The Shape of Slop to Come: Will AI Surpass Human Artistic Capabilities?

AI tech is advancing fairly quickly. Not quite as quickly as initially anticipated, which is of course for the better. Still, alarmingly fast.

The world of writing is, it seems, on thin ice.

‘Why Are Huge Tech Companies Getting Into the Book Business?’ (Ted Gioia)

“This is your clearest warning sign of how destructive this technology really is. If AI-generated slop were really so tasty, they would brag about it. But they are ashamed—and for good reason.”

“The gaslighting is over—you can’t fool musicians anymore. They now fully grasp the AI business model—which is to destroy their livelihood and replace human music with bot slop.”

I should be clear that I don’t think AI tech is all bad. As of right now, I would not put the Pandora’s Box that is AI-chatbots back in the box. But we haven’t reached the larger threats… yet. AGI and ASI are what we should fear.

The issue of “slop” is a big problem. It’s going to become harder and harder to find the good work, the authentic work, the work that matters. We’ll be fighting against a riptide… and pivoting may not be easy.

There is so much precarity in the world right now. I recommend staying the course and doing the good work.

AI tech can be a useful tool—however, let’s be clear, these tools should not be designed to replace the value of human creativity.

*

I wrote all of the above before I listened to Timothy Green and Katie Dozier discuss AI on The Poetry Space_.

Now, I’m more concerned for the shape of poetry (and literature and art) to come.

In the podcast discussion, Dick Westheimer kindly calls attention to the inevitable plight of curators. The fear that we (editors/publishers) will be inundated with AI-created submissions. This is a real concern. I’m sad about this for many reasons. For one, it may be the final straw that makes it essential for all newcomers to have to “pay to play” (read: submission fees) in order to prevent a bombardment of AI submissions. It wouldn’t completely stop the problem.

Tim discusses the potential to use an AI screener as a first reader and, given the current technology, I wouldn’t trust the screener to be particularly accurate. Rattle has decades worth of material to train a large language model (LLM) on which would help create a screener that would be more able to decode a “Rattle-esque” poem. At the same time, someone could ask an AI program to write a “Rattle-esque” poem just as they could for ONE ART… once the programs become sophisticated enough. I’m not sure how many years we have. Programmers may already be able to create a LLM that could do a reasonably “good job” at creating good “dupes” of real poems… I’m thinking about how the visual art world has long had to contend with forgeries.

This reminds me that the poetry community already has problems with plagiarism. These problems are upsetting, frustrating, and ongoing.

*

I very much appreciate Brain O’Sullivan’s input in The Poetry Space_ discussion. Brian makes a solid point about why we read poetry—in part, to get to know a person. A real live human.

This reminds me of a discussion going on over at Becky Tuch’s Lit Mag News about work that “comes from the heart”.

I responded (in the comments):

I was **just** rambling about this last night...

The ramble is, in essence, an argument for writing from the heart. The way I've been positing it to myself is that I have a penchant (some will read: "weakness") for writing that is heavy on The Personal and light on "Craft".

"MFA Poetry" is typically heavy on Craft and light on Substance.

There is material (poems) that are accepted for publication in ONE ART because I appreciate and value the authentic storytelling (perhaps with "outsider art" elements) even if the craft is less than ideal.

Work that is more Human is certainly work lit mags should be seeking... especially as we move forward in the world of AI-generated slop.

*

Katie Dozier suggests that we will simply have to prove ourselves more adept than AI. We’ll have to overcome AI’s “abilities” and this will push us to be better. That’s a nice glass half-full way to consider this.

Tim Green fears that AI could make the creation of art seem fruitless. Of course, I’m hoping this isn’t the way it goes as the creation of art is so essential to being human.

There remain a lot of questions of what “good poetry” will look like in the years ahead.

I hope you’ll listen to the AI episode on The Poetry Space_ and let me know your thoughts.

There is certainly much more to unpack.