Andrew Vincent makes a good point in that, very often, artists are already expected to behave like artificial intelligence (Letters, 6 April). But of course creativity is not simply a matter of training on the work of others. Innovative artists make decisions towards low-probability outcomes; imitation, meanwhile, seeks high-probability outcomes.
As things stand, generative AI models are imitation engines – and they do not celebrate their sources, they conceal them. Writers carry forward ideas and techniques, yes, but an immeasurable part of human creativity comes from the certain knowledge that we will one day die. AI does not have that gift. For all it consumes, it does not choose what to remember or believe or feel. Authors are as much up in arms about the extreme-capitalist assumption that we’re simply machines, regurgitating content, as we are about the systemic theft of our work. Human authors also tend to worry about the difference between inspiration and plagiarism. AI has not yet been programmed to care, and no one’s holding their breath on that count.
Timothy X Atack
Bristol
