
Removing the grit
Two moments from the depths of the half-term holiday: scrolling with my children through videos of animals doing unlikely and adorable things (such as the parrot who waddles along the back of a sofa to announce "Hi babe" and "I love you" into the camera, and who we mimic now on lazy mornings or when we need to make up) my eyes glaze slightly. And I'm thinking now about work or lunch or war, so when a kitten emerges from a honeyed slice of toast it takes me a beat ("kitten is toast?") before I hurriedly swipe the screen away, before the AI takes root in their soft brains.
Then, some days or months later (perhaps it's gauche now to comment on the duration of school holidays, but since lockdown even a long weekend brings a kind of breathlessness, all these boiled and formless hours), they are suddenly both fixated on drawing an axolotl and immediately right now.
If you're not accustomed with this critically endangered paedomorphic salamander, the axolotl is a pink fish that walks and has the benign vibe of a stoned but lovely drag queen. Anyway, I brought up a Google image search and my daughter instantly went: "nope that's AI". These interactions have become like a dystopian episode of Is It Cake? , with me alternately insisting that fake things are real then real things fake, but with no sharp knife to cut through to the sponge for proof. We had some high-pitched back and forth then, during which I cursed once again the robots that are raising us, that are both complicating and smoothing our lives in ways that only become evident once we have already set up home in the uncanny valley, built our little huts there out of marshmallow and Bitcoin and it's far too late to leave.
It's the smoothing aspect that bothers me today. Both in the aesthetics of AI imagery (kitten is toast) with its inhabitants made of glazed rubber and its nature made of nostalgia from racist leaflets, and in its intentions.
You see the impulse with modern cosmetics, too: the products to blur the skin, the Botox to freeze the muscles. Again it's both an aesthetic smoothing and a philosophical one, a decision to remove signs of real life in a way that makes the journey through this said life so much simpler. It's something I think about a lot during discussion of weight-loss drugs, the way they iron out hunger and a certain desire. A day without hunger, what a thing! How is a day without hunger a day at all? A day might as well be a swimming pool or a shoe, so ill-defined its shape, so abstract its use. But what it is, what the drugs do very well, is sand the edges off a life in order that its owner might move through it faster, more productively.
And so it is with AI. Students, all of who will have originally signed up to a course intending to learn something, when offered the opportunity to write an essay with ChatGPT (the Child Catcher offering sweeties) allow themselves to take it, to outsource the brain. People are doing it with love as well, both those paying for AI girlfriends to message them at night and, to an extent, my friends who have given up on dating altogether after infinite scams and ghostings and app-based sexual terrorism. A smoothing occurs. Life is simpler, but also lesser.
The writer Will Storr, noticing the similarity in style of a glut of viral personal essays on Substack recently, found that they'd been written by AI. He describes the essays as "gruel": thin and tasteless, "and yet you have the vague sense that swallowing it is supposed to be somehow good for you". In this case, it's not just the value and production of the essay that has been blurred, it's the humanity of the readers who are responding to it, claiming to be deeply moved by these banal self-help memoirs, crying at their computers at an algorithm's poem on grief.
The soul itself has been smoothed to avoid discomfort. There should be no pain — emotion is controlled, intellect blunted. A friend posts their daily ChatGPT therapy online, and I am always shocked, first by the toadying tone of its compliments and advice, but also by the fact that my friend keeps going back for more.
And yet I understand. I love comfort; I love closing my eyes and the warmth of the sun and hitting the shrug emoji upwards of 15 times a day. It's far harder to interrogate one's behaviour and attempt to change, of course, far easier to take the advice of a machine designed to keep you feeding it crumbs of your own humanity. The thorns of our rose bushes are plucked one by one, the spines from our cacti. In this way, our lives become easier to handle, but stray further from (and sincere apologies for sounding like AI Substack) what it means to be human.
There is much to resist, today, much to focus on, much to do. If the chance to cut a little corner, to shave off an hour, arises then the choice not to do so instantly becomes harder and more political. Another world is right there, tantalisingly close, and by anaesthetising ourselves to what is real by creating something that is almost so feels sometimes like an act of protection.
But the blurring brings its own discomfort, like tinnitus or the forgetting of words — if we don't grit our roads we will slip on the ice. The axolotl is real, I insist, with increasing hesitance. — The Observer

