My detestation of AI generated content has grown the past few months and it to me is an issue that cannot be ignored any longer.
At first, you think on the surface it’s fun.
LOTR characters as Transformers? (or even Deep Space Nine characters in the style of Tetsuya Nomura) Interesting. These were two comments I made as suggestions for a video on an AI Art account using MidJourney two years ago. (Those two suggestions I repent of and reject these days.) My attitude has changed and AI used in this manner is increasingly damaging not only to Art but Evangelism.
Firstly, let's deal with a evangelistic side of things.
I remember in recent weeks coming across a Voddie Baucham YouTube Account but it was not. Any person who has listened to Voddie Baucham, Paul Washer, John MacArthur or any other preacher knows of the passion that these men put into their preaching. AI voices are not necessarily good at human cadence or emotion and usually have a flat delivery which is a dead giveaway.
The problem facing us is that it is a danger and it’s a disturbing precedent for lazy content if not misinformation as the AI voice of Baucham (and of John MacArthur as well) could be used to spread false teaching and mislead the gullible and unwary.
While Respeecher, an ethical means of producing AI voices could with the permission of the late James Earl Jones enable Disney to keep Darth Vader's voice around for future generations, I do not think that the preachers I have mentioned and the ones I haven't would appreciate nor give permission for their voices to be used in this way.
Even with approval by actors such as Jones which was done merely for preservation as the man had retired from voicing Vader, not all consent. In the realm of voice acting, actors and actresses like Steve Blum, Sean Schemmel, Grey DeLisle and Mike Pollock oppose this for it would rob them of a livelihood.
DeLisle in particular was scathing of a fanmade Five Night's at Freddy's/Scooby Doo that used an AI clone of her voice without consent, even going as far as blacklisting the guy. (Although he did eventually re do the voice work with impersonators which I think was a wise decision and he shouldn't be barred from the industry.)
If Grey DeLisle is willing to oppose this, How much more should we as Christians be opposed to a preacher we like having their voice used to promote false teaching? It's a disaster waiting to happen and this malpractice should not be supported.
The other problem is the Studio Ghibli art trend I have seen other Christian channels or just AI in general.
Amusing as it may be on the surface seeing various preachers in the style of Studio Ghibli or any animation company for that matter if such happened, there are problems.
Drawing your favourite preacher or your favourite character by hand or by computer with Photoshop are legitimate means to accomplish this but in the case of AI Art run through a computer? This is not so.
Many problems with AI Art is that it is incredibly damaging to art itself, both industries and hobbyists alike and is essentially at the end of the day not only theft (Thou shalt not steal) but a massive middle finger to Studio Ghibli and other artists who have put their heart and soul into their work. Even AI videos have this problem.
Not only is it stealing but it heavily demoralises someone from actually drawing. That's not particularly considerate or loving your neighbour is it? There was actually a photo of a man with his daughter drawing together and he decided to draw the photo in the style of Studio Ghibli and share the art, which was highly praised.
Then some degenerate came along, ran it through the AI filter and then had the audacity to say it was better and ask the guy why he would want to spend hours on the drawing. What? The real drawing was emotional and sweet as was the photo it was based on and that little girl is going to have happy memories with her father to look back on when she grows up.
Art isn't rushed, it takes time to draw, to write, to sculpt. The act of making the art makes the finished result far more satisfying. What does AI offer in this respect? Nothing.
This isn't Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation on a quest of learning to be human by painting, acting, playing an instrument or having a pet (A list in my mind courtesy of Confused Matthew which is he correct on having watched TNG episodes myself). Nor is it the T-800 in Terminator 2: Judgement Day learning what it means to be human, culminating with that beautifully written line in the ending:
"I now know why you cry, but it is something I can never do."
Even in the mixed bag of a movie, Terminator Genisys, has the Guardian T-800 say the line "Take care of my Sarah." Whatever problems that movie had with it's writing, there is much from that film that could have been salvaged in that department had the script been rewritten to a higher standard.
AI at this moment in time is not Data or C3P0 or the heroic T-800s which have some level of simulated human emotion, even if they can only intellectually assent to that. The AI that exists now is a soulless machine fed data and trying to build a picture based on information it has been given. It has no conceptual thought of it's own, it plunders and steals data from elsewhere to create a image that in the end is worthless. Even if the results become more human like, it can never touch people's hearts in a way that moves them, except in revulsion.
Writing is also a personal window into the author. Whether it's theological, philosophical or even fictional, there is an emotional investment in the work at least. Why else does J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-earth Legendarium resonate with so many. The verisimilitude (or believability) of that fictional world set in a mythical distant past of our world is unmatched, making you believe it could have happened. I am not saying the events in the Legendarium happened, but it shows how effective of a story teller and world builder Tolkien was.
Whatever you think of Star Trek as a franchise (and morally there is a lot to admire or reject), Gene Roddenberry and his successor Rick Berman, created a uniquely American mythology that could take place in the future. However, at the end of the day, Star Trek is as Robert Meyer Burnett described, an alternate future that will never happen. (A paraphrase as I can't remember the exact wording at the time of writing.)
AI has no comprehension of world building, it merely gathers ideas stolen from elsewhere. It cannot create Middle-earth nor the United Federation of Planets. It is not inspired by another person's work.
If all the data on the internet were to vanish, leaving only the "art" it "created", the AI would have no choice but to devour it's content over and over again.
Going back to preaching, a sermon is also a window into the preacher, an AI prompt could never weave together a sermon with unique human idiosyncrasies.
It also leads to laziness in research or in some cases, programmed into confirming a person's own religious bias (As Lily Jay, a muslimah apologist has done some of her videos.)
At the end of the day, I don’t recommend AI written or AI image slop and would only encourage the support of real writers and real artists.
Answering Judaism.
