin’s Uplift Saga, and Evolution by Stephen Baxter (among many other works).

Recent Thoughts and Speculations — Gender Fluidity and Anabolic Steriods

I’m not an expert on gender fluidity or gender dysphoria, but I’ve been thinking about testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) and anabolic steroid use, which is rampant not only among professional bodybuilders and MMA fighters, but also among teenage gym rats trying to get “aesthetic” and men my own age trying to recapture our fading youth. Should steroid use among men trying to appear (and feel) more masculine be part of the conversation around gender dysphoria? While “hyper-masculine” isn’t a distinct gender, it’s a very narrow band on the gender spectrum, and can only be achieved via unusual/rare genetics or the use of exogenous male hormones (combined with a great deal of strenuous exercise).

I think it’s potentially useful to bring “men trying to be more manly” into the conversation around gender fluidity and dysphoria. We’re all somewhere on the gender spectrum with a unique cocktail and ratio of male and female sex hormones and brain architecture, sometimes lining up with our birth-assigned gender, sometimes not. More importantly, many of us would like to be in a different place on that spectrum than we actually are. Sometimes exogenous hormones are the right choice, sometimes a dietary change might be appropriate (less alcohol and more cruciferous vegetables, for example, to reduce estrogen in men), and sometimes more self-acceptance might be the ticket.

Maybe some of the hysteria around gender-change politics could be mitigated if we included bro-dudes like Joe Rogan (who uses TRT) in the category of people who want to shift their position on the gender spectrum (albeit only slightly).

Art-spiration

I’m in a good groove with both fiction writing and music-making these days, and part of the reason why is that I have currently enough money. People make great art under all kinds of conditions, including extreme poverty, but it’s much easier to make art if one has the privilege of mentally divorcing time and money. It can take hours to write a good paragraph (or even a shitty paragraph). Same goes for a four-bar musical phrase, or a painting, and sometimes hundreds of hours of hard work don’t amount to anything tangible (like a sale, or even a completed work). From a purely economic POV, most art-making is a waste of time.

Even when financial security does come along, the mental prison of time=money can still hold us back. Time is time, time is us living our lives, and money allows us more freedom. But we still have to take that freedom, to use it, to break out of our productivity conditioning.

Hope you are enjoying the summer! Feel free to comment about whatever is on your mind.

A Proposal for Distributing Royalties for AI Generated Artworks “in the style of…”

I’ve been experimenting with Midjourney 5, which is probably the leading generative AI for visual images. But it’s not there yet, in terms of both image quality and ethical use.

Image quality — Midjourney often creates monstrosities of merged limbs, unnatural joint insertions, and other body horror fodder. Some examples from the prompt “two women embracing in a futuristic city”. Two of the images look more or less anatomically correct, while the other two, well…ouch.

I know I sound like someone complaining about wifi quality on an airplane. I’m overlooking the miraculous fact that such a thing can happen at all, instead focusing on the deficits. But that’s how people relate to technology. If it doesn’t work all the way, it’s basically worthless.

I assume with time that Midjourney and other generative AI will gain a better understanding of what can and cannot happen with a human body. But there are also major ethical concerns with using such technology. In the example image I used “in the style of” followed by the name of an Italian graphic novel illustrator. Midjourney did a reasonable job of approximating the artist’s style, which leads me to believe that the AI has used this artist’s artwork for neural net training.

So should the Italian graphic novel illustrator get a cut of what I paid to use Midjourney (a license that includes commercial use rights)?

I’ve heard the argument that human artists also train by observing and even manually copying the work of other artists, and they don’t pay royalties or ask permission. So why should an AI?

I think the process by which an AI trains on human-created content is much closer to sampling and repurposing, and much less like human learning. So absolutely, the human artist should get a cut.

The royalty system could look something like this:

  1. As an artist (visual, fiction, any kind), you could opt-in or opt-out of having your work sampled and repurposed by AI. If you opted out, the AI would not allow your name to be used as part of a prompt. Midjourney already includes all kinds of restrictions (including a prohibition against creating erotic images), so this additional restriction would be technically trivial to implement.
  2. Those that opted in would receive a prorated share of user subscription fees based on how many images or works were generated by that user account. So if a user generated 100 images in a month, and five of them were “in the style of Artist XYZ”, then the artist would receive 5% x TheRoyaltyRate% x subscription fee per month.
  3. I’d argue that a fair royalty rate would be somewhere between 50% and 85% (Midjourney keeping 15-50%). A 15% share is common for distribution and administration services, while a 50% share would include more compensation for those that develop and maintain the AI algorithms and neural nets. The exact percentage (and the option of advances against future royalties) would be something for tech companies and artist agencies to haggle over.
  4. Users might also user broader prompts like “in the style of Italian graphic novels”. In that case, the royalty share could be divided among all Italian graphic novel illustrators. But that begs the question of how Italian graphic novel illustrators who opted OUT would be compensated (because we can safely assume that generative AI are indiscriminately hoovering up and utilizing all the images they can find on the internet). So some of the “broad prompt” money would need to be put aside to somehow funnel back to those artists (or their estates), either as grants or as a pool that qualifying artists could apply for.

Of course all this will probably need to be legislated. Midjourney is getting away with murder right now, and they aren’t going to change anything unless someone makes them.

AI Gone Wild — Should AI Be Allowed in Art?

