Is generative AI 'good' innovation?

I feel like there’s been so much backlash against generative AI (which I wholeheartedly support), that we really should be taking a step back and asking what the actual value of the technology is.

When a huge portion of the people are threatened by an innovation and those more optimistic about it are positioning themselves to surf an incoming metaphorical wave, I can’t help but wonder about the dissonance.

I don’t doubt that generative AI may be able to contribute to productivity in industry - emphasis on may, given the circumstantial (counter) evidence [making emails longer, generating slop, etc].

I do, however, doubt its contribution to culture. [fake news in politics and otherwise, cash grab accusations, …]

Hundreds of copyright issues, the Hollywood writers strike, EA reaching for GenAI games, and all-round impressively mediocre communication on ethical and moral issues fill news feeds and - more importantly - social feeds.

Across social media, generative AI content is commonly referred to as ‘AI slop’. The analogy runs parallel to the stereotypical beige prison (or school) lunch that is ambiguous in texture, flavour, and - well - nutrition. It derives of the empty, format-regurgitating, made-up, disconnected nature of this type of content. In other words, it is considered mass-produced content - with all its negative connotations à la quantity over quality. If I was the chef, I’d be pretty disappointed if they called my cooking ‘slop’.

AI companies don’t seem as bothered though - and I won’t allow myself to chalk it up to mere ‘profit interests’ nor can I advocate a sterile centrist view of “people are using it wrong, it can be used for good”.

I genuinely believe people aren’t using it for good. I also think thats not their fault. Industry and culture inevitably do and will always overlap; unfortunately, industry has been encroaching on culture slowly but surely for better or for worse.

I want to use this post to get a framework out of my head and onto paper using generative AI as my exemplar: culture-aligned versus industry-aligned innovation.

Aligning innovation

As per the above, I believe there is value in generative AI research to date. I myself am researching its applicability to various wellbeing contexts (plug: []).

What I argue is to consider the alignment of innovation to be a lens through which positivity and negativity can be discussed instead of a universal good and bad. The lens works as follows:

• Aligned innovation means it is situated in either culture or industry. Basically, it is not entirely ungrounded.
• Alignment is derived not from the primary motivator, but rather where and how it is received.

For example, I’d argue that generative AI is industry-aligned innovation as it is more positively received in business and economic contexts, such as improving productivity and automation. Additionally, I’d classify it as strongly not culture-aligned (or culture-dissonant), given its questionable reception by various mediums of culture: arts, social networks, education, news, entertainment, and politics.

Reception dictates alignment, NOT motivation.

I don’t make a distinction between more precise categorisations (like health, wellbeing, politics), because they themselves are typically culture or industry aligned. For example, medical research and innovation itself is difficult to position between the two as it is generally situated in both industry and culture - aka in profit/competition and societal health values.

Most importantly, I do not believe one type of alignment is inherently more valuable than the other.

Such a derivation should always be circumstantial - the above acts more so as scaffolding to discuss innovation and research.

The good, the bad, the uncanny six-fingered deepfake

Why do I find it important to distinguish between these and offer yet another pseudophilosophical take on genAI?

Because I believe that the current social dialogue is unproductive. In professional settings - such as academia, policy, and engineering - internal alignment remains fundamental.

In the wild per se, the discussion is constrained and muffled by the two camps I described at the start - an ‘us versus them’. From where I come from, culture-aligned innovation is preferable, but that does not mean we shut down industry-aligned projects.

I find that there are 2 great counter-culture-esque examples of how we are moving towards emphasising culture-alignment over industry-alignment:

• Open Source Software is perhaps in its golden era. OSS has a culture in itself founded on openness, collaboration, sustainability, and distributed ownership. These principles are so strong, that companies who claim open source or defy these tenets are openly disputed. For example, PearAI is a YC funded AI code editor that uses code from an existing open source editor called VSCode. The backlash was due to the precedent it set for people to monetise open source projects for private purposes, claiming the work and not crediting past contributors (see the irony with generative AI?).
• B Corporations are well motivated, but poorly executed. It is a certification of sorts that companies can apply (pay) for to show how their company ethos is aligned with culture - or in their terms, social good. I respect the movement, but naturally the organisation itself is not nearly as open as OSS to be comparably credible.

There are numerous companies and organisations that could fit under the banner of industry-aligned, the term SaaS being a primary signal; there are few obviously culture-aligned innovators outside the above movements.

In conclusion, the goal is not to silo culture versus industry-aligned innovation, rather it is to focus on and emphasise how one can be supported without being dissonant to the other. Innovating for productivity is good for all of us - but it shouldn’t negatively impact the cultural experience of work, the arts, or politics. ‘Good’ innovation is aligned and is never dissonant.