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NZ Herald
5 days ago
- NZ Herald
Listen to The Country online: ‘Tinder for cows' with Matamata farmer Matthew Zonderop
Today on The Country radio show, host Jamie Mackay catches up with Matamata dairy farmer Matthew Zonderop, who is using ChatGPT to drive Perfect Cow Breeding Solutions - aka 'Tinder for cows'. On with the show: Christopher Luxon: We ask the Prime Minister if he's doing a Sir Keir


The Spinoff
5 days ago
- The Spinoff
How to turn your flash off before going to a concert
After being continuously blinded at Marlon Williams, Alex Casey makes a plea. When I was up in Auckland for the recent media awards, I humiliated myself at the bar afterwards by not knowing how to turn the torch on my phone off. In my defence it was a new phone and it was long after midnight, but the image of everyone screaming like ET in the cornfield, blinded by the harsh unwelcome light, is forever seared into my memory. Thankfully my Gen Z colleague gently took the phone off me, did some speedy swiping, and I vowed to brush up on how to actually use my phone when I returned home the next day. But on Friday night at the Marlon Williams concert in Ōtautahi's town hall, I found myself lost in ET's cornfield of horrors once more – this time on the receiving end of endless unwanted flash photography. When Williams joined opening act KOMMI onstage in a tracksuit for a spirited and spooky rap number, I was busy seeing stars in my peripherals as everyone flashed for their lives. When he later returned to sing 'E Mawehe Ana Au' acapella, his single spotlight clearly wasn't enough for those whose phone cameras again popped off like the paparazzi. I understand that, just like me confused that night in a Ponsonby bar, not everyone understands the scary inner workings of their phone. My own father takes a huge amount of pride in every notification he receives provoking a sound and light extravaganza rivalled only by the Fountains of Bellagio, but even he would tell you that in-phone flash photography at a dark concert is going to a) look unbelievably terrible and b) distract everyone around you. There's a reason why so many venues explicitly state no flash photography in their FAQs. In this climate, we must also consider the cost of a blinding flash. We spent $253.60 on two tickets. The concert lasted around two hours excluding the interval, so let's say the performance cost $2.11 a minute, or 0.035 cents a second. After a brief experiment in a darkened wardrobe, the average iPhone flash takes around 2.7 seconds to complete its sparkling symphony – that's 0.091 cents per flash. Therefore, being subjected to even a conservative estimate of 10 flashes, is equivalent to the cost of three dried apricots, or a granny smith apple, or a tin of tomatoes. If you don't know how to turn the flash off on your phone, there's a really easy way to remember how to do it that doesn't even require Google or your AI therapist. Millennials: look for the symbol found on Harry Potter's forehead. Gen X: look for the symbol found between the AC and the DC. Boomers: look for the symbol found on the nearest public defibrillator. Press that symbol so the background becomes transparent, much like the ghosts lingering around you who do not want to be caught by flash photography. Congrats, you have turned off your flash. And while I'm here, here's some other housekeeping you can do to ease the experience of those around you at a concert. Turn your screen brightness down as low as it can go and make sure your photo app is easily accessible – I cannot believe how many times I watched a frenzied woman swipe through Trade Me, Airbnb et al to take 900 blurry snaps of Marlon. Rather than stick your phone up in the air and snap with reckless abandon, keep your phone closer to you and embrace the tilt – you'll be steadier and can actually see what you are taking photos of. I know I sound like a Larry David wannabe here, but it's also just about respect. Making the decision to venture out anywhere these days comes at an enormous mental, physical, emotional and financial cost, and the very least we can do is be polite to each other until we can all go home to post our terrible blurry photos and videos all over Instagram and then never look at any of them ever again. Until we all find ourselves somehow at yet another Coldplay concert, let's all just try and keep the flashes to a minimum.


NZ Herald
6 days ago
- NZ Herald
Scarlett Johansson wary of AI ‘threat'
Scarlett Johansson doesn't think AI can replicate the 'soulfulness' of an actor or actress. The 40-year-old movie star believes AI has a role to play in the long-term future of the film industry, but Johansson doesn't think the technology can replace the emotional core of an actor's performance.