5 ms·

From the article: > ChatGPT is fast-tracking the commodification of the human spirit by mechanising the imagination. It renders our participation in the act of

From the article: > ChatGPT is fast-tracking the commodification of the human spirit by mechanising the imagination. It renders our participation in the act of creation as valueless and unnecessary. That ‘songwriter ‘you were talking to, Leon, who is using ChatGPT to write ‘his’ lyrics because it is ‘faster and easier ,’is participating in this erosion of the world’s soul and the spirit of humanity itself and, to put it politely, should fucking desist if he wants to continue calling himself a songwriter. 100% agree. AI is indeed an erosion of the world's soul by the conglomerate of tech companies who are rabid about going after short-term gains. The reason why people use ChatGPT is because using it is a maladapative response to go after the quickest solution, a response that would have been adaptive in a time of scarcity. However, it is displacing a world of art and creation that was at one time meant to showcase the emotional and intellectual expression of humans into a cash-grab using cheap "art" that is soulless. If any creation were a true abomination to the human spirit, is the creation of AI.

luminen 3y ago
As with most things, I think the true value of LLMs will come from use in moderation. In theory, having AI write an annoyingly polite email to a frustrated customer saves emotional and artistic capital that a knowledge worker can spend later on their own pursuits. It makes me think of something Brandon Sanderson wrote that has been bouncing around in my head a lot lately: "Physical labor is great for the mind, as it leaves all kinds of time to consider the world. Other work, like accounting or scribing, demands little of the body—but siphons energy from the mind. If you wish to become a storyteller, here is a hint: sell your labor, but not your mind. Give me ten hours a day scrubbing a deck, and oh the stories I could imagine. Give me ten hours adding sums, and all you’ll have me imagining at the end is a warm bed and a thought-free evening.”
- Hoasi 3y ago
  > It makes me think of something Brandon Sanderson wrote that has been bouncing around in my head a lot lately: "Physical labor is great for the mind, as it leaves all kinds of time to consider the world. Other work, like accounting or scribing, demands little of the body—but siphons energy from the mind. If you wish to become a storyteller, here is a hint: sell your labor, but not your mind. Give me ten hours a day scrubbing a deck, and oh the stories I could imagine. Give me ten hours adding sums, and all you’ll have me imagining at the end is a warm bed and a thought-free evening.” While I understand the theory, it doesn’t work in practice most of the time. Labour work doesn’t let you think that much in reality.
  - red-iron-pine 3y ago
    i suspect sanderson didn't spend 5 years scrubbing decks. having done a good bit of physical work, when i'm done i'm not channeling stories i'm trying to ice my aching joints and worrying about how i'd make rent.
lll-o-lll 3y ago
Not an artist, but many people refer to the creative part of making software as an “art”, so here’s a take. ChatGPT allows for rapid iteration of ideas. I have an idea, I get ChatGPT to flesh it out, I iterate. The value ChatGPT is providing is not to be the source of creativity, it’s in speeding up the process from idea to concrete implementation. It’s a tool. In software development and engineering more generally, we are used to using all kinds of tools to accelerate the process of idea -> reality. Is a song writer not allowed tools to help do the same?
- wheelerof4te 3y ago
  Coding is not art, it is a learned and trained skill. Even though, I believe that the use of ChatGPT or any other AI assistant will eventually lead to the creation of inexperienced and unskilled generations of developers. Using AI to generate "art" will just kill human creativity. Not only will it do that, it will create a new normal, where this AI art will be viewed as standard. Just as we currently have an over-monetized, synthetic music industry completely devoid of quality.
  - caconym_ 3y ago
    Coding is technique, just like writing prose or laying down brush strokes on canvas or whatever else. All are learned skills, all can be used in the process of artistic creation.
  - lll-o-lll 3y ago
    > Using AI to generate "art" will just kill human creativity. Did the photograph “kill” art? I’m sure this has been asked before, but what is so fundamentally different about AI that puts it into a different category of tool? That’s my argument; not that software development is art, but that tools accelerate the act of creation.
- fhd2 3y ago
  Art, at least how I understand it, is about sharing emotions and experiences. We know artists (as opposed to programmers) because we are curious about the person that put a part of themselves into the thing that evoked some emotion in us or gave us an interesting experience. Software can be a tool to create art (games for example), but mostly it's about problem solving. Sometimes creative problem solving, sure. But listening to a machine generated song is like the ultimate soulless A/B tested local maximum entertainment whose only goal is to make money. We had enough of that without generative AI, it's not gonna get better I wager. I don't care much who wrote the code I'm running or if it was AI generated. There's nothing human being shared there, it solves a problem, and all that really matters is that it solves the problem well.
jnovek 3y ago
In my head, I keep making this comparison to photography. I like to take pictures. Usually, I take many, many -- hundreds -- of pictures for a project and I'll find one or two that I like most in that bunch. I think this is a pretty common practice in photography, euphemistically referred to as portfolio editing. I see a strong analogy between portfolio editing and operation of AI like ChatGPT. The camera and the AI are both machines being operated by humans who have developed enough expertise with their respective machine to get the output that they want. If the camera can produce art, why can't the AI?
- caconym_ 3y ago
  I think it's fair to say that conceiving of a prompt and iterating it toward a desirable output can be artistically expressive. Where the comparison with cameras falls down for me is a) at least to date, writing prompts feels a lot less intentional and a lot more random (AI people themselves make heavy use of the term "cargo culting") than [arranging and] composing a photograph, and b) your camera can function from first principles without requiring the work of other photographers to be blended into an information slurry and loaded into its memory.
- RichieAHB 3y ago
  Taking a picture is deterministic. You aim at something, configure the settings and the cells / CMOS will capture that light in the right manner. You can argue that autofocus and portrait-mode are eroding this but ultimately, if you, the human are not pointing at something good in the first place, well you’ll very likely not have a very good picture. I feel like with AI and a random seed you can ask a question of which you have added none of your own reflection into and it will produce something somewhat in the ballpark that may pass as real. I.e. you don’t even have to point the camera at anything good … Edit: not to say you can’t use it as a muse or for inspiration, but it isn’t a prerequisite.
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    You do have to provide novel input though, otherwise it's just a vending machine for motel art. Everybody is capable of generating the same generic crap by default, but if you're sufficiently creative in your prompt, it's no different than an artist having an assistant. The real problem is the long tail. You found a unique form of expression? Your work gets trained on and you get cut out of your own agency. I fully expect deliberately-bad art will become a thing, because it would be ruinous to datasets to be trained on, will stand out in a sea of KincaidDiffusions, and go generally unexamined by AI crawlers. Lomography was ahead of its time.
crancher 3y ago
The encoding of information isn't specific to humans or "human spirit" is it? Encoding happens. We seem to be the first local observers of encoding, but we didn't initiate encoding. In fact, we're entirely the result of (and dependent upon) an information encoding process we had no role in creating. "AI" is simply another encoder within an encoder within an encoder... etc. The value of discovering and propagating valuable/useful/potent encodings is the underlying pressure producing all encoding systems. Look there for "spirit"?
_pdp_ 3y ago
If the human spirit is really that fragile, then perhaps it deserves to erode and die. Yet, the human spirit has been subjected to much worse, and it survived. Maybe there are some qualities in the creative process that ChatGPT simply cannot emulate.
debaserab2 3y ago
As a premise I agree with this argument, however, in my own practical use of Chat GPT, I find that it often inspires — not replaces - my own creativity. It can give a good skeleton for how an idea can end up looking - which is often exactly what I need to implement the vision I have. Perhaps this is still skipping a vital part of the ideation process, but it doesn’t seem to me like it’s completely devoid of creative struggle.
Baeocystin 3y ago
I strongly disagree. Even as imperfect as the current crop of LLMs are, I'm doing things today that year-ago-me would have considered firmly in the realm of science fiction. It's reinvigorating my creative drive across the board, and I love it. I'm getting to make the Interesting Choices that lead to Art faster and more freely than ever. Others will feel differently, and that's ok. I find myself not even mad at such florid proclamations as to the death of the human spirit. Such sanctimonious proclamations were made by portrait artists at the advent of photography as well, and yet here we are, Art intact, all these decades later.
- lm28469 3y ago
  > I'm doing things today that year-ago-me would have considered firmly in the realm of science fiction. I've read an infinite amount of comment about that but never heard of a single convincing example
  - Baeocystin 3y ago
    Having a fully-grammatical, open-ended conversation in a natural language with a computer was 100% science fiction until now.
- wddkcs 3y ago
  Strong agree. I started writing a comic series in 2016, but had to stop in part because commissioning the art was prohibitively expensive. AI image generation is quickly erasing that ability gap. Most publically consumed art is made by large teams, which naturally leads to a dilution of a singular artists vision. With the current quality mass media, I'm excited to see singular geniuses with the power of whole production companies at their finger tips.
  - krapp 3y ago
