Daniel Binns is a media theorist and filmmaker tinkering with the weird edges of technology, storytelling, and screen culture. He is the author of Material Media-Making in the Digital Age and currently writes about posthuman poetics, glitchy machines, and speculative media worlds.
‘Vapourwave Hall’, generated by me using Leonardo.Ai.
This is a little late, as the article was actually released back in November, but due to swearing off work for a month over December and into the new year, I thought I’d hold off on posting here.
This piece, ‘The Allure of Artificial Worlds‘, is my first small contribution to AI research — specifically, I look here at how the visions conjured by image and video generators might be considered their own kinds of worlds. There is a nod here, as well, to ‘simulative AI’, also known as agentic AI, which many feel may be the successor to generative AI tools operating singularly. We’ll see.
Abstract
With generative AI (genAI) and its outputs, visual and aural cultures are grappling with new practices in storytelling, artistic expression, and meme-farming. Some artists and commentators sit firmly on the critical side of the discourse, citing valid concerns around utility, longevity, and ethics. But more spurious judgements abound, particularly when it comes to quality and artistic value.
This article presents and explores AI-generated audiovisual media and AI-driven simulative systems as worlds: virtual technocultural composites, assemblages of material and meaning. In doing so, this piece seeks to consider how new genAI expressions and applications challenge traditional notions of narrative, immersion, and reality. What ‘worlds’ do these synthetic media hint at or create? And by what processes of visualisation, mediation, and aisthesis do they operate on the viewer? This piece proposes that these AI worlds offer a glimpse of a future aesthetic, where the lines between authentic and artificial are blurred, and the human and the machinic are irrevocably enmeshed across society and culture. Where the uncanny is not the exception, but the rule.
Made by me in, of course, Procreate (27 Aug 2024).
The team behind the powerful and popular iPad app Procreate have been across tech news in recent weeks, spruiking their anti-AI position. “AI is not our future” spans the screen of a special AI page on their website, followed by: “Creativity is made, not generated.”
It’s a bold position. Adobe has been slowly rolling out AI-driven systems in their suite of apps, to mixed reactions. Tablet maker Wacom was slammed earlier this year for using AI-generated assets in their marketing. And after pocketing AU $47 million in investor funding in December 2023, Aussie AI generation platform Leonardo.Ai was snapped up by fellow local giant Canva in July for just over AU $120 million.
Artist and user reactions to Procreate’s position have been near-universal praise. Procreate has grown steadily over the last decade, emerging as a cornerstone iPad native art app, and only recently evolving towards desktop offerings. Their one-time purchase fee, in direct response to ongoing subscriptions from competitors like Adobe, makes it a tempting choice for creatives.
Tech commentators might say that this is an example of companies choosing sides in the AI ‘war’. But this is, of course, a reductive view of both technology and industries. For mid-size companies like Procreate, it’s not necessarily a case of ‘get on board or get left behind’. They know their audience, as evidenced by the response to their position on AI: “Now this is integrity,” wrote developer and creative Sebastiaan de With.
Consumers are smarter than anyone cares to consider. If they want to try shiny new toys, they will; if they don’t, they won’t. And in today’s creative environment, where there are so many tools, workflows, and options to choose from, maybe they don’t have to pick one approach over another.
Huge tech companies control the conversation around education, culture, and the future of society. That’s a massive problem, because leave your Metas, Alphabets, and OpenAIs to the side, and you find creative, subversive, independent, anarchic, inspiring innovation happening all over the place. Some of these folx are using AI, and some aren’t: the work itself is interesting, rather than the exact tools or apps being used.
Companies ignore technological advancement at their peril. But deliberately opting out? Maybe that’s just good business.
This semester I’m running a Media studio called ‘Augmenting Creativity’. The basic goal is to develop best practices for working with generative AI tools not just in creative workflows, but as part of university assignments, academic research, and in everyday routines. My motivation or philosophy for this studio is that so much attention is being focused on the outputs of tools like Midjourney and Leonardo.Ai (as well as outputs from textbots like ChatGPT); what I guess I’m interested in is exploring more precisely where in workflows, jobs, and daily life that these tools might actually be helpful.
In class last week we held a Leonardo.Ai hackathon, inspired by one of the workshops that was run at the Re/Framing AI event I convened a month or so ago. Leonardo.Ai generously donated some credits for students to play around with the platform. Students were given a brief around what they should try to generate:
an AI Self-Portrait (using text only; no image guidance!)
three images to envision the studio as a whole (one conceptual, a poster, and a social media tile)
three square icons to represent one task in their daily workflow (home, work, or study-related)
For the Hackathon proper, students were only able to adjust the text prompt and the Preset Style; all other controls had to remain unchanged, including the Model (Phoenix), Generation Mode (Fast), Prompt Enhance (off), and all others.
