A New Analogy for AI: Astroturf

I was thinking about how AI software has made so many changes in the creative industry so quickly, and I have read and been a part of many discussions and debates about it. We have seen The Chef Analogy and the Calculator Analogy, both used by AI critics to declare why using AI doesn’t permit the user to call themselves or be called an artist. In case you haven’t seen them before, the Chef Analogy states that you can’t be called a chef unless you actually touch and or prepare the food, and the Calculator Analogy states that you can't be called a mathematician if you use a calculator.

So here is an analogy that I haven’t seen before: Astroturf.

Astroturf, originally called ChemGrass, is an artificial material designed to have the properties of grass. It was invented in 1965 by much-maligned biotech company Monsanto. It is not installed in every sports arena. Why not? Is it because it’s more expensive to have installed per square meter?

Like Artificial Intelligence, it takes a large “factory” to make it, and it can be made much more quickly than waiting for grass to grow naturally. Although it obviously takes water to create it, it needs no water to maintain it, and as it doesn’t grow, it never needs mowing. It also survives in a larger temperature range. It has that advantage in hot climates, if the stadium is outdoors. It has a specific job: being a lot like grass where grass is not practical to grow.

So why hasn’t it completely replaced normal turf in sports arenas worldwide? It’s “not as good” according to most sports players. It doesn’t behave in exactly the same way and it can be harsher to land on during a sports match. But it costs less to maintain overall, so it pays for itself over a number of years.

Some AI critics are worried that AI will take over all human-made art and music, and this seems to me like being worried that Astroturf will take over all natural grass turf. It hasn’t happened and unless there is some unforeseen disaster, it probably won't. People still prefer the slowly-grown, natural grass, and where that’s not possible, they can choose Astroturf as a substitute.

Nobody who sells Astroturf is foolish enough to try to lie to anyone and say “this is real grass” or “I grew this from seeds”. Both AI-made and handmade works have their own desirable properties and have their place. AI critics need not fear: there is enough room in our world for both. Just as the makers of Astroturf never intended it to replace all lawns, the makers and users of AI do not intend to replace handmade work.

I have yet to see an AI user call for all art supplies manufacturers or vendors of traditional graphics or video software to cease their operations. The AI enthusiasts who post a demo reel of a new model with the hyperbolic “Hollywood is cooked!” mantra are talking about the bar being lowered for new moviemakers. They are saying that this technology allows people to tell stories that wouldn’t have been made by established organizations due to costs or other factors. I don’t interpret their posts as saying there should be no more actors or CGI at all. If you wish to make things traditionally, you are welcome to continue doing so.