    Those "singular geniuses" aren't producing anything truly creative or unique, they're just typing "x in the style of Joe Quesada" (or whomever) into a textbox. AI isn't erasing the gap, it's just making the theft of other artists' work easier, and putting the artists themselves out of business. All for software that doesn't even allow real freedom of creative control, or autonomy of vision - the best you can ever do is hope to get an approximation of a concept that probably still has to be run through Photoshop or something to keep everything on model and fix all of the six-fingered hands. If you can't afford to pay real artists to draw for your comic book, maybe you shouldn't be in that business?
pmoriarty 3y ago
Humanity is just starting to get some competition. Some people just can't deal with that. If genuine, unaided human creativity is so great then AI generated creations should not be much of a challenge. The sad fact, though, is that a lot of human creation is really not that good in comparison, or at the least is slow and expensive, while AI creations are often cheap, fast, and good -- you can have all three.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Eh if you understand the history of the Luddites you may see their position better. If there is 'cheap' digital competition then a huge number of people end up with no way to survive in our current paradigm.
danielvaughn 3y ago
I see it as any other technology - you can either use it as a crutch or as a stepping stool. Inevitably we're going to see a lot of both, but the former are not going to get very far, because they're going to be vastly outshined by the latter.
- jamesjuicy55 3y ago
  I agree. AI is a tool. A hammer. Those who do not wish to use the hammer and go on strike because the hammer workers are faster or better, will be left behind.
fnovd 3y ago
Takes like this confuse me. ChatGPT is not stopping anyone from making art. It may stop you from profiting off of your artistic labors. Though, if you need a profit motive to make art, were you really making anything truly expressive and creative to begin with? We're seeing the same thing with the actors and writers striking. Sorry folks, if you're making me choose between embracing neoluddism or living with some artsy folks not having their dream job, I'm going to pick you being out of a job. I do not care that background actors are going to be replaced by AI and I do not care that AI is going to let 1 writer do the work of 5. Background acting is not anyone's passion and writing predictable soapy sitcom stories is probably not anyone's passion, either. AI is going to give us better creative work not because AI will become super creative, but because people who actually have creative thoughts worth expressing will just do that instead of being crowded out by humans chasing the lowest common denominator. Now we have computers chasing the lowest common denominator, something they are very good at, and we have humans who will create when they feel compelled to create, not because they want to make money but because their creativity compels them to act, make, and do. If a songwriter is being replaced by an AI, their skills are not something we're going to miss. Sorry, not sorry. Artistic sensibilities have arguable never been the driver of what music is popular and I don't see the issue in having AI replace the bubblegum rubberstamp dime-a-dozen trash that the modal artists must produce to make money. Again, now you are totally outmatched by the AI and you can actually focus on creating an authentically human work without being distracted by the needs of industry. If there is no market for that then it is not because of AI but because of our own preferences. The "human spirit" is just a story we tell ourselves to justify our dominion over everything we see. I'd be more than happy to see it die. Humanism is great if you're a human, but life is moving in other directions and we can either adapt to the notion that our primate brains aren't magical engines of wonder or die alongside our brittle egos.
- buildsjets 3y ago
  There is nothing un-artistic about wanting to both make art and to be able to afford rent, dinner, and pants.
  - fnovd 3y ago
agumonkey 3y ago
In a way chatgpt is just the prolongation of humans laziness and quest for leverage.. but the effect are not linear. what we benefited from not having to carry weights and lift stuff all day long is not the same as not having to think, imagine, dream .. and society has a strange response to cultural productions because if it's too often, too easy, too obvious (and when people don't try hard, they will repeat the same things, it's inherent to that structure) it has no value.
jancsika 3y ago
The entire argument shifts if you think back to the spirit of say, file-sharing in a college dorm in the late 90s. A bunch of kids running local LLMs to generate art and entertainment doesn't sound dreary or scary in the least.
the-printer 3y ago
I’m taken aback by the idea of the integrity of the human spirit being kept together by songwriting and other artistic practices that AI threatens. If anything, AI is proving how trivial certain aspects of art can be; that human beings have mechanized them at a scale that more vital aspects of life have yet to experience.
QuantumGood 3y ago
I have been a professional writer for over 40 years. ChatGPT is useful, but I never come close to using it's unedited results, even as I use ever more advanced prompt sequences. But if you're new to something that ChatGPT can help you with, I don't see how it can be resisted. What value is there to you to not use it?