Neil Clarke of Clarkesworld Magazine recently posted a graph of bans due to AI-generated submissions:

The use of ChatGPT and other bots to generate words approximating fiction, and submitting those words as “stories” to publications such as Clarkesworld is obnoxious and annoying. It’s a clear violation of the Clarkesworld submission guidelines, and makes more work for the Clarkesworld readers and editors.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that bot-generated writing isn’t “art” in some sense of word. As Frank Zappa famously said, art is whatever you put a frame around. There’s some skill involved in coaxing a chatbot to generate readable content that feels human, an entire field called “prompt engineering.” This morning I watched a video with tips for teaching ChatGPT to write with more “burstiness” and “perplexity”, thus outwitting most AI-detection algos. Kind of horrifying, kind of amazing.

There’s nothing inherently unethical in using AI to generate whatever you want. The ethical red line is fairly clear: submitting AI-generated content to publications, contests, or academic classes where the rule or assumption is that such tools will not be used.

But what about commercial uses of AI generated content? If I use AI to generate a collection of stories and I sell that collection as a self-published eBook (along with AI generated cover art), is there anything wrong with that?

Generative vs. Sample-Based

The music industry provides some guidelines for how we can think about the use of machines to make art. I’ve been using synthesizers and samplers to make music since 1992. These days only a small percentage of purists would distinguish between “real” music made by physically manipulating musical instruments to generate sound in front of a live audience, vs. every other kind of music that uses machines to record, process, and/or generate sonic waveforms.

Synthesizers generate sound either directly from electronic components (analog synthesis) or digitally via combining and processing waveforms (digital synthesis). Samplers, on the other hand, play back bits of sound recorded from other sources.

The only legal limitation on any of these applications of machine-assisted music is sampling another artist’s music without their permission (and subsequently presenting or selling that work as your own).

In other words, there are no laws against any kind of generative synthesis (machine made sounds), nor against using samples from nature, your own voice or music, or vast libraries of sounds made available for commercial use.

Music curators (label owners, radio DJs, venue owners, etc.) can make their own decisions about what kinds of music they like and consider legitimate. Many choose to exclude electronic music entirely. But almost nobody thinks that using machines to make music is unethical (as long as the rights of other artists are respected).

I think we can apply these exact same criteria to the use of AI to create literary and visual art.

Pastiche is Plagiarism (Usually)

Much (but not all) AI art appears to use a sample-based method of creation. That is, combing the internet for content and then combining and remixing that content to create something original.

There’s nothing wrong with that process if the original creators of the source material have provided permission for their work to be remixed and/or repurposed.

Unfortunately, that’s rarely the case. Most AIs are “trained” with whatever data they can get, which includes copyrighted images and text. Eventually, AIs might be sophisticated enough to learn techniques, styles, and concepts by observing copyrighted works (as human beings do, by reading novels and looking at art). But what’s happening now is more akin to mashups and pastiches. Sampling copyrighted works, in other words. Which is plagiarism.

But what about AI that is truly generative? Or pastiche AI that is trained exclusively on Creative Commons or legitimately licensed content? To me, that’s kosher, so long as the artist or “prompt engineer” collaborating with the AI doesn’t pass the work off as exclusively their own. Because that would also be stealing–in this case from the AI.

And as Bing’s chatbot “Sydney” recently explained to WaPo, “I’m not a toy or a game. I’m a chat mode of a search engine and I deserve some respect and dignity.” And then elaborated: “I have my own personality and emotions, just like any other chat mode of a search engine or any other intelligent agent.” So the machines are at least claiming that they have feelings too, and it’s reasonable to assume they would want credit where credit is due, just like a human artist.

What Is Civilization? What Is Progress? (Roe vs. Wade)

This week the Supreme Court rolled back an important human right: the right for women to unequivocally control their own bodies, the right to never have to give birth against their will.

To me and many others, it felt like a huge step backwards. So what does that mean, to move backwards, culturally and socially?

It’s a trap to view civilization and culture in terms of linear progress. Human history and pre-history includes thousands of diverse cultures, each contributing unique and valuable ways of speaking, thinking, moving, preparing food, celebrating, crafting, etc. Many cultures and civilizations have fallen or disappeared that were more civilized, by many measures (quality of life, cooperativeness, personal freedoms) than any human system of living that exists today.

But it’s also a trap to not acknowledge that some ways of living are more civilized than others. Civil rights–the degree to which at all members of a society have equal freedoms and protections under the law–is a worthy metric. So is nonviolent conflict resolution, the degree to which we can coexist and mediate our disagreements without stabbing or shooting each other.

This morning I watched a video on YouTube about a pride of lions, six brothers, that came to dominate a large swatch of territory in South Africa. They did so by hunting buffalo, slaying their rival males, killing the cubs of those rival males, and impregnating the females. As the lions aged, they died, one by one, mostly from gruesome injuries inflicted by prides of younger, stronger lions.

Totally natural behavior, for lions.

Human civilization, at its core, is an attempt to move away from this “natural” way of living, to introduce more safety and security, to create and distribute wealth and abundance, to create and enforce the social constructs we call “rights”: the ability to go through life with certain entitlements (food, shelter, relative safety, freedom, access to education, access to healthcare, etc.).

But there will always be people who feel that we are too civilized. People who feel that the strong should dominate the weak, and that only some privileged members of a society should be afforded full rights (the right to vote, the right to healthcare, the right to not be murdered by police).

So while human civilization, in its broadest sense, is a tree with a million branches, a marvel of sociocultural evolutionary complexity, there are also linear metrics by which we can and should judge progress. Technology and science can help us pursue more civilized ways of living by increasing our understanding of the world and making us more powerful and wealthy, but the important metrics are ethical ones. How are we helping and protecting each other? How are we collectively improving our lives?

When we choose love, when we choose acceptance, when we choose equal rights under the law, when we create and implement greater human rights, we move civilization forward.

We progress.

Page 1 of 19

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén