SARAH VINE: AI is strangling the artistic arts at beginning. Without people to create new concepts, finally there will be nothing for machines to plunder. The wealthy seam of creativity will dry up and we’ll be left sitting on a pile of mud

A friend of mine was pootling about on the internet the other day, as you do. We’d been having a discussion at dinner the night before about the possible pitfalls of AI (she’s a big fan; I’m not so sure, to put it mildly).

Having clearly concluded that discussing AI with the real-life Sarah Vine was not quite enough, she decided to ask her friend ChatGPT for my opinion.

Its response took approximately a tenth of a second. ‘Sarah Vine, a British journalist and columnist, has engaged with the topic of artificial intelligence (AI) in various contexts,’ it told her obligingly.

‘In April 2023, on her podcast Sarah Vine’s Femail Half-Hour, she and co-host Imogen Edwards-Jones interviewed filmmaker and author James Barrat, known for his work on AI. Barrat’s book, Our Final Invention, explores the potential risks associated with advanced AI development. This discussion indicates Vine’s interest in the implications of AI technologies.’

It went on. ‘Furthermore, Vine highlighted issues of copyright infringement involving AI. She noted that Mark Zuckerberg‘s AI initiatives had used pirated books, including three of her own, for training purposes. She encouraged fellow authors to verify if their works had been utilised without consent.’

Curious, she decided to ask it what else I had to say about various other topics. Thus, on immigration: ‘Why have we got all these Brits sitting around at home doing nothing and why are we importing people to do the work that they should be doing?’ On GPs: ‘Blaming GPs for the fact that there aren’t enough GPs is as absurd as blaming the banknotes in your wallet for the cost-of-living crisis.’

On trans issues: ‘Vine’s perspectives have sparked controversy and criticism. For instance, her column suggesting that the increase in counselling sessions for youngsters questioning their gender identity is due to the LGBTQ lobby’s influence in schools was labelled as transphobic by advocacy groups.’

Even vegetables (who knew I had an opinion on legumes?): ‘Vine has expressed skepticism [sic] about veganism, labeling [sic] it a ‘fad’ and questioning the sufficiency of plant-based diets.’

On one level, it’s rather entertaining, if a tad solipsistic. On another, it’s a little bit weird and stalker-y, especially since not all the information is entirely accurate. I have not, for example, written three books – at least not that I can recall. (I have just finished work on a memoir, which is to be published later this year. If it’s been reading that then that’s really creepy).

But the thing that really struck me about it all is that there are not one, but two, Sarah Vines.

There’s me, the original carbon-based life form with all my physical flaws and general shortcomings and boring daily necessities such as food and a roof over my head. Then there’s this shiny AI version, who is just as effective at doing the other Sarah Vine’s job, only presumably doesn’t require quite so many flat whites or trips to the hairdresser.

In fact, she doesn’t require anything at all. AI doesn’t even have to pay her. She just sits quietly on standby until someone asks her a question and then, like some ghastly parasitic entity, she plunders the real Sarah Vine for the answers. No wonder I’m so tired all the time. I’ve got the AI equivalent of a tapeworm.

Did I ask for this? No. Did I sign up to have my thoughts and opinions scraped by bots? Nope. More to the point, do I receive any material benefit from it? Absolutely not. Not a button, not even a note of thanks. AI just reaches right in, takes what it needs – and sends the profits straight back to its bosses in California, or wherever those multi-trillionaire tech bros hang out these days.

I’m not the only one. All day, every day, this is happening to people far more talented and famous than me. Musicians, artists, writers, poets, academics… AI takes their ideas, repackages them as its own and sells them on, without the slightest regard for copyright or ownership.

For example, earlier this year Christie’s auction house held an online ‘Augmented Intelligence Auction’ of art created using AI, with prices ranging from $10,000 to $250,000. It prompted rage from thousands of real artists, who petitioned Christie’s, pointing out: ‘Many of the artworks you plan to auction were created using AI models that are known to be trained on copyrighted work without a licence.

‘These models, and the companies behind them, exploit human artists, using their work without permission or payment to build commercial AI products that compete with them.’ Quite.

Meanwhile, in America, various lawsuits are under way in the music industry, which has seen a surge in AI-generated tunes openly mimicking the real thing. In Britain, the fightback has coalesced around the ‘Make It Fair’ campaign, supported by icons such as Elton John, Ed Sheeran and Kate Bush.

Simon Cowell summarised the situation brilliantly. ‘I passionately care about people’s personal creativity – and AI shouldn’t be able to steal the talent of those humans who created the magic in the first place,’ the record producer wrote in the Daily Mail last month. ‘Anyone who is able to create something they passionately care about deserves to have their work protected.’