Students were curious and excited, but also faced some challenges straight away with the underlying mechanics of image generators; they had to play around with word choice in prompts to get close to desired results. The biases and constraints of the Phoenix model quickly became apparent as the students tested its limitations. For some students this was more cosmetic, such as requesting that Leonardo.Ai generate a face with no jewelry or facial hair. This produced mixed results, in that sometimes explicitly negative prompts seemed to encourage the model to produce what wasn’t wanted. Other students encountered difficulties around race or gender presentation: the model struggles a lot with nuances in race, e.g. mixed-race or specific racial subsets, and also often depicts sexualised presentations of female-presenting people (male-presenting too, but much less frequently).
This session last week proved a solid test of Leonardo.Ai’s utility and capacity in generating assets and content (we sent some general feedback to Leonardo.Ai on platform useability and potential for improvement), but also was useful for figuring out how and where the students might use the tool in their forthcoming creative projects.
This week we’ve spent a little time on the status of AI imagery as art, some of the ethical considerations around generative AI, and where some of the supposed impacts of these tools may most keenly be felt. In class this morning, the students were challenged to deliver lightning talks on recent AI news, developing their presentation and media analysis skills. From here, we move a little more deeply into where creativity lies in the AI process, and how human/machine collaboration might produce innovative content. The best bit, as always, will be seeing where the students go with these ideas and concepts.
So much of what I’m being fed at the moment concerns the recent wave of AI. While we are seeing something of a plateauing of the hype cycle, I think (/hope), it’s still very present as an issue, a question, an opportunity, a hope, a fear, a concept. I’ll resist my usual impulse to historicise this last year or two of innovation within the contexts of AI research, which for decades was popularly mocked and institutionally underfunded; I’ll also resist the even stronger impulse to look at AI within the even broader milieu of technology, history, media, and society, which is, apparently, my actual day job.
What I’ll do instead is drop the phrase algorithmic moment, which is what I’ve been trying to explore, define, and work through over the last 18 months. I’m heading back to work next week after an extended period of leave, so this seems as good a way of any as getting my head back into some of the research I left to one side for a while.
The algorithmic moment is what we’re in at the moment. It’s the current AI bubble, hype cycle, growth spurt, whatever you define this wave as (some have dubbed it the AI spring or boom, to distinguish it from various AI winters over the last century1). In trying to bracket it off with concrete times, I’ve settled more or less on the emergence of the GPT-3 Beta in 2020. Of course OpenAI and other AI innovations predated this, but it was GPT-3 and its children ChatGPT and DALL-E 2 that really propelled discussions of AI and its possibilities and challenges into the mainstream.
This also means that much of this moment is swept up with the COVID pandemic. While online life had bled into the real world in interesting ways pre-2020, it was really that year, during urban lockdowns, family zooms, working from home, and a deeply felt global trauma, that online and off felt one and the same. AI innovators capitalised on the moment, seizing capital (financial and cultural) in order to promise a remote revolution built on AI and its now-shunned sibling in discourse, web3 and NFTs.
How AI plugs into the web as a system is a further consideration — prior to this current boom, AI datasets in research were often closed. But OpenAI and its contemporaries used the internet itself as their dataset. All of humanity’s knowledge, writing, ideas, artistic output, fears, hopes, dreams, scraped and plugged into an algorithm, to then be analysed, searched, filtered, reworked at will by anyone.
The downfall of FTX and the trial of Sam Bankman-Fried more or less marked the death knell of NFTs as the Next Big Thing, if not web3 as a broader notion to be deployed across open-source, federated applications. And as NFTs slowly left the tech conversation, as that hype cycle started falling, the AI boom filled the void, such that one can hardly log on to a tech news site or half of the most popular Subs-stack without seeing a diatribe or puff piece (not unlike this very blog post) about the latest development.
ChatGPT has become a hit productivity tool, as well as a boon to students, authors, copy writers and content creators the world over. AI is a headache for many teachers and academics, many of whom fail not only to grasp its actual power and operations, but also how to usefully and constructively implement the technology in class activities and assessment. DALL-E, Midjourney and the like remain controversial phenomena in art and creative communities, where some hail them as invaluable aids, and others debate their ethics and value.
