AI: a shift in what we consider "real"

You regularly hear about the disruptive nature of AI, but that's almost always about tangible reality: homework that AI changes, shifts in the labour market, you name it. What I myself am currently thinking about is a different kind of shift. Perhaps more fundamental, less visible, and more about principle.

A small example. My son (13) likes making music with AI. (This happens a lot: about a third of the music streaming services receive is made by AI; for an impression, listen on YouTube to AI + classical music.) For English he read a beautiful sentence in a book and turned it into a song via aimusicgen.ai. I like seeing how he is creative with language, schoolwork and music. But: with one instruction he fabricated multiple versions, from classical to quite heavy. 😏

And then comes the question: can I still uphold my arguments about "acceptable music" at a moment like that? For our children we often use the argument to pay attention to the lifestyle and "spirit" of the maker. But what does that mean when there is no longer a maker? If something is made by AI — so by a calculation model — can you then allow more types of music? And if so, how does that then shift toward "really" made music?

Another example. For a presentation at work I made a short film about the future of our jobs in relation to AI. With one ChatGPT instruction that became a fun (feature) film. I expect it's only a matter of time before we can fabricate longer films with a single instruction. How then do our often-used arguments about film hold up? And if those arguments fall, what happens to films that really were recorded?

I think AI will soon change not only our practical reality, but also our thought patterns. And that really calls for reflection.