Accusing Everyone Of AI Is Intellectually Devoid and Harmful: The Rise Of Online Hate, Fueled By False Claims and Ad Hominen Attacks

Introduction: The Fallacy of the Cat in the Sky Palace

A fickle thing is the human mind, resting in a state of confusion mired with conviction of belief. It drives us forward, it innovates, it allows us to move past the limitations of our more primal origins.

The study of knowledge is generally called epistemology, which serves as an anchor between the world of the imagined and the physicality of the world around us and the environments we have to navigate. Knowledge is usually defined as justified true belief (JTB), which ought to mean we can figure out whether something is justified, whether there is truth to any extent to it, and whether it fits the narrative that we already believe.

An example of this would be thinking that some, not all, cats can live in the sky in small cat versions of palaces, floating on clouds. Is this justified? Perhaps if we consider that other animals live in the sky. Or that there are books that contain sky palaces or abodes (Jack and the Beanstalk), but it’s when we consider the truth in it that this whole example falls apart. It just isn’t true, as far as we know, that cats can reside in the clouds. Yes, animals live in different and surprising environs, but it is a physical impossibility to build and maintain a sky palace. Therefore, the proposition that cats could live in the sky is entirely false, as far as we know, and it isn’t a justified, true belief. It’s just a belief, albeit a cute one to consider.

There was a time when creating art or music involved a basic, human created instrument such as a pencil, a harpsichord, a piano or a drum. We would manipulate these tools to create something imagined, drawing inspiration from the real world. No one contested whether cave paintings of Elk and Mammoths were the actual, real thing. Of course a drawing of a prehistoric animal in a cave isn’t the actual animal itself.

Over time, we have obviously moved past these basic tools and moved on to typewriters, the printing press, to electronic keyboards, synthesizers, virtual instruments, spell-checkers, translators and, importantly, to machine learning and AI, in all its forms, as well as quantum computing and processing. To name but a few, and in a very non-technical sense.

I am sure, as a reader, the hackles on the back of your neck are already slowly coming to attention. Where is my article going? Am I justifying AI or against AI? Am I writing a sensationalist piece on medium to gain clicks and followers? Am I adding more fluff to the online ecosystem around AI?

Possibly, yes. Realistically, no.

Playing Piano Doesn’t Make Me a Pianist (According to Cyberbullies)

It’s no secret that I love playing piano, to what standard I’m unsure. I’m self taught, with classical tuition for a brief time, but nonetheless, my playing is drawn mostly from baroque and early romantic influences as that’s how I first started learning.

No one has ever questioned that. No reasonable, sane human being has ever listened or looked at me, a human person, playing piano and reasonably said “he is not a piano player.”

My writing, my musical abilities and my illustrations are entirely subjectively judged in terms of taste, with beauty as the old trope goes, being in the eye of the beholder. I am not deluded, I know that my creations are subject to criticism, this is part of being authentic and vulnerable. It is part of being a creative, and actually fuels and drives us to greatness.

But what happens when human subjectivity and intellect are betrayed by non-nuanced, ad hominen attacks (personal insults), which are not based in justified, true belief (JTB) from an epistemological standpoint?

Increasingly, we are losing nuance and true epistemology to a false witch-hunt which entirely undermines not only our own intelligence as creatures of intellect, but also on a societal level as we fall into an inane hysteria around creativity and gatekeeping.

Gatekeeping. Because it it just is gatekeeping, simply and accurately, which is the root of most of the baseless need to accuse someone of “being AI” instead of understanding them as a person, as a creative, as a brand.

The Cowardice of the Ad Hominem Attack

Remember when we had MSN Messenger? Or AOL online? Yeah, me too. It belies my true age and shows the balance with which I live my life. A careful dance between the online world and the offline world.

Now, each morning I get my coffee at Dark Horse espresso Bar here in Toronto. I love it. I could make instant coffee or brewed coffee at home, but I like the habituality and talking to the staff there. I’m fairly certain they’re PhD students or something insanely intellectual, but I try not to let that stop me from talking about my music and writing.

Anonymity is something that does not shine in an offline world. It is where politeness and etiquette take over, a merry dance between the said and unsaid, the implied and the explicit. To demonstrate this, lets consider a hypothetical situation whereby the coffee I received was absolutely awful. The espresso was weak, the milk had gone bad and I was over-charged. Nightmare. Absolutely travesty.

Do I complain? Yes, possibly. Do I politely say nothing, yes, probably for all my British foibles, honesty is still hard to commit to in a customer service setting.

But I do not have anonymity to hide behind. I cannot, in any good faith, bring myself to shout “your coffee sucks, you all suck and everything you do sucks. Your coffee isn’t actually real coffee and you suck, too. Did I mention you suck?”

