IT is a popular topic of discussion over drinks and dinner. The debate centers on whether AI will take away jobs. So far, AI hasn’t had a fair shot at writing newspaper opinion columns, but I’m convinced there are aspects of my role that AI simply can’t replicate.
Except for now, it seems AI is making claims that it can. Recently, it was revealed that at least six respected publications had to retract articles they published, as they turned out to be fragments of fiction generated by AI and later submitted by someone under the name Margaux Blanchard. One such piece was a Wired article titled “Love in Love in Love Fold,” which humorously featured Minecraft as a wedding venue. This piece quoted a so-called “digital celebrity,” Jessica Foo, who appears to exist only in name. Another publication called Dispatch received a pitch from “Blanchard” about an imaginary neighbor’s town called Gravemont, which also does not exist.
In social conversations about topics like ChatGPT, I struggle against an overwhelming sense of frustration. I dislike ChatGPT deeply. This feeling qualifies as hatred for me, because it provokes a visceral response that’s just shy of real anger. I don’t find it just annoying or confusing—I genuinely despise it.
Thus, I’ve been digging into the reasons behind my aversion. There are valid points in favor of the AI era. For instance, a friend in the scientific field explained how AI accelerates the process of developing and testing hypotheses. Routine tasks become less time-consuming with AI’s assistance.
Nonetheless, there are numerous factors causing my trepidation. The environmental impact of using ChatGPT is well-documented, but for me, it’s not the most pressing concern. It troubles me that people are actively choosing technologies that threaten to make much of their work obsolete. For example, AI can distill complex information through Google searches, which is often too straightforward. Moreover, those leading the AI revolution often evoke the worst stereotypes of the typical tech bro.
This reactionary mindset is what I find particularly tragic. Trusting ChatGPT could weaken people’s mental capabilities. I firmly believe that creative imagination is like a muscle; it thrives on exercise. Recently, I assisted a 7-year-old with her creative writing assignment. When she needed to describe the forest, I asked her to imagine it and share what she saw. “We don’t need to do that,” she replied. “You can ask AI to do it.”
She indirectly suggested that we let ChatGPT help rewrite the article. Call me a Luddite if you must, but my reaction was one of dismay! Some challenges should be embraced! It’s beneficial for your brain to tackle them! I’ve read about people using ChatGPT for selecting dishes from a restaurant menu. Choosing what to eat is one of life’s small pleasures—why outsource that to a machine?
However, what troubles me most isn’t that. The gravest issue is how ChatGPT infiltrates people’s personal lives. There’s a barrage of suggestions on using it for workout plans, coding solutions, and document summarization. That’s fine, but hearing about its use for writing birthday cards, best man speeches, or farewell texts makes a part of my soul wither. As someone who writes for a living, I can’t accept this. These moments of expression need to be heartfelt and authentic, not perfectly crafted by algorithms.
My deep-seated dislike for ChatGPT stems from how willingly people transform meaningful interactions into mere transactions. For instance, whether it’s an email or a post, much of the value in receiving a message lies in knowing someone invested their time and thought into crafting it.
I fully recognize that 15 years down the line, I might look back on this article with amusement, adapting to AI-optimized workdays and AI-assisted tasks. I may find I was naive to worry at all! “I love you” could be easily programmed to mimic genuine affection! I also understand that my aversion to ChatGPT might render me less employable in the future, as I might lack the skills to harness AI effectively. That’s okay; I can retreat to the woods and live a less-than-ideal life. Yet, I will be unhappy in a tangible way, clinging to the ability to think independently.
“I have to show you this – it’s going to change your life!” is the very Imogen Heap way of greeting.
She smiled at me and showed off a mysterious black device. The musician and technologist is an evocative and eccentric presence even on video calls, speaking with passion and changing his mind like a rally driver turning a corner. She swivels me from the kitchen floor to the living room of her parents’ home in Havering, near London. It’s familiar to the thousands of fans (aka Heapsters) who tune in to watch her improvise on the grand piano on livestreams. “By the way, that’s the tent I’ve been sleeping in,” she laughed, enjoying the surprise, pointing to an attractive white tent at the edge of the manicured lawn.
Her fans use the term “Imogeneration” to describe someone who changed the course of pop music. Heap’s theatrically layered vocals and expressive production on the albums Speak for Yourself (2005) and Ellipse (2009) have inspired the likes of Ariana Grande, Billie Eilish, and Casey. It influenced chart giants such as Musgraves and popularized the use of the vocoder (later heard in the works of Kanye West and Bon Iver). She has been widely sampled, especially by hip-hop and ambient musicians, and in 2010 became the first woman to win a Grammy Award in the engineering category.
Since then, Heap has dedicated his career to shaping music through technology, and shaping technology through music. Her fast-paced projects include The Creative Passport, which envisions a more accessible way for musicians to store and share personal data, and a pioneering project that lets you record loops of sound and add details like vibrato and reverb. These include the MiMU glove, a wearable instrument. In real time just by moving your wrist.
But she didn’t create the black device she’s brandishing at me. Plaud Note is a voice recorder that uses ChatGPT. She laughed and explained that this converts our conversations into text and generates a summary of our thoughts. Recording interviews is typically the job of journalists, but for the past two years, Heap has been collecting data about herself for a new project: a comprehensive AI assistant called Mogen (pronounced like Imogen). Our interviews become training data. The text prepares Morgen to answer questions about Heep’s life and work, and the audio trains Morgen to reproduce her voice. “Everything I’ve ever said or done, I want Morgen to have access to,” Heap says.
