Pop stars, it seems Drake and The Weeknd he didn’t suddenly release a brand new song that went viral on TikTok and YouTube in April 2023. A photograph that won a world photography competition in the identical month was not an actual photograph. And the image Pope Francis in a Balenciaga jacket which appeared in March 2023? This was also false.
The whole thing was made using generative artificial intelligence, latest technology that may generate human-like text, audio, and pictures on demand through programs comparable to ChatGPT, Midjourney, and Bard, amongst others.
There is actually something disturbing concerning the ease with which people are fooled by these fakes, and I see it as a harbinger of an authenticity crisis that raises some difficult questions.
How will voters know whether a video of a politician saying something offensive was real or generated by artificial intelligence? Will people be willing to pay artists for his or her work when artificial intelligence is able to create something visually stunning? Why follow certain authors when stories of their writing style will flow into freely on the Internet?
I actually have seen anxiety growing around me at Stanford University, where I’m a professor and head a big group generative artificial intelligence and academic initiative.
As the creation of text, images, audio and video files becomes easier and easier thanks to latest generative AI tools, I imagine that people will need to re-examine and recalibrate how authenticity is assessed.
Fortunately, social science offers some guidance.
The many faces of authenticity
Long before generative AI and ChatGPT got here to the fore, people wondered what made something feel authentic.
When an actual estate agent raves concerning the property they’re trying to sell you, are they being real or are they only trying to close the deal? Whether this stylish friend wears authentic designer fashion or mass-produced fake? How do you discover your authentic self as you grow up?
These are usually not just philosophical exercises. Neurological examinations showed that believing within the authenticity of a murals prompts the brain’s reward centers in a way that viewing something said to be a fake doesn’t.
Authenticity also matters because it is the social glue that strengthens trust. Take, for instance, the social media misinformation crisis, where fake news was inadvertently spread and authentic news was deemed fake.
In short, authenticity matters each for people and for society as a complete.
But what exactly makes something feel authentic?
Psychologist George Newman examined this issue in a series of studies. He found that there are three important dimensions of authenticity.
One of them is historical authenticity, i.e. whether the item actually comes from the time, place and person it claims to be. An actual Rembrandt painting would have historical authenticity; modern forgery would not try this.
The second dimension of authenticity occurs when, for instance, a restaurant in Japan offers unique and authentic Neapolitan pizza. Their pizza was not made in Naples or imported from Italy. The chef who prepared it may not have a drop of Italian blood in his veins. But the ingredients, appearance and taste may really match well with what tourists would expect to find in a nice restaurant in Naples. Newman calls this categorical authenticity.
And finally, authenticity resulting from our values and beliefs. This is what many citizens miss from politicians and elected leaders who say one thing and do one other. This is what admissions officers search for in college essays.
IN my very own researchI actually have also seen that authenticity can refer to our expectations concerning the tools and activities involved in creating things.
For example, while you see a chunk of custom-made furniture that claims to be handmade, you most likely assume that it wasn’t literally handmade – that a wide range of modern tools were nonetheless used to cut, shape, and connect each bit. Similarly, if an architect uses computer software to draw up constructing plans, you most likely still consider the product to be legal and original. This is because there is a general belief that these tools are a part of what it takes to produce these products.
Arterra Group/Universal Images via Getty Images
Most of your quick assessments of authenticity don’t give much thought to these dimensions. But within the case of generative AI, it will be mandatory.
This is because when latest, original content took a protracted time to create, there was a general assumption that creating it required skill – that it could only be created by expert people putting in a variety of effort and dealing with the perfect of intentions.
These aren’t any longer protected assumptions.
How to take care of the approaching crisis of authenticity
Generative AI thrives on humans’ reliance on categorical authenticity, creating materials that look “real.”
Therefore, it will be vital to separate historical and categorical authenticity in our own considering. Just because a recording sounds exactly like Drake – that is, falls inside the category of expectations for Drake’s music – doesn’t suggest Drake actually recorded it. An important essay that is turned in for a school writing class wasn’t necessarily written by a student working hours on end to create sentences in a word processor.
If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, everyone needs to consider that it may not have actually hatched from the egg.
It will even be vital for everybody to know what these latest generative AI tools can and can’t really do. I feel it will include ensuring that people study AI in schools and within the workplace, and having open conversations about how creative processes will change as AI becomes more widely available.
Writing school papers in the longer term won’t necessarily mean that students may have to rigorously formulate every sentence; tools are actually available to help them develop ways to express their ideas. And creating an incredible image won’t require exceptional eye-hand coordination or knowledge of Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Illustrator.
Finally, in a world where artificial intelligence acts as a tool, society will need to consider how to establish protective barriers. These could take the shape of regulations or the creation of standards in specific areas revealing how and when AI was used.
Is AI considered a co-author of the text? Is this not allowed in certain varieties of documents or for certain classes at college? Does submitting a piece to the competition require a signed declaration that the creator didn’t use AI to create his/her entry? Or perhaps latest, separate competitions are needed that explicitly invite works generated by artificial intelligence?
These questions are difficult. It may be tempting to simply consider generative AI an unacceptable aid, in the identical way that calculators are banned from some math classes.
However, hiding latest technologies risks placing arbitrary limits on human creative potential. Would the expressive power of images be what it is now? if photography was considered an unfair use of technology? What if Pixar movies weren’t eligible for an Oscar because people thought computer animation tools undermined their authenticity?
The possibilities of generative AI have surprised many and can challenge everyone to think in a different way. However, I imagine that humans can use AI to expand the boundaries of what is possible and create interesting, worthwhile – and yes, authentic – artworks, writing and design.