But this is happening in our online spaces. We have abandoned reason and true civil discourse and placed something else there instead. We have decided to reduce everything down to “they are AI” or “all their work is AI”, which is essentially the accusation of a five year old child, bearing no nuance and adhering to a weird duty to gatekeep.

It is simply gatekeeping mired with un-true ad hominen attacks, dressed as a very weak critical stance. Civil discourse has broken down, thanks to anonymity.

Because of anonymity, my actual real handwriting is questioned.

Because of anonymity, my real piano playing is questioned.

Because of anonymity, my 10+ hours per day of creating, writing, composing, articulating, is questioned, invalidated and criminalized.

What Does Authenticity Mean in the Age of Clicking a Button

Remember music class? I do. I dreaded it. I hated it.

I recall having to play Speed Bonnie Boat on the recorder, or basic piano pieces in class. It was hideous and I truly hated it. But when sitting at the piano, or the recorder, I could not press a button and generate a song. I had to figure out the notes and build pieces, even when self-taught, and create from the deepest quagmires of my mind by expressing what was inside through my music.

But I know this, I know what it is like to truly create. I know what human endeavour looks like. I know authenticity and I know my craft(s).

So what happens when this is questioned? What happens when a pianist, like me, is questioned and de-platformed anonymously and maliciously?

As a gay person, I am a walking, living, breathing epitome of what it means to feel inauthentic constantly. It translates to most things I do, down to how I love and who I love. To how I live my life, to the future trajectory fo my life. To small talk with strangers, and in many other facets of my life.

Being queer is, sadly, being told you are something you’re not on a constant, daily basis.

It is unsurprising that I take gatekeeping and baseless claims about AI very seriously. My whole life has been lived through other peoples’ lenses, and not in an explicitly homophobic way, but in a way that means I protect my identity and expression very carefully.

I therefore protect and nurture my creative identities, too, including my music, my poetry and everything else that I do. It is the only concrete thing in my existence that I can control, curate and use to express myself.

The Double-Edged Sword of Malicious Reporting and the Digital Footprint

As an expert in the delicate balance of the offline world and the online word we mingle with on a daily basis, I hold nuance very dear. I apply a lense of justified, true belief to most endeavours. It’s my way of filtering out the nonsense, and a way to make sense of the world around me.

But what happens when civil discourse breaks down to the extent that the online world invalidates your offline world, maliciously and insipidly?

What happens when online false reports, assumptions and de-platforming turn into something criminal?

Years ago, when I was in my 20s, I played piano a lot. I composed a lot. I self-taught the violin and classical guitar. I’m not that good at the latter two, and unsure whether anything I compose is good.

And that’s fine. That’s human sobriety of thought. It’s reasonable to criticize one’s own creations, to get better, to improve and innovate.

But over the past year, increasingly so, more and more of the online sphere has started to seep into the offline world to the extent that authentic creators are being attacked as “AI artists” without even stopping to think of the real-world ramifications.

Yes, I’m talking about false reporting. Criminal false reporting and harassment.

It will only get worse. Anonymity will mean that accusing someone of AI will move from an online accusation, to a real world actuality.

Embracing Innovation, Not Accusations

The solution isn’t easy, but it is deeply human. It’s something that musicians, creatives and thinkers have had to deal with for thousands of years.

The deep well of human suffering and emotion are often the creators of our most profound art, they allow us to create. But, importantly, allow creatives to learn about resilience. To learn how to protect themselves, their work and their expression.

But we must learn to protect ourselves, too, as a society and as an online community.

We ought to abandon the lack of nuance around AI and see creators for what they truly are: expressive human beings. Humans. Real humans. Especially those who truly do play instruments, who truly do write, but also embrace AI and use it for the betterment of their creative work.

Calling everything AI is not only childish, but intellectually devoid. It is not constructive and not in line with true, human innovation.

Staying Authentic; Avoid the One Click Wonder

I could have written this using Gemini, or ChatGPT or any other tool. As it stands, I didn’t (though, some of you won’t believe me, because… well… IQ), but nonetheless I’m sat here in my music studio tapping away at my weary keyboard.

My article is not an invitation for all and sunder to click buttons to generate content. No, it is more than that.

I’m writing this to tell you all to remain true and authentic. To see the beauty in other people’s true creative nature and intent.

See, AI can be an incredible tool. I use it for editing down text (not this article, ironically), checking whether my poems are impactful or too cryptic, I use AI to help me draft new drum tracks for my human made piano music which I often turn into Neoclassical House Music.

We should all be using AI to make society better. We should be using it, sparingly, to help us be better at what we do.

But we should not abandon reason for baseless, personal attacks and harassment.

Stay authentic.

Stay innovative.

Stay true to yourt intellect.