Scott Rettberg mentions, “poem and stories that are generated by computers, either interactively or based on parameters given at the beginning,” as a form of electronic literature (Rettberg 172). Does this sound familiar? Because to me it sounds like A.I. Rettberg even goes on to say that these generators, “stretch back to Christopher Stratchey’s 1952 M.U.C. Love Letter Generator” (Rettberg 172). So if this stretches all the way back to 1952, why is A.I. only gaining mainstream attention and gathering worry from the majority of people today?
The first reason is AI is more accessible today. You don’t have to know any code to create an AI generated piece of work, because the AI itself is already made by others. It is now in a digestible form for most of the population that has access to the internet. It’s like when Gutenberg’s printing press vastly improve literacy rates, because the material became more accessible to the masses. it also wasn’t being used by big corporations to ‘optimize profits,’ which is just a codeword for ‘we actually think AI can replace human jobs, even if most AI is actually more costly for us.’ Fear-mongering, if one will. AI, at least to my knowledge, was not being actively used against the majority of the population in any noticeable way.
Instead, in regards to the paper and the 1952 example, it was a tool for creativity—an experimental tool at that—that did not replace a human in any meaningful capacity, because the human was involved in making the AI itself and the prompt.
So what do we do now? Well, we take the tool back and thus our power back to use it the way we want to (not a replacement, but a tool), and also try to make laws surrounding AI use. Regulations are needed, and people have a right to know when AI is used and where specifically it is used.
Very good post! I really like thinking about the idea if the quote really refers to AI.
Hi Sierra, I like how you pointed out the exact quote that reminded you of current uses of AI, that same quote stood out to me while I was reading. I completely agree with you that laws and regulations should be made surrounding AI, however I do not see how it would be possible to return generative AI systems back into only tools instead of replacements, I feel as though a point of no return has been passed with people’s/corporations reliance and preference of AI. Thank you for your post!
Hey Sierra, I liked how you connected early computer-generated writing to what’s happening with AI now. The part about accessibility made a lot of sense, like how the printing press changed who could read and create. I also liked your point about taking the tool back and using it for creativity instead of fearing it. That feels like the right approach.