There’s been a lot said, written, and shoved in learning models without the permission of authors and artists to train artificial intelligence models.

Of course, artificial intelligence investors don’t want to pay for using copyrighted works. I’d wager in a legal sense one could make a case about fair use, and I must admit a bit of amusement at the conundrum that has been created in that regard.

Yet, when I’m stuck about writing something, I generally don’t turn to those AI models, which despite being accused of creative just have more access to data to draw a nexus from. What most people consider to be creative is almost always that. It’s how I like connecting seemingly unrelated topics.

AI is not a muse.

No, when I’m writing and I hit some kind of block, I generally go check out Inspirobot.me. It’s reminiscent of a silly program I wrote on an Apple IIe that simply spliced words and phrases together to form insults. As a teenager without many friends, I found this very amusing. When it began to get stale, I’d add more words and phrases.

Inspirobot does something similar in a technical sense, with some great imagery in the background – as above. Literature is a creation.

AI investors are trying to change that, as if all humanity has had to offer has already happened.

Silly investors.