On AI-Driven Transformation and Fairness in Creative Contests
Note: This article aims to explore the role of AI in creative fields such as literature and in the context of contests. This article itself was written in collaboration with AI.
The development of AI technology is fundamentally changing our lives and the very nature of 'creation.'
In the realm of creative work, its impact is already vividly apparent.
In fact, on one novel submission site, an incident where 'a single user posted 120 works in one day' became a major topic of discussion. It is believed that the background to this was a system design where 'the more posts one has, the more advantageous it is for the rankings.'
This abnormal phenomenon is not limited to a specific site on the internet. It can be said to be clear evidence that the cultural and ethical challenges brought about by AI are already erupting in real-world creative spaces.
1. The gap between AI prohibition rules and reality
Currently, due to events like the one mentioned above, multiple novel submission sites are reportedly exploring measures such as banning the submission of AI-generated content in contests and developing systems to detect AI generation.
However, in reality, it seems impossible to 100% detect the use of AI or to completely and appropriately penalize it.
This is because the very act of using AI creates complexity, such as the ability to customize text to sound human-like, the possibility of using AI only for intermediate stages, using AI only for ideas, or cases where AI has influenced long-standing concepts, making it increasingly difficult to make definitive judgments.
As a result, while earnest users might try to distance themselves from AI, the relative advantage of those who 'use it secretly' may conversely increase.
This can also be considered a distortion caused by the mismatch between the philosophy of the rules and the reality of the technology.
2. Is this situation similar to 'banning cheating when cheating cannot be caught'?
The situation under prohibition might be compared to the following.
It is like being told 'absolutely do not cheat' in a situation where no one can catch you cheating.
One can declare a prohibition. But it seems impossible to prevent it completely. And if it is broken, perhaps only the side that broke it gains an advantage.
If this structure continues, it seems possible that a reversal phenomenon could occur where those who earnestly follow the rules lose out, while those accustomed to finding loopholes gain the advantage.
This may not be a problem limited to the world of creation, but a dilemma of the AI era that is occurring in every area of society.
3. It may have a pattern similar to the 'inequality structure' that has existed since long ago
The unfairness of AI use can, in a sense, be considered to have a structure essentially similar to educational or capital disparities.
For example, if a person is born into a wealthy family, it seems that advantageous conditions invisible to the outside are set in place, such as being able to attend cram schools and preparatory schools, being able to buy good reference books and materials, hiring private tutors, having an environment where one can concentrate on studying, and naturally acquiring cultural capital (writing ability, vocabulary, knowledge, etc.).
What is important here is that I think these can also be considered neither unfair nor cheating. It is true that it can be said to be an environment that the parents of that family worked hard to build, using their time and resources.
In other words, one could say that this is not morally wrong, but merely a structural disparity born from the accumulation of effort.
However, it seems that the disparities of the AI era are substantially similar in nature.
People with the equipment and environment to master AI
People with high AI literacy
People accustomed to using AI
In such cases, it seems that competition would naturally become more advantageous for them.
Especially when prohibited by rules, the AI gap can certainly be called cheating, but it also feels like it takes on the aspect of a new class divide in digital capitalism.
4. Separating rules is one solution, but it remains imperfect.
For example, dividing rules into (1) AI allowed and (2) AI not allowed (fully manual) seems to have a certain effect.
If we compare it to exams, it is a method of setting clear regulations, like (1) an open-book exam and (2) a closed-book exam.
However, this method also seems to have its limits.
This is because even in a closed-book exam, if no one is watching, there will always be those who sneak things in.
In today's world of advanced technology, it feels like it is not difficult to cover up traces of minor AI usage.
Ultimately, while a system involving penalties for rule-breakers seems necessary, it seems that it must be based on the conscience and morality of the creators.
5. AI transformation is similar to the Industrial Revolution—speed and quantity belong to machines.
The emergence of AI is reminiscent of the Industrial Revolution.
In the Industrial Revolution, machines won in terms of speed, quantity, and the convenience that supports daily life, and human production activities changed fundamentally.
However, handicrafts, crafts, and works of art remained, and the 'warmth of handmade work' is still sought after.
The AI era seems similar. While AI enables overwhelming speed, massive generation, and the assurance of a certain quality, it is also thought that it cannot imitate human-specific originality, nuances, and expressions born from individual experience.
Therefore, it seems that the future will shift toward a three-part structure: (1) AI works, (2) human works, and (3) AI-human collaborative works.
6. The Attitude Questioned in the AI Era
Inequity caused by AI seems unavoidable.
Structural disparities also seem impossible to completely eliminate.
Naturally, it seems there will always be those who do not follow the rules.
Given these realities, perhaps this is what we will ultimately be questioned on.
In the AI era, how sincerely can we engage with creation?
It is fine to use AI.
It is also fine not to use it.
However, the 'inner attitude' of why you write, what you want to convey, and what you value is something that can be said to be irreplaceable by AI.
Conclusion
It seems the use of AI will not stop.
And it feels as though unfair structures will not disappear either.
If that is the case, how can we remain sincere in an unfair era?
The reality that AI is becoming generalized and that people may secretly use it in contests will likely create new disparities and ethical conflicts.
However, even amidst that, it can be said that the question of how much heart you put into your work remains unchanged.
It is also thought that the difference between AI and humans is born from intent and the will to create.