No ratings yet.

The AI revolution has not gone unnoticed in the writing world. As a part-time copywriter, my colleagues have been occupied with all news surrounding AI since the first release of ChatGPT. One of the biggest concerns some writers have is if AI is capable of replacing copywriters.

A good copywriter writes texts that adjust to right tone of voice, branding, and format requirements of an organization to uplift their marketing. I recently came across a LinkedIn post where the creator claimed AI was capable of writing social copy coherent with a brand’s tone of voice and indistinguishable to human copywriters. The post was about an Instagram ad of Coolblue. Now, if you are aware of Coolblue’s brand, you will know that they are an authentic Dutch company that is transparent with a witty sense of humor throughout all their marketing and customer services.

Can you guess which copy below for the barbecue was written by a copywriter and which one was created by AI? (English translation with an attempt to leave the word jokes in below).

Note: take a moment to decide before scrolling further.

Top: Order today, tomorrow a “burg”eois party #turnon #boneparty

Bottom: egg-tually indispensable for BBQ heroes. #eggceptional #grillgreen

Congrats if you guessed the bottom copy was created by AI! You were able to differentiate the robot from the human. In my opinion however, it really could have gone either way. Both copies are short, action-driven and include clever wordplay that fits the brand.

So how was this creator able to alter the prompt in ChatGPT to fit Coolblue’s tone of voice?

• Give a few examples to chatGPT and mention it needs to write in this tone of voice
• Write a prompt that describes the needs for the copy.
• Give input for the format you need to create.

Based on my experience as a copywriter, there are also more and more organizations that are creating a custom AI-tool built on OpenAI’s source to quickly create copy and keywords that fits their brand. In this process, copywriters and data scientists are often onboarded to make this tool successful and data secured. Do these tools eliminate the copywriter in the organization? Absolutely not. It actually helps copywriters to focus more on the creative processes in their work instead of doing repetitive keyword checks (e.g., for SEO) that is considered a boring part of their work. AI works as an assistant to organizations and can take over some of the tasks, but there is definitely still room for human writers in the workplace.

No ratings yet.

Artifical Intelligence (AI) as an emergent technology has rapidly brought many new opportunities for the art industry. The possibilities to quickly create art seem endless. However, this also raises ethical discussions about the ownership and creativity of AI-generated art (Jobin & Ienca, 2019).

When researching different AI tools, I came across Splice; a cloud-based music platform with millions of free samples to help artists create new sounds. Recently, Splice introduced an AI-assistance tool that can automatically match different sound layers together with machine-learning to create a fluent and unique sample. The tool allows you to play around with different genres, beats-per-minute (BPM), and components. Out of curiosity, I tried this AI tool out. You can pick any genre on Splice ranging from disco fever to the “no filter” which randomizes samples from all music. The tool then automatically generates a starting sound, that can be customized with different components. After some trials and errors, I successfully generated a stack with the help of AI.

Testing this tool was an interesting experiment to discover the possibilities of AI, but the more important question it raises for producers is who or what should be credited for AI-generated music. This music is developed by data-based algorithm machines. If an artist uses pieces of AI-generated sounds, should it be the tool who is given credits or the artist? Perhaps some artists do not enjoy hearing this, but copyright law grants credits to the creator of the art, despite if this happens to be a machine. This means that fully or partly AI-generated music should grant copyright to the tool. Recently, an artist even failed to receive ownership for images generated by Midjourney based on the creation of their own comic book (Grant, 2023).

Furthermore, some worry that AI will overtake the art industry, and that art developed by humans will not receive the same value for faster and cheaper created AI-art. Others will argue that AI-music cannot even be considered art. This is a debatable topic and depends on individuals’ beliefs. Nonetheless, I do think human artists should be protected in some way during this AI-revolution. Splice for example aims to put creativity and artists first. In this case, the AI-tool is simply an assistant to help in the creative process, and not replace it. I suggest that this is the right direction organizations should take.

I am interested to hear opinions of others on this topic! Should AI be considered art and should machines receive credits for their creations?

Sources:

Grant, D. (2023, May 5). New US copyright rules protect only AI art with ‘human authorship.’ The Art Newspaper – International Art News and Events. https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/05/04/us-copyright-office-artificial-intelligence-art-regulation

Jobin, A., & Ienca, M. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2