As someone who has just spent a long and rather agonising time writing a book, I could not agree more. After all, what is the point in all that blood, sweat and tears if – the moment it’s published – AI will come along and scrape off all the good bits? Why should anyone bother buying it if they can just get it for free from ChatGPT?

Indeed, why didn’t I just get the AI version of Sarah Vine to write the bloody thing? Probably would have taken only half an hour. Could have had a nice cup of tea and a biscuit instead.

The answer, of course, is because it would have been rubbish. AI cannot yet outdo actual humans in terms of creativity – all it can really do is harvest us for information and regurgitate it.

But there will come a day when it can. And then where will we be?

Since man (or woman) first scraped a mark on a cave wall thousands of years ago, art and culture have been integral to our species. Indeed, our desire to layer our existence with creative acts rather than purely practical ones is unique in homo sapiens. But artists, writers, thinkers – they still need to live. If their work is plagiarised by AI, if they cease to be able to sustain themselves, then the vast majority will simply have to stop doing it.

A key part of what makes us human will shrivel up and die. If you take people’s property for free – and this is intellectual, creative, inventive, inspired, visionary property – they won’t be able to afford to make it any more. Already we’re seeing this played out in education, as universities shut down arts and history courses. Since our further education institutions became all about turning a profit (rather than expanding horizons and teaching people how to think for themselves), they just want ones and zeros.

Technology is already strangling the creative arts at birth. And, without humans to create new ideas, eventually there will be nothing for the machines to plunder. The rich seam of human creativity will eventually dry up, and we’ll be left sitting on a pile of dust. More prosaically, our creative industries, which generate around £130 billion each year for our economy, will die. Even if you don’t care about the human cost of losing all those jobs, in simple economic terms that would be a disaster. This is especially true in Britain, where we hardly have any manufacturing base left, it all having been shipped to places such as China and India. To paraphrase that great creative Oscar Wilde, we have nothing left to declare but our genius.

Given all that, you might have thought that a Labour government – one which is forever banging on about its unfailing commitment to workers’ rights – would be staunchly in favour of protecting our creative industries. But, strangely, the precise opposite appears to be true.

Labour wants to take away all our rights by changing UK law to favour tech platforms so they can use creative content for their AI models without permission or payment – unless the creators specifically opt out. In other words, they want to make it easier – not harder – for the already fantastically wealthy robber barons of the tech world to rape and pillage their way through the land. Labour, which is supposed to be on the side of the little people, wants to flog us all to the Goliaths of Big Tech.

It’s inexcusable. But then, when it comes to technology, politicians of all tints have consistently got everything wrong. This is either through ignorance, cowardice, greed – or all three.

Look at the missed opportunities to curtail the proliferation of online porn (and the subsequent consequences for society). Look at the lack of safeguarding over social media, and what that’s done to our kids. There’s been a total failure, at every turn, to recognise the risks posed by new technology, and put in place sensible boundaries before it’s too late.

And now politicians are about to make the same mistake again. What is it, Sir Keir? Has Jeff Bezos promised you a holiday on his $500million yacht? Is ‘our Ange’ going to get free tickets to the AI version of Sabrina Carpenter? What is it about kowtowing to the demands of the already obscenely rich that speaks to your socialist soul, I wonder?

AI has already destroyed so many people’s livelihoods, and it’s only going to get worse. As a linguist, I know several professional translators, all of whom are now redundant. One has resorted to renting out his spare room on Airbnb just to make ends meet. I have friends in the city, people with huge brains and years of experience, whose roles are now done by AI. There are countless other examples.

I myself have spent an entire lifetime learning my craft. Is it right that AI should just come along and take all that away from me without giving me anything in return? No. We need legislation now to curb these cowboys.

We are not asking for much. Just a few crumbs from the table of Big Tech really: that they inform us when they scrape our data, and that we can pursue them if they do so unlawfully. It would be nice also if there could be a digital micropayments system for royalties so that creators could at least receive some compensation – even just a nano-payment – for their work. Given what technology can do these days, that ought to be possible.

But none of that will happen if Labour sells out. Kemi Badenoch has already expressed Tory opposition to the plans. But a more robust fightback and a cross-party consensus is needed.

I don’t doubt that there are areas where AI is very useful, not least in medicine. But, just as doctors adopt a fundamental principle of ‘do no harm’, when it comes to technology, surely it is incumbent on legislators and government to do the same.

Labour’s concessions in this Artificial Intelligence Bill are the opposite of that.

They harm all of us.