Since deleting the September blog and letting everyone know that I had done so, I’ve been thinking about why I deleted it. On the surface, I deleted it because it’s a fake, and I want to deal only with the “real thing.” Mabel Rose Thompson isn’t real. But someone asked me why I had deleted something that I enjoyed, regardless of its source. Well, that would be a logical question if I were dealing with whether I should mind an AI assessment of the quality of car models. I wouldn’t mind. So then, why should I mind if I find out that a particular piece of art I liked and wanted to share with others has actually been AI-generated. Would I still share it? I probably would, but I would make a point of telling the truth about its origins, and I would also value the piece of art far less because no matter how beautiful or interesting the art appeared to be, I would know that a soul hadn’t created it from feelings and insight that only the artist could have. It’s sort of like hearing a first-hand account from a person who has experienced something amazing versus reading a reporter’s account of the person’s experience. The two may share the main facts, but they cannot be the same, and the first-hand account has more impact and credibility.
As for Mabel Rose Thompson, she’s/it’s a great non-existent gal, and her/its advice seems spot on for the most part. Because it is a creature of AI, what it says probably comes from millions of scans of what has been written about the subject of aging. AI has not lived a life and is just collective knowledge rather than the account of one person’s experience and wisdom gleaned over a long life. If the advice is the same, anyway, why do I value the person’s experience more than AI’s account of it? I don’t really know, but I do. So, I’m bringing her back. Say hello to Mabel.