An invitation in Friday’s Chicago Public Square to comment on reader and contributor Jan Kodner’s use of AI to generate editorial cartoons generated so many thoughtful responses that … well, welcome to the first Square letters page.
Shara Miller:
I have my biases. I’m encouraged to use generative AI for the coding work that I do, which I’m not a fan of. I make art for fun, sometimes badly. I like looking at other people’s art, and this includes writing and personal websites. I’m generally anti-AI in its current state and industry.
I acknowledge that generative art and writing assistance tools have existed for a long time. But a lot of that stuff wasn’t called AI until pretty recently for what I’m guessing are marketing reasons. These tools are typically okay. Some chose to tack on Chat GPT / Claude / etc to a perfectly fine product, though.
Using generative AI at the end of the day is a personal choice. I can’t and won’t stop people from doing that.
The main point I want to make is this:
Chicago Public Square is a quality newsletter.
I read it specifically because there’s care in what is shown and shared in the newsletter. You’re consistent, open to feedback, and you have a unique writing voice. You make trudging through the news fun. You could use all of the AI editing tools in the world, but I still trust that your words are coming from you.
Seeing AI images in the newsletter dampens that reputation for me. I understand that people want to make art without the work or time commitment parts. Engineering a prompt and considering the unmodified results as something worth engaging with is not something I can get behind.
AI images, as they are often shared without cleanup edits, are an eyesore. I’m tired of seeing them. This issue has caused me to read all of my newsletters in plain text mode. I’m picky about the newsletters I follow because of this.
Using AI as a tool to generate assets to collage together? That’s one approach that shows that there’s some care and commitment to an idea. If you can prompt a completed image and you don’t even try to build on it to make it yours, then why should I even give it the time of day? It’s just more noise to scroll past while looking for interesting things.
Want to share your opinions or funny thought on a subject? There’s fun memes to remix and apply your ideas to. There’s all sorts of free art in the public domain or Creative Commons. Generate the pieces you want to combine with AI and put it together in an image app. Record a voice note. Write a poem. Make some chicken scratches on a drawing app or paper. Draw a political cartoon with stick figures. Stick figures are charming representations of people! It’s fun!
Manning Peterson:
Hire an artist or no cartoons.
Gail Eifrig:
I’ll bet there are many artists who would love a crack at drawing Jan’s ideas. Collaborating on cartoon work is not new.
Lynne Taylor:
I went to law school with Jan Kodner. I am glad to see he has not gone to the Dark Side and is using AI for good.
LA Zierer:
I swear to god! STOP USING THIS CRAP! PAY AN ILLUSTRATOR OR JUST GRAB A PICTURE OF THE AP WIRE OR SOMETHING WHATEVER I DON’T CARE JUST STOP!
Amy Carlton:
I’m sorry that Jan Kodner is unable to draw, but that’s really not an excuse to use the plagiarism machine that’s destroying the planet. Maybe Jan should develop another skill for self-expression.
I considered writing in about this after Thursday’s newsletter, in which articles about how climate change is affecting the Chicago area appeared just above someone using lake-draining AI slop to make a weak political point.
Chris Beck:
Bold idea: If your content provider Jan Kodner can’t draw, he could hire (or collaborate with) an artist.
AI is trained on real art stolen from real artists as the bots scour the internet. And the more people normalize its use, especially in publications, the sooner artists will be out of business. Then it becomes a downward spiral as the AI systems simply cannibalize old AI-generated “art.” No thanks.
Mike Janowski:
I’ve been a lifelong friend of the estimable Mr. Kodner (met him in the basement pinball room at IT in 1973!!), and so was muy excitido when he mentioned he contacted you, and you’d agreed to a test drive.
And, I’m no fan of AI...I think before Gen AI becomes an actually useful product, the entire financing scheme being used to support its development is gonna go bust like you’ve NEVER seen before (think Weimar Germany times 100).
And I was a bit sceptical when Jan began his initial forays into what he lovingly calls “AI slop”...I dunno, I think it was just a knee-jerk reaction, like some of your readers had. Nonetheless, as I’ve seen Jan develop this series, he earned my respect and support for his dogged determination to wrassle Chat GPT into submission, and to force it to execute his vision. NOTE: something your readers might want to key on would be influences within the work. Jan is a HUGE Mad Magazine fan, and the astute reader will find many references to the Mad classicists—Mort Drucker in particular.
To those who say “AI NEVER,” I’ve plenty to say. Mostly that, like it or not, it’s here, it’s kinda queer, so get used to it. And stop disrespecting Chicago’s Finest News Source® because he dares publish something new and daring.
One critique: The link on the actual cartoon doesn’t make it bigger, as I think it should (so us old guys can read all the juicy bits), but instead goes to the AP story. The actual text link goes to the Politico story. I’d like to see the image fill my browser window when I click on it. Whatever you can do...
And finally, keep on keeping on. You’re the only news source I look at most days. You link to most everyone I think is on top of stuff. Kudos to your hard work and determination to make CPS the BEST “leftist claptrap” around!
Daniel Horvath:
AI “art” looks stupid. … Hire someone.
Thanks for everything (meant sincerely).
_____
Finally, another cartoon from Kodner, who says all the words in this ChatGPT illustration are his:
… and who shares how he did it, pasting his entire conversation with ChatGPT:
Let’s do an image about using AI for image creation. Autobiographical if you will. Cartoon style. Panel 1 is an older guy sitting in a chair on a porch. Two dialogue bubbles. The first one: Hey, I’ve got a great idea for a funny but serious image which could save the world. The second one: But I can’t draw!!!
Next panel: Light bulb over his head and dialogue bubble: I know, I’ll use AI!! AI is depicted as a kindly older 1930s style newspaper cartoonist who also has a face like a simple robot, white ink stained shirt and a black vest.
The third one: AI gives him a scribbled drawing (a cat and a dog like a 4 year old would draw) and he gives the picture to Social Media (represented as Simple anthropomorphic corporate logos for Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, X)
Next image: an angry mob descends on him with torches and pitchforks: dialogue bubbles: Unethical! Hire a human! You’ll kill us all! AI slop!
Final image: he’s crying, being comforted by the 1930s style cartoonist robot. Dialogue bubble: There there.
And a silent thought bubble: Almost got away with it there. Inside the bubble is a ruined world like out of a dystopian movie like Terminator.
(First image)
Panel 2. The sign for AI cartoon service is good. But lose the part that says established 1933.
(Second/final image)
Thought question: What’s the last computer-animated movie you enjoyed?
