AI, Episode I, and Jaws: When success and money spoil the brilliance

 My LinkedIn feed is infected with what everyone seems to refer to as AI slop.

 I will admit, for nearly a decade I have been trying to figure out what LinkedIn is, but have only been able to settle on "not this." It has become some odd version of Facebook but with a good haircut and a tie. It makes you feel like you are important and that your opinion matters. Feed the algorithm; feed Microsoft; destroy reality. I would like to ignore it, but I'm not sure that is possible (at least from a business world point of view).

Regardless, today i realized one of my bigger issues with AI. AI lets you do things more easily which can be both a boon and a curse.  

This past summer, as we all basked in the warmth of the sun -- blissfully ignorant that Chief Brody did not mention that Chrissie Watkins had been killed by a shark earlier in the summer -- our conversations were filled with talk of the 50th anniversary of Jaws. As is part of any Jaws conversation, Bruce no doubt is mentioned. What would the movie have been if Bruce had worked properly? Was the lack, or failure, of technology responsible for helping create one of the greatest movies of all time?

When I have this conversation, I tend to also weave in the saga of the Star Wars prequel. A projected expected to become a cinematic masterpiece helped by the revolution of technology between 1977 and 1999. With the chains of practical effects throw off,  George Lucas could finally tell the story he wanted. While visually there were stunning scenes in the Star Wars prequels, the characters and story were left hallow (at least in the eyes of those of us who grew up with the original trilogy existing alone). If the technology would have failed George Lucas, would the characters and story have grown stronger? Probably not, but maybe.

To me, AI represents where creativity goes to die. Not because AI will steal our ideas or come up with better ones, but because it will allow us to quickly create our initial ideas without a single secondary thought. How many brilliant ideas came to fruition due to budgetary restraints? How many iconic shots graced the silver screen because it wasn't possible to do it another way? How many times were scenes rehearsed because we only had one chance to get the shot? 

The argument crops up everywhere. What's lost now that we don't spend hours developing film? What does framing matter if you can take 3600 pictures finally on a digital camera instead of 36 shots on a roll of film? What good is planning a campaign when you can look at metrics instantly and change course three days in? What does food quality matter if everyone is on a GLP1?

Calling someone a Luddite is an insult. After all, we've bastardized who Ned Ludd was and what his movement was about. Those who seem worried about AI will undoubtedly be labeled in a similar manner, and will ironically be viewed most likely in the same light we currently view Luddites as, two hundred years from now. But AI is making us lazy, stupid, ignorant, jobless, and without capacity to evolve. Our very concepts of society will slowly fall apart as a select few amass wealth and power not seen for thousands of years. But yes, its so funny that we interviewed Santa and can prove he's now using our AI chat bot to increase HR efficiencies with the elves. 

Do not just do work. Refine work, create work, develop work, edit work. Do better, now what is just easy or convenient.  

And yes, i am aware that this post is stream of consciousness and to an extent ignores the concept of better, thoughtful, highly edited work... but whats the point of a lawn if you don't  yell at kids to get off it.