“Content” is perhaps the best word to represent our algorithmic age. It’s a word that has come to be a catch-all term for anything that is posted online.

Your Facebook post promoting your small business? Content.
Your Instagram story videos from your trip to Europe? Yep, that’s content too.
You use AI to generate 10,000 reels on Canva that you can pump out to YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram to rake in the ad revenue? Definitely content.

Hi everyone! I’m glad to be back and sharing about the ideas and communication tools of our age. One of my New Year’s Resolutions is to bring this newsletter back with some consistency so I’ll aim to bring this to your inbox every Friday morning. Follow on Instagram @concrete.communication and on YouTube.

But back to “content.” The ubiquity of the word is perhaps instructive about how its perceived value. It’s not art that we pour our hearts and souls into. It’s routine, generic, commodifiable, and most importantly automateable.

In other words, the context in which we often describe something as “content” betrays the fact that we view it as merely means to an end.

And maybe it should be! After all, the goal of all communication should be to send a given message from a sender to a receiver. Does it matter how that takes place?

The problem with this is that it ignores the obvious fact that communication is, itself, an art form, that is most effectively used with its audience (and their respective cultural, relational, emotional contexts) in mind.

Hearing the words “I love you” from a significant other or “I’m proud of you” from a mentor would clearly mean a lot less to us if we knew that they used ChatGPT to write it.

Communication thus, is not just about the words that are being said, but about who is saying them.

Of course, those are extreme examples and AI-advocates might argue that we should only be outsourcing the more mundane communications: office memos, data reports, or advertising campaigns. Certainly, automation is a net good in our society, but I’d argue its formulaic, impersonal nature creates a looming specter on the artistic fields.

The view that I’ve come to take, is that if it’s not worth a human’s time to create, it’s not worth a human’s time to read or watch.

And if you find yourself using AI to generate copy for whole articles or to produce batches of short-form videos, ask yourself if this is creating value for your viewer, or just for yourself.

To be clear: there’s nothing inherently wrong with AI. It’s a tool to be used and can be invaluable for research, brainstorming, proofreading, or handling data-driven tasks.

It was the inevitable technological answer to the insatiable, algorithmic demand for “more content.”

But as these technologies become more commonplace, the need of the hour is going to be not for more, but for better.

We should focus on communicating meaningfully, eloquently, and succinctly. And that’s going to require us to rededicate ourselves to the fundamentals of the arts, rather than asking how the computer can do it for us at every turn.

Takeaway: Our digital age and its insatiable demand for “content” has resulted in a slow, subtle shift from art to automation.

Counterpoint:

I try to make a habit of highlighting ideas that either contrast directly with my perspective or are merely thought-provoking and I think worth thinking about. This is a video from one of my favorite YouTubers, providing a compelling case for the worthwhileness of AI-generated art to bring his low-budget novel to life.

As always, if you disagree or have thoughts to add to what I’ve said, feel free to respond and let me know! I’d love to know if this newsletter is helping you think or changes your opinion on any topics that it covers!