luminen 3y ago

As with most things, I think the true value of LLMs will come from use in moderation. In theory, having AI write an annoyingly polite email to a frustrated customer saves emotional and artistic capital that a knowledge worker can spend later on their own pursuits. It makes me think of something Brandon Sanderson wrote that has been bouncing around in my head a lot lately: "Physical labor is great for the mind, as it leaves all kinds of time to consider the world. Other work, like accounting or scribing, demands little of the body—but siphons energy from the mind. If you wish to become a storyteller, here is a hint: sell your labor, but not your mind. Give me ten hours a day scrubbing a deck, and oh the stories I could imagine. Give me ten hours adding sums, and all you’ll have me imagining at the end is a warm bed and a thought-free evening.”

Hoasi 3y ago
> It makes me think of something Brandon Sanderson wrote that has been bouncing around in my head a lot lately: "Physical labor is great for the mind, as it leaves all kinds of time to consider the world. Other work, like accounting or scribing, demands little of the body—but siphons energy from the mind. If you wish to become a storyteller, here is a hint: sell your labor, but not your mind. Give me ten hours a day scrubbing a deck, and oh the stories I could imagine. Give me ten hours adding sums, and all you’ll have me imagining at the end is a warm bed and a thought-free evening.” While I understand the theory, it doesn’t work in practice most of the time. Labour work doesn’t let you think that much in reality.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  i suspect sanderson didn't spend 5 years scrubbing decks. having done a good bit of physical work, when i'm done i'm not channeling stories i'm trying to ice my aching joints and worrying about how i'd make rent.

lll-o-lll 3y ago

Not an artist, but many people refer to the creative part of making software as an “art”, so here’s a take. ChatGPT allows for rapid iteration of ideas. I have an idea, I get ChatGPT to flesh it out, I iterate. The value ChatGPT is providing is not to be the source of creativity, it’s in speeding up the process from idea to concrete implementation. It’s a tool. In software development and engineering more generally, we are used to using all kinds of tools to accelerate the process of idea -> reality. Is a song writer not allowed tools to help do the same?

wheelerof4te 3y ago
Coding is not art, it is a learned and trained skill. Even though, I believe that the use of ChatGPT or any other AI assistant will eventually lead to the creation of inexperienced and unskilled generations of developers. Using AI to generate "art" will just kill human creativity. Not only will it do that, it will create a new normal, where this AI art will be viewed as standard. Just as we currently have an over-monetized, synthetic music industry completely devoid of quality.
- caconym_ 3y ago
  Coding is technique, just like writing prose or laying down brush strokes on canvas or whatever else. All are learned skills, all can be used in the process of artistic creation.
- lll-o-lll 3y ago
  > Using AI to generate "art" will just kill human creativity. Did the photograph “kill” art? I’m sure this has been asked before, but what is so fundamentally different about AI that puts it into a different category of tool? That’s my argument; not that software development is art, but that tools accelerate the act of creation.
fhd2 3y ago
Art, at least how I understand it, is about sharing emotions and experiences. We know artists (as opposed to programmers) because we are curious about the person that put a part of themselves into the thing that evoked some emotion in us or gave us an interesting experience. Software can be a tool to create art (games for example), but mostly it's about problem solving. Sometimes creative problem solving, sure. But listening to a machine generated song is like the ultimate soulless A/B tested local maximum entertainment whose only goal is to make money. We had enough of that without generative AI, it's not gonna get better I wager. I don't care much who wrote the code I'm running or if it was AI generated. There's nothing human being shared there, it solves a problem, and all that really matters is that it solves the problem well.