Heap performance in 2010. Photo: Samir Hussain/Getty Images
Mogen was born as a premium feature of Heap’s fan app, theoretically giving Heapsters a way to access Heap’s sentiments and opinions on certain topics. Anything Mogen can’t answer is forwarded to Heap’s (human) assistant. “I don’t want to repeat myself. I want to make sure people have the information they need, when they need it,” Heap says. “In a way, I have been working on [her] For the rest of my life.”
But Heep’s ambitions for Morgen are rapidly expanding. Beyond its role as a kind of living autobiography, Heap hopes to become a point of “omniscient connection” that can streamline workflow and deepen the creative process in the studio and on stage. Future versions of Mogen will explore how Heap can improvise live, become a live collaborator, process fan musical suggestions in real time, and feed biometric and atmospheric data to create You’ll be able to create performances that feel “realistic.”
“I want to [be able to] “Right now, we can create broad orchestral pieces and angular drums with a variety, richness, and tenderness that you just can’t get in real time with off-the-shelf equipment,” says Heap.
All of this data collection was inspired by a series of life-changing experiences that convinced Heap of his current power. Heap, who discovered she had ADHD during the pandemic and shortly after her sister’s death, said: “We’re using our most precious resource, our time, to do these mundane things.” He explains what he noticed. She hired a studio assistant to reduce distractions and improve focus, and to understand the sense of presence, or what she poetically calls “an immaterial bubble without time and space.” I concentrated.
The journey included an introduction to Wim Hof breathing techniques by fellow music experimenter John Hopkins and a visceral response to music by noise artist Pullian, which left her shocked on her kitchen floor. Ta. She likens the latter to childbirth. “That was the only time in my life that I felt like I wasn’t in control of my body.”
The result of this new focus, which she will discuss in more detail this week at London’s Southbank Center, is a worldview that sees technology as both a problem and a solution. On the other hand, the capitalist system and attention economy make us “greedy.” “We have become desensitized,” she says, but in the meantime, we might be able to invent new tools that foster creativity and connection over profit. “I want to dedicate my life to it,” she says seriously.
Her vision isn’t exactly utopian. She speculates that we “will go through this period of running away” from dangerous AI. But she firmly believes there is a bright future on the other side of this potential disaster. Even so, Heap remains perplexingly sour about the possible risks. “You can’t stop progress,” she shrugs, dismissing widespread concerns about the ethics of scraping other people’s data to build profitable AI systems and the environmental costs of all that processing power as “very simple.” “I scoff. It’s based on fear.”
The most direct result of her recent soul-searching will be a 14-minute track released in three parts via a new site called The Living Song. The first part, “What Have You Done to Me,” will be available at the end of October and will allow users to chat with Mogen and remix or sample the song. The idea is to demonstrate that ethical and compensatory collaboration between artists, AI, and fans is possible, with one-third of all profits going to Brian Eno’s climate change foundation Earth%. Masu. “This song gives you the tools to collaborate and love with different people,” she emphasizes. “I don’t want to be kept in a basement. I’ve never felt protective or possessive. [my music]”
The new song, which tells the story of Heap and her relationship with herself and Morgen, also reimagines the melody of “Hide and Seek,” her first big hit and a song that has had a remarkable life in its own right. After being used as the soundtrack for The O.C.’s dramatic second season finale in 2005, the scene was parodied in a Saturday Night Live sketch that looped her “Um, what are you talking about?” It went viral. lyrics. Two years later, Jason Derulo sampled the same elements in his debut single “Whatcha Say,” which topped the US charts. Heap himself included the song in his score for Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, and Palestinian singer Nemasis used the opening bars of a video about the devastation in Gaza.
AI optimists see similarities between this sampling (using parts of someone else’s work to create something new) and generative AI, which processes vast amounts of existing material to create music. I claim that there is. But major labels Sony, Universal and Warner are suing two AI startups for processing their copyrighted music without their permission.
Ms Heap said her project was trying to move on from the days when “people were always trying something and not evaluating it”. For example, an unreleased demo called “A New Kind of Love” cut from her band Frou Frou’s 2002 album somehow ended up on the desk of Australian drum and bass musician Veerre Cloud. His loose remix, released in 2019, has since been streamed over 400 million times on Spotify. After researching, Heap’s team discovered that there are more than 60 other tracks that use the song without credit. “We had to say: Hello, we’re glad you put it out there, but could we have some?”
This is why The Living Song project is so important, she says. Treating each song as a separate entity allows Heap to set and work around its own rules for interaction and collaboration, as it has throughout its career. It’s like labels and artists fighting over AI services.
Previously, I asked what happens if I don’t want my data (my words in the conversation) to be part of Mogen’s training set. Heap said that for data protection reasons, Morgen would only incorporate her answers, not my questions, and the same would be true for fan submissions. She hypothesizes that in the future, my own AI assistant will negotiate with Morgen and inform me of my preferences in advance. She then added with a wry smile that if we didn’t like the data, “I’d probably leave it alone.” [the interview] short”.
But certainly, conversation is also a type of collaboration. What is the answer to a question without context? As I was thinking about this, Heap sent me a summary of the call that Plaud had generated. One line reads: “Katie Hawthorn shares feelings of paranoia, while Imogen Heap expresses excitement.”
This mission to form her own archive through a cleverly automated digital twin, rooted in the past but designed to extend and even predict Heap’s present, is a battle with the music industry over ownership. It makes sense in the context of a career spent in . But it also raises bigger, more difficult questions about heritage, voice, creativity, and control, and Heap aims to fundamentally reshape music, and perhaps life, as we know it. Given her outpouring of persuasion and deep cultural influence, it’s hard to resist her. “I’m not a guru,” she jokes. “still!”
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.