Did We Learn Anything from Jurassic Park?

A difficult conversation surrounding AI and the nature of advancement

In light of the latest installment of the Jurassic Universe with Jurassic World: Rebirth, it’s time to revisit the original 1993 film based on Michael Crichton’s popular book.

At the heart of Jurassic Park is the argument of advancement. Where do we cease scientific progress to preserve our spot at the top of the food chain?

The same could be said about technological advancement.

In creative fields, a new medium is emerging. AI-generated art. Think of this in terms of the plotline of Jurassic World (2015). Fast-forward over the big dinosaurs eating quite a few people to the success of a Disney World version of Jurassic Park. Kids are riding baby triceratops like horses. Mosasaurus is on display like killer whales at SeaWorld. Everyone’s having a grand old time.

Until a push in genetic advancement leads to a crossbreeding of Tyrannosaurus rex, Carnotaurus, Giganotosaurus, Majungasaurus, Rugops,^[1] Pycnonemosaurus, Quilmesaurus, Viavenator,^[11] Deinosuchus,^[4] and Therizinosaurus. Oh, and a sprinkle of some Velociraptor to place the newest addition to the dinosaur world, the Indominus rex, at the top of the food chain.

AI-generated art is our Indominus rex. Is it an advancement or a replacement of our skills?

We are inundated with AI writing and AI visual art. In AI music, the vocals are capable of mimicking the strain found in the vocals of artists who sing heartbreaking lyrics. Think Taylor Swift robot, but you can’t tell the difference. AI sentience seems Terminator-coded to me, but to others, it’s an advancement.

Look, I can’t pry AI out of people’s fingers. People are curious.

But in the creative space, morality is compromised when AI-generated art is used for profit under the guise of being original. A shortcut to cashing a check by infiltrating a market where other people are placing their blood, sweat, and tears into their work.

The writing realm is searching for these answers as AI-generated books are sneaking into the market. Agents and publishers can only do so much against this. Authors might be required to sign a contract stating there was no AI usage, but as long as their lies are never revealed, there’s no way to know.

Full disclosure, I take offense at authors who generate their work with AI. I feel like it’s a disservice to the craft. It’s not harming me directly, but the fear surrounding AI does.

AI fears have prompted readers and creators to throw out baseless accusations of AI usage at the expense of authors. If the authors’ work doesn’t “pass” when it’s fed through a specific AI detection software, they’re burned at the stake. Not really, but when your hard work and dedication go down the drain because of a lie, it’s just as painful.

Authors are strapped to a lie detector test and required to defend their actions with receipts of minutiae, such as proving the authenticity of the freelance artists they hired to create the cover of their book. Even the em-dash (—) has been scrutinized. No matter what you’ve heard, it’s not a clear giveaway on AI usage. It’s basic punctuation. And a clear sign that our literacy rates are falling.

All of this begs the question. If you don’t trust AI, why are you freely using an AI detection software?

AI detection software is AI. Plain and simple. It seems like we’re running in circles, doing everything but looking in the mirror when our actions speak of hypocrisy.

I get it. We often fear what we don’t understand, but I’m afraid we may never fully understand AI. So, limitations must be clear-cut in creative spaces. Legislation needs to be drawn up to revise current copyright infringement laws. This means a mass revision of copyright law. I’m speaking directly to the lawyers who chose the blandest form of law to practice, because now is their time to shine, especially in a time when a company like Character AI feeds popular books into its algorithm without the authors’ permission. They paid book influencers via brand deals to promote it, and it worked.

Work was infringed upon for a profit. A profit for the company and so-called book influencers who claim to support the same authors they let down. If the only way through this muck is forward, I propose an alternative solution to our problem.

Sell out. Not really, but hear me out.

An author can permit a company like Character AI to use their work through a contract. But with the caveat that the author receives allotted royalties based on how much their work is used in the system. Say a 20%+ cut for the author. The reality is that no matter what authors do, it never guarantees their work will not be stolen. AI companies are stealing their ideas left and right. Until copyright law successfully prevents this, authors are losing the game.

This hypothetical solution creates space for authors where there wasn’t any before. An opportunity, not a rip-off, true to the “eat or be eaten” mentality.

If this is what the industry has come to— this “dog-eat-dog” world—sometimes advancement must be placed on a leash. But ceasing this technology entirely is like telling evolution to stop. We can ban it, chastise it, run it into the ground until it’s so disgraced that it hides in its cave. But it will never stay there, no matter how much we want it to.

It will come out to play.

What AI needs is not another half-hearted, ill-thought-out criticism in a podcast. It needs checks and balances to monitor its growth. We can’t give it enough room to consume us. But we also can’t continue with the toxicity around it. This isn’t winning the battle against AI.

AI won’t be what displaces us from the top of the food chain. It will be the culture of hate surrounding hard discussions like this that will eat us alive.