Here I pass on a link to both video and a transcript of a striking Alex Dobrenko interview with Venkatesh Rao that I have just read, and here is ChatGPT’s summary of the main points that Rao makes. I suggest that you watch or read the entire interview.
Key Ideas
1. Individual Authorship as a Recent Invention
◦ Rao argues that the notion of the individual creative author (e.g., “I wrote a novel”) is historically quite recent and culturally specific.
◦ In the age of large language models, this individual-authorship model is being challenged: instead of one “genius,” creativity is increasingly collective, networked, and mediated by big models.
◦ The implication: critics who cling to the “author as lone genius” narrative may be missing structural shifts in how creativity happens when AI is involved.
2. AI as Channel for Cultural Inheritance, Not Just Plagiarism Machines
◦ Rao suggests that we should view LLMs (large language models) as channels or amplifiers of shared cultural material, rather than simply plagiaristic tools.
◦ The idea is: humans and machines together remix, iterate, and transform cultural inheritance. The key question shifts from “Who owns the output?” to “How is the inheritance being transformed, and what risks/trade-offs are involved?”
◦ This reframing undercuts certain AI-critique tropes (e.g., “AI steals from human authors”) by changing focus to how culture itself is processed.
3. “Creative Work” Isn’t Merely Labor and the Myth of Effort = Value
◦ Rao pushes back on the assumption that creative work is like labour in a factory: “I spend more hours, therefore my output has more value.” Instead he argues that risk (taking chances, doing something unusual) is more central to originality and creative value than sheer effort.
◦ For him, much of the “AI slop” (mediocre output) is simply low-risk human behavior — safe, predictable, derivative. Real value comes when someone (human + tool) takes a risk, changes pattern, introduces novelty.
4. Why “AI Alignment” Became PR-Speak
◦ Rao critiques the dominant narrative of “AI alignment” as being overly focused on controlling the technology rather than rethinking what we mean by intelligence, creativity, personhood, and risk in a post-AI context.
◦ He suggests the alignment framing becomes a kind of packaging for fear/PR rather than a deep reframing of the underlying issues of agency and cultural change.
5. Writing with AI: Ideation, Play, Lego-Style Construction
◦ Rao gives insight into his own practice: he uses AI as a “lego” set for ideation — playing with fragments, assembling possible combinations, experimenting, rather than treating the model as a ghostwriter.
◦ This reflects his broader point that human-AI collaboration is less about outsourcing and more about amplifying risk + novelty.
6. Disclosure of AI Use Will Soon Disappear as a Meaningful Signal
◦ Rao predicts that explicitly disclosing “I used AI” in your work will become less meaningful or even counter-productive, because so much of the creative and cultural infrastructure will be AI-mediated anyway.
◦ The more interesting question becomes not whether AI was used, but how it was used — what choices humans made in the process, what risks were taken, what novelty resulted.
7. Why AI Pushing Us Back to a Pre-Gutenberg Culture
◦ Rao frames AI’s arrival as pushing us into a different cultural regime, comparable in some ways to the shift after the printing press (the “Gutenberg” moment).
◦ In that sense, the critics who treat AI as simply another tool may be missing the deeper structural changes: changes in authority, authorship, culture, transmission of knowledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment