Why I’m Not Using ChatGPT to Create My Content

SUMMARY:

• Our words and our voices are about the only original things we’ve got

• AI-generated content displaces writers and artists

• When children grow up using AI to generate content, they don’t have the opportunity to develop their writing and artistic skills

• ChatGPT has been known to spit out copyrighted text

• There are potential legal issues of who owns the intellectual property of AI-generated content

ARTICLE (5-min read)

For the past couple of months, we’ve been inundated with positive news about ChatGPT, Midjourney, and other AI software that can make our lives and our businesses “better” and “easier.”

Let me preface this post by saying that I’ve tested out these two pieces of software and a couple of others that generate text for you. I am by no means an “expert” at using them. I did not get into the full nuances of them.

I understand the point of them. I had someone mansplain ChatGPT to me recently. Really?

While I have found some chatter online about the dangers of these pieces of software, I am sad that there isn’t more being shown in the popular media about the dangers. I see more people jumping onboard and extolling the virtues of AI-generated content.

I understand that most people hate writing. I understand that writing is a skill that has to be learned, practiced, and honed. And that is something is most people either don’t have time to do or don’t want to do. It can be frustrating. And people are self-critical. They compare their writing to other people’s and fall into “not good enough” thinking.

I really get it.

So, why not turn to ChatGPT to generate copy that’s “good,” fast, and easy?

Bloggers are using AI to create entire blog posts for them. They may use the copy verbatim or tweak it to fit their own voices.

Podcasters are using AI to generate entire episodes—either verbatim or tweaking them for their own voices. Podcasters are using AI to write their show notes. And some podcasters have even recorded some episodes using AI voices.

Authors are writing books with AI. Content creators are generating lists and social media content with AI.

Artists are generating images/“art” with AI.

And the list goes on.

So, why am I still spending up to an hour to write my podcast episodes, my newsletter, and this blog post from scratch with my own words in my own voice when AI could massively cut down that time?

First and foremost, I am precious about my words and my voice.

There is so little original thought from most people. What each and every one of us has that is truly original are how we put our words together and the voice we give our words.

You can find other posts and articles about why someone isn’t using ChatGPT or why we in general shouldn’t use ChatGPT, but they aren’t my words or my voice.

I even asked ChatGPT “why don’t I use ChatGPT.” You can see its answer in this screenshot.

None of the reasons it gives are my reasons for not using it. The reasons it gives are all based on the presumption that I am using some form of AI to generate content. ChatGPT is not imagining that I am not using any AI at all to generate content. So, maybe that does fall into the “limited functionality” category.

So, yeah, limited functionality is that it’s not human. I could come up with myriad reasons not to use AI-generated content by chatting with other people about the dangers of AI. ChatGPT was no help at all in this respect.

Let me pause here to say that I am not anti-AI. I love Siri. I love my car’s AI. I love Adobe Photoshop’s “remove background” feature. I remember clearly the days—not too long ago—when I had to manually outline the image that I wanted to preserve then delete or erase what I wanted to get rid of.

I have a tremor. Outlining precisely in one go was extremely difficult for me. It was pretty much impossible to be totally precise. So, thank you, AI!

Let’s look at the legal implications of using AI-generated content.

ChatGPT has said itself that it has been known to spit out copyrighted material. So, if the user posts that content verbatim, they will be violating someone’s copyright—without knowing it.

Does ignorance protect you in copyright infringement cases? #notalawyer My understanding is that ignorance does not protect you.

You can run your copy through plagiarism-detecting software. Some professors and teachers use such software to test students’ work.

But how many content creators are really doing that? How many people realize that ChatGPT is sometimes (often?) spitting out copyrighted work?

You see, ChatGPT, Midjourney, and other AI are based on pre-existing works. They had to be fed data—pre-existing data—in order to work. They don’t create from a vacuum. They are derivative.

What most people creative is derivative. But, when we use AI to generate content for us, we expect that what we’re getting is original.

False. We’re getting works that are based on other people’s writing or images or are possibly direct quotes or copies of other people’s writing or images.

Is that what you want?

I know of some people who have published children’s books written entirely by ChatGPT with images created entirely by Midjourney. I don’t know how much tweaking they did to the copy or the image—if any.

What if it turns out that some of the copy is copyrighted and some of the images belong to someone else? They can be sued. And lose.

There is also the question of who owns the intellectual property of AI-generated words and images. Lawyers and legal scholars have been thinking and writing about this. And even ChatGPT has weighed in on this.

The answer is unclear as a case has not yet been brought to court.

There is a chance that the AI software or the makers of the software own the content that the software generates. In other words, the user might not own what they asked the AI to generate.

So, those children’s books that the author copyrighted? Yeah, the owners of ChatGPT and Midjourney may actually own the copyright to his books. It’s just not known yet.

Then, of course, there’s the issue of humans’ being displaced by AI. I know that this has been an issue since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

But it has happened, and it continues to happen. Automation displaces human workers. How many humans do you see working at your grocery now since self-checkout aisles took over?

We thought that service providers would never, ever be displaced. And, look. Now writers and artists are being devalued and losing jobs.

Why would you hire a writer when you can use ChatGPT for free (for now)?

Why would you buy a work of art from an artist when you can generate something from Midjourney on your own, print it, and get it framed?

I know why I would/do. I want the human spirit in art that I create and buy.

I’m a professional artist on the side. Not digital. Physical. I create art on canvas, mostly in acrylic. Most recently, I put newspaper on canvas so that it folds and wrinkles to give the canvas texture. Midjourney can’t do that. Yet. One day, I imagine that Midjourney or another “art”-based AI software will be hooked up to a 3D printer and create something like what I create. Then physical visual artists will start to be displaced.

There will always be people who prefer human-generated writing and art. But here’s a huge issue.

When children start out using AI, how will they develop the skills to become skilled writers and artists?

Fewer and fewer people will become real writers and artists when they don’t have the opportunity to develop those skills.

I know I’m being judgmental in using that word “real” there. I mean it.

Yes, I consider digital artists real artists. But I don’t right now consider someone a real artist who is telling Midjourney what to spit out for them. To me, that’s similar to telling another person what to create. Who’s the real artist in that case—the teller or the doer? It’s the doer, isn’t it?

I know, I know, what about architects? Some architects have staff who create the full schematics for the sketch that the main architect drafts for them. Who’s the real architect in that case? The one who created the draft. Yes, I see that as different.

Same thing in fashion design. The one who drafted the design.

But, in painting, the one who sketched out a lady on a sofa is not the artist of the painting when someone else painted the final work—creating the nuances of light and shadow, of movement, of line and form.

And in writing, yes, there are authors who get credit for books that were written by a ghostwriter. And we readers never know that a ghostwriter was involved. That happens with some paintings, too. We just don’t know.

If the “writer” or “painter” feels ethical doing that, whatever.

I do not.

I really am trying not to be judgmental. I know I’ve read books written by ghostwriters. The ideas are those of the author listed on the cover. Great! It’s the ideas that I’m seeking I the book.

For me, like I wrote above, I’m precious about both my words and my voice.

I don’t want to be displaced by AI.

I don’t want to accidentally infringe on someone else’s copyright.

I want to own the copyright of what I create.

I want children to have the opportunity to develop their writing and artistic skills. Otherwise, how will they truly know if they might one day love writing or creating art?

It took me only 30 minutes to write this. And I feel really good about it.

I’d love to read your thoughts.