Intelligence can be artificial

Is creativity next?

Hannah Mills Class of 2012

If you have not yet tried ChatGPT, the recently released artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot, you’re probably feeling relaxed, generally content and at peace with the world as you know it. I’m sorry to tell you this, but it won’t last.

Sooner or later, someone will whip out their phone and show you how the tool works, and you’ll begin to wonder what on earth you’re going to do with yourself from now on.

The chatbot can plan a wedding, draft your best man’s speech and book your honeymoon. Once you’re back, it can create a business plan for your new start-up, generate your three-year financial projections and develop a flashy website. In fact, there may be no point flying home because the business probably won’t need you.

I’m only partly exaggerating. The AI model that underpins ChatGPT has been “trained” with information from more books, journals, websites and images than we mere mortals can imagine. These sources form a database of knowledge about anything and everything – guidance on how to do your tax return, what exactly is special relativity, an example haiku about your annoying step-father, I could go on…

It can process and synthesise information in seconds, completing research that might otherwise have taken days or weeks. The technology is capable of understanding dialogue and even remembers things you told it earlier (something that can’t always be said for everyone in your life).

Without wishing to offend any accountants in the ONL community, I’m not overly concerned that AI might help speed up our tax returns. We could all do with a little less faffing around with confusing online forms or frantic googling. For me, things feel more sinister when it comes to creative content production, especially creative writing.

I have just asked ChatGPT to write me a short story about a young girl in a brown school uniform – let’s call her Hannah. It’s no Katherine Mansfield, but there is some character development in there, a narrative arc and even a dash of humour. Hannah finds a kindred spirit in a boy called Timmy who is feeling lonely at school. They form a strong bond and Hannah learns the importance of kindness and empathy. Admittedly, the corny closing line isn’t to my taste: “Hannah still wore her brown uniform with pride – it had brought her not only a sense of belonging, but also a life-long friend.”

Turning to verse form (I couldn’t resist!), here is an artificially intelligent rhyme dedicated to an esteemed founder:

Today, NLCS is still going strong, A testament to Buss, and her life-long song,

And though she’s gone, her spirit remains,

A beacon of hope, for girls with brains.

So here’s to Frances Mary Buss, a pioneer,

Who gave girls a voice, and made it clear,

That education is for all, whatever their gender,

And we owe her a debt, that we’ll always remember.

Is this the beginning of the end for poets, playwrights and novelists?

The examples above aren’t brilliant but they certainly aren’t bad, and the chatbot won’t need arts funding or an advance on a book deal. With access to a vast historical library, a model can generate material inspired by popular works, and could do the same for art, music, cinema and architecture. Artificial creativity – it’s a daunting thought.

But never fear, all is not lost.

An AI tool is only as good as the information with which it is fed.

To give you an example, ChatGPT’s “intelligence” only extends to 2021 because it has not been trained on data produced after that. If you ask a question that requires information generated in 2022, the chatbot may not be able to answer or the response will likely be inaccurate. That’s so last year…

More disturbingly, AI models are often behind the times in their representation of gender and race. By “learning” from historical content, they are exposed to human biases that we now try to avoid. There have been more male scientists than women over time, and more women playing the role of homemaker. Particularly in American data sources, there is more derogatory language used in reference to black communities as compared to white. Such associations are reinforced when a machine processes this information, perpetuating stereotypes that are (or should be) increasingly defunct.

This foible is the same one that gives me confidence in the future of the creative arts. It could well be possible for an AI tool to pen a great play or a successful film script. But it will never fully replace human creativity because it relies on a steady stream of inputs to stay relevant. The technology cannot generate original thoughts or a unique perspective. These must always come from scatter-brained, emotionally-charged, everfluctuating human beings. The best creative content can only come from an assembly individuals who feel, imagine, forget, misunderstand and change their minds.

That’s not to say AI cannot have a positive role in creative production. It is true that tools like ChatGPT can only “learn” from others’ ideas but, in doing so, they provide access to a world of information that can challenge and inspire creativity. It is a neat cycle of collaborative learning, a new stage in the partnership between mankind and machine.

And if it can help with my tax return, that’s all the better.