Hikikomori Blog

As people, we experience a deep anxiety about whether we can tell the difference between the creation of a human and the creation of a machine.

In fact, this a battle, if you would like to call it that, that we lost a long time ago.

And the question of whether a creation is human or machine made often, or historically, has receded entirely into the background.

One reason for this is pure capitalism, or the drive of production.

Ultimately, we care about what is produced rather who produced it. Outside of creative disciplines, that is.

But in addition to that, in addition to capital, really, what happens is that a creation that is enjoyed or benefited from is not one where our primary concern is who created it.

Therefore, I wonder whether it is even worth it to obsess, philosophically, academically, socially, or otherwise, about where a creation came from.

Rather, is it more worth it to focus on the output of the creation, and how humanity can control that output?

Or, likewise, is it more worth it to focus on the utility of that output?

Is it more worth it to focus not on who or what created something, but on the limitations of that creation?

On what limits do and do not exist?

Obviously a prime example in the zeitgeist is Gen AI.

Gen AI is inarguably a technology for which humanity is utterly unprepared.

And, which currently sits at the center of this question: How can humans tell whether something is made by a machine or made by a human?

The line has blurred exponentially in the advent of Gen AI.

However, this is a line which began to blur, and had already almost completely blurred, long ago. Right?

Let’s take music as an example. We care that Blondie sings Heart of Glass as an act of creative genius.

We care that the rhythmic base of the track is enjoyable.

But do we care that this rhythmic base is the combined output of drummer Clem Burke and a Roland CR-78 synthesizer?

In that same sense, in 2024, am I listening to Taylor Swift or am I listening to a track with a particularly successful prompt which an anonymous human fed to Suno AI from their basement?

Similarly, am I watching a commercial developed by a human team at a marketing studio or is it the combined output of the successful prompt of a group of humans and Sora?

Ultimately, we will seize to care about these distinctions at all, just as we have seized to care about the distinction of who or what made many of the things we currently enjoy or have become accustomed to.

Specifically, we become accustomed to technological achievements which by their very introduction to and existence in society have the immediate impact of replacing human output.

In the case of Gen AI, it is an impact which is exponential, and which therefore has yielded the highest anxiety seen to date as to the central question.

So, in the end, I just wonder whether it make sense to focus on the central question of who or what made what at all.

Or, whether it is a futile distraction to focus upon that distinction.

A distraction from things that actually matter.

Like, for example, do we understand Gen AI and its creations?

Why does it yield the output that it does?

What limitations does it possess?

Which limitations are not in place?

Which of its capabilities does it possess which are adverse to human prosperity?

What happens when the output of Gen AI is Gen AI?

What happens when Gen AI makes with with itself?

Perhaps we should care more about these other questions, now and for as long as humanity must contend with what is unleashed.

Which, by the looks of it, humans have created eternal and super-intelligent machines.

Thank you for reading.

ありがとう ございました。