As with all previous revolutions, the dust will settle on that of AI. The research and innovation will continue as it always has, but out of the limelight and away from the headlines. It feels currently like we cannot keep up, that it’s all happening too fast, that if only we slowed down and thought about things, we could try and understand how we’ll be impacted, how everything might change. At the risk of historicising, exactly like I said I wouldn’t, people thought the same of the printing press, the aeroplane, and the computer. In 2002, Andrew Murphie and John Potts were trying to capture the flux and flow and tension and release of culture and technology. They were grappling in particular with the widespread adoption of the internet, and how to bring that into line with other systems and theories of community and communication. Jean-Francois Lyotard had said that new communications networks functioned largely on “language games” between machines and humans. Building on this idea, Murphie and Potts suggested that the information economy “needs us to make unexpected ‘moves’ in these games or it will wind down through a kind of natural attrition. [The information economy] feeds on new patterns and in the process sets up a kind of freedom of movement within it in order to gain access to the new.”2
The information economy has given way, now, to the platform economy. It might be easy, then, to think that the internet is dead and decaying or, at least, kind of withering or atrophying. Similarly, it can be even easier to think that in this locked-down, walled-off, platform- and app-based existence where online and offline are more or less congruent, we are without control. I’ve beendroppingbreadcrumbs over these last few posts as to how we might resist in some small way, if not to the detriment of the system, then at least to the benefit of our own mental states; and I hope to keep doing this in future posts (and over on Mastodon).
For me, the above thoughts have been gestating for a long time, but they remain immature, unpolished; unfiltered which, in its own way, is a form of resistance to the popular image of the opaque black box of algorithmic systems. I am still trying to figure out what to do with them; whether to develop them further into a series of academic articles or a monograph, to just keep posting random bits and bobs here on this site, or to seed them into a creative piece, be it a film, book, or something else entirely. Maybe a little of everything, but I’m in no rush.
As a postscript, I’m also publishing this here to resist another system, that of academic publishing, which is monolithic, glacial, frustrating, and usually hidden behind a paywall for a privileged few. Anyway, I’m not expecting anyone to read this, much less use or cite it in their work, but better it be here if someone needs it than reserved for a privileged few.
As a bookend for the AI-generated image that opened the post, I asked Bard for “a cool sign-off for my blog posts about technology, history, and culture” and it offered the following, so here you go…
Signing off before the robots take over. (Just kidding… maybe.)
Notes
For an excellent history of AI up to around 1990, I can’t recommend enough AI: The Tumultuous History of the Search for Artificial Intelligence by Daniel Crevier. Crevier has made the book available for download via ResearchGate. ↩︎
I started reading this interview this morning, between Anne Helen Peterson and Betsy Gaines Quammen. I still haven’t finished reading, despite being utterly fascinated, but even before I got to the guts of the interview, I was struck by a thought:
In the algorithmised world, the creator is the critic.
This thought is not necessarily happening in isolation; I’ve been thinking about ‘algorithmic culture’ for a couple of years, trying to order these thoughts into academic writing, or even creative writing. But this thought feels like a step in the right direction, even if I’ve no idea what the final output should or will be. Let’s scribble out some notes…
If there’s someone whose work we enjoy, they’ll probably have an online presence — a blog or social media feed we can follow — where they’ll share what they like.
It’s an organic kind of culture — but it’s one where the art and vocation of the critic continues to be minimised.
This — and associated phenomena — is the subject of a whole bunch of recent and upcoming books (including this one, which is at the top of my to-read pile for the next month): a kind of culture where the all-powerful algorithm becomes the sole arbiter of taste, but I also think there is pressure on creatives to be their own kind of critical and cultural hub.
On the inverse, what we may traditionally have called critics — so modern-day social media commentators, influencers, your Booktubers or Booktokkers, your video essayists and their ilk — now also feel pressure to create. This pressure will come from their followers and acolytes, but also from random people who encounter them online, who will say something like “if you know so much why don’t you just do it yourself” etc etc…
Some critics will leap at the opportunity and they absolutely should — we are hearing from diverse voices that wouldn’t otherwise have thought to try.
But some should leave the creation to others — not because they’re not worth hearing from, they absolutely are — but because their value, their creativity, their strength, lies in how they shape language, images, metaphor, around the work of others. They don’t realise — as I didn’t for a long time — that being a critic is a vocation, a life’s work, a real skill. Look at any longer-form piece in the London Review of Books or The New Inquiry and it becomes very clear how valuable this work is.
I’ve always loved the term critic, particularly cultural critic, or commentator, or essayist… they always seemed like wonderful archaic terms that don’t belong in the modern, fragmented, divided, confused world. But to call oneself a critic or essayist, to own that, and only that, is to defy the norms of culture; to refuse the ‘pillars’ of novel, film, press/journalism, and to stand to one side, giving much-needed perspective to how these archaic forms define, reflect, and challenge society.
