Can AI Truly 'Imagine'?

Pushing back against Meta's sly use of language around its new AI features.

Photo by Mohamed Nohassi on Unsplash

I’ll admit I’ve not been using social media like I previous have. Once upon a time I posted regularly on Facebook, and prided myself on my number of Twitter followers. Now both accounts lie pretty much dormant. The last handful of years has seen changes to social media algorithms that tend to promote controversy, outrage, and anger. I suppose those things drive more user engagement. But is that really a good thing to have online communities steered toward, and driven by, divisiveness and hatred? I blame changes in management (you know who I’m talking about), as well as general greed. The drive to grow bigger and have more control than ‘the other guy’ has caused the major platforms to change in ways that don’t appear to best serve their users. One of such changes is the recent addition of AI to both Meta and X. As far as I can tell, no one asked for these new tools, no one is particularly jazzed up about their use, and a whole lot of people are pushing back against them.

It’s not a secret I’m opposed the use of AI without regulations. I’ve shared opinions on that many times here in the past. However, what’s really frustrating is the use of manipulative language around these new AI tools. In particular, Meta (both on Facebook and Instagram) has changed it’s regular search bar into an AI powered search engine, encouraging the use of the key word ‘imagine’ when typing something to look up. “Imagine a novel cover”, “imagine a superhero”, and “Imagine dinner on Mars” are actual suggestions to use on Meta AI. This would imply that the AI is capable of coming up with original content. And yet many, many artists, writers, and creators have pointed out plagiarism time and time again.

So, can AI truly Imagine? No. I don’t think so and here’s why. For one, there has been heaps of evidence that AI is simply scraping real artists’ work that they’ve previously shared on social media or elsewhere online. Painters, writers, graphic designers, and photographers and finding near identical AI versions of their work showing up all over the place. This isn’t ‘imagining’ a book cover, like the promp suggests, it’s outright stealing one from professional artists and designers. Even if search parameters are changed to “imagine a book cover with someone dining on Mars”, would it be original or would it be comprised of stolen art mashed into a makeshift cover?

And why design a tool to solve a problem that doesn’t exist? The use of AI in the creative arts is baffling, considering there are so many other places this technology could be used to solve actual problems that humans haven’t been able to on their own. However, AI technology is getting the loudest support by money-hungry tech bros and get-rich-quick schemers online. These folks tend not to be very creative, nor do they place much value in art. (They also don’t seem to understand that self publishing slews of poorly written and derivative AI novels isn’t going to be the money making scheme they think it’ll be. And yes, this is happening, but I’ll save that rant for another day.) It’s also the same reason that capitalist entertainment execs are thrilled at the idea that they can fire every actor, writer, and editor while still making money at the box office. BUT — and this is a big but — would that actually happen?

I’ve heard a very prominent Hollywood actor (who is now mostly a producer) talk about how AI would allow for new creation by asking it to write scripts based on a mashup of existing writers work. The example discussed was a TV series that’s a cross between Shonda Rhymes and Aaron Sorkin. (Literally, this was the pitch). So, in his view, would gleaning work and authorship from two well-know writer/creators constitute originality? True imagination? What is it, exactly? And even if both writers were credited, or even paid an honorarium for their inspiration, doesn’t that mean that television scripts would forever be stunted in themes and styles from the past? And what, exactly, is the cut-off to consider this plagiarism, especially if the original authors are not asked permission to use their work? Additionally, there would be no room for new voices, no ability to change with the times, and no authentic creativity would arise.

The critics would argue this use of AI is no different from new writers taking inspiration from the old. I don’t think that’s true, and it completely removes the new writer’s personal experience, skill, and style from the equation. Take Aaron Sorkin, for example. He is considered one of the best screenwriters out there. And yet would he have even been given a chance had AI been around to write ‘the next great political television pilot’? No matter what key words you’d have typed in prior to The West Wing being created, you’d never have gotten a script for The West Wing, at least not with Sorkin’s unique voice, style, and opinions.

So now, say you want to recreate a political hit like The West Wing but for the modern age, and so you type that into the AI. You might get some sort of vaguely plagiarized knock-off of The West Wing, perhaps set in 2024, or with a republican president instead of a democrat, or with a male press secretary this time around. But it would never be House of Cards, Madam Secretary, The Americans, The Diplomat, or any other majorly successful political television show that did come after. In fact, we’d never have gotten a single one of these shows had all we’d done was try to copy and chase the success of the most well-know show that came before. Of particular merit here is The Diplomat because it’s created by a former West Wing staff writer. You’d expect there to be a lot of influence there, and yet The Diplomat is very different. Its got the flavour and style and originality of its own creator there. This is the difference between inspiration and being a copycat, or worse, a plagiarist.

The same can be said for all great auteurs. Type into AI a concept for a film where Germany won the second world war. Are you going to be able to get something as great and authentic as Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds? Or what about The Man in the High Castle? It has the same concept, but very different authorship. Now consider the work of Wes Anderson, Christopher Nolan, or Chloe Zhao. Would we have ever seen the work of these incredible creators had AI been around before them?

Likewise when it comes to creators working from personal experience. For example, take the recent success of Baby Reindeer. That story could not have been told without writer Richard Gadd’s very specific personal experiences. Furthermore, those experiences likely wouldn’t have been explored so openly in a television show until more recent times. Once again, AI wouldn’t have been able to make this show. Instead, AI erases new ideas, it extinguishes authentic authorship, and silences important future voices.

This is why Meta wants you to use the word ‘imagine’ when using its AI tools. It wants you to associate AI with new, fresh, futuristic and imaginative ideas, when all it’s really doing to scraping from the past. And even if we reached a place where we were living in a sort of Blade Runner style of reality, would be want art that’s so disconnected from humanity and human source? Do we want to consider imagination something that’s just typed into a search field and regurgitated out on command? I think the threat here is huge and I worry that, like our natural sense of direction or ability to do maths unaided, that technology could diminish our ability to imagine. And if we, as a species, can’t critically think or create or strategize or imagine for ourselves, well, we’re going to have much bigger problems than plagiarizing book covers.