jnovek 3y ago

In my head, I keep making this comparison to photography. I like to take pictures. Usually, I take many, many -- hundreds -- of pictures for a project and I'll find one or two that I like most in that bunch. I think this is a pretty common practice in photography, euphemistically referred to as portfolio editing. I see a strong analogy between portfolio editing and operation of AI like ChatGPT. The camera and the AI are both machines being operated by humans who have developed enough expertise with their respective machine to get the output that they want. If the camera can produce art, why can't the AI?

caconym_ 3y ago
I think it's fair to say that conceiving of a prompt and iterating it toward a desirable output can be artistically expressive. Where the comparison with cameras falls down for me is a) at least to date, writing prompts feels a lot less intentional and a lot more random (AI people themselves make heavy use of the term "cargo culting") than [arranging and] composing a photograph, and b) your camera can function from first principles without requiring the work of other photographers to be blended into an information slurry and loaded into its memory.
RichieAHB 3y ago
Taking a picture is deterministic. You aim at something, configure the settings and the cells / CMOS will capture that light in the right manner. You can argue that autofocus and portrait-mode are eroding this but ultimately, if you, the human are not pointing at something good in the first place, well you’ll very likely not have a very good picture. I feel like with AI and a random seed you can ask a question of which you have added none of your own reflection into and it will produce something somewhat in the ballpark that may pass as real. I.e. you don’t even have to point the camera at anything good … Edit: not to say you can’t use it as a muse or for inspiration, but it isn’t a prerequisite.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  You do have to provide novel input though, otherwise it's just a vending machine for motel art. Everybody is capable of generating the same generic crap by default, but if you're sufficiently creative in your prompt, it's no different than an artist having an assistant. The real problem is the long tail. You found a unique form of expression? Your work gets trained on and you get cut out of your own agency. I fully expect deliberately-bad art will become a thing, because it would be ruinous to datasets to be trained on, will stand out in a sea of KincaidDiffusions, and go generally unexamined by AI crawlers. Lomography was ahead of its time.

crancher 3y ago

The encoding of information isn't specific to humans or "human spirit" is it? Encoding happens. We seem to be the first local observers of encoding, but we didn't initiate encoding. In fact, we're entirely the result of (and dependent upon) an information encoding process we had no role in creating. "AI" is simply another encoder within an encoder within an encoder... etc. The value of discovering and propagating valuable/useful/potent encodings is the underlying pressure producing all encoding systems. Look there for "spirit"?

_pdp_ 3y ago

If the human spirit is really that fragile, then perhaps it deserves to erode and die. Yet, the human spirit has been subjected to much worse, and it survived. Maybe there are some qualities in the creative process that ChatGPT simply cannot emulate.

debaserab2 3y ago

As a premise I agree with this argument, however, in my own practical use of Chat GPT, I find that it often inspires — not replaces - my own creativity. It can give a good skeleton for how an idea can end up looking - which is often exactly what I need to implement the vision I have. Perhaps this is still skipping a vital part of the ideation process, but it doesn’t seem to me like it’s completely devoid of creative struggle.

Baeocystin 3y ago

I strongly disagree. Even as imperfect as the current crop of LLMs are, I'm doing things today that year-ago-me would have considered firmly in the realm of science fiction. It's reinvigorating my creative drive across the board, and I love it. I'm getting to make the Interesting Choices that lead to Art faster and more freely than ever. Others will feel differently, and that's ok. I find myself not even mad at such florid proclamations as to the death of the human spirit. Such sanctimonious proclamations were made by portrait artists at the advent of photography as well, and yet here we are, Art intact, all these decades later.

lm28469 3y ago
> I'm doing things today that year-ago-me would have considered firmly in the realm of science fiction. I've read an infinite amount of comment about that but never heard of a single convincing example
- Baeocystin 3y ago
  Having a fully-grammatical, open-ended conversation in a natural language with a computer was 100% science fiction until now.
wddkcs 3y ago
Strong agree. I started writing a comic series in 2016, but had to stop in part because commissioning the art was prohibitively expensive. AI image generation is quickly erasing that ability gap. Most publically consumed art is made by large teams, which naturally leads to a dilution of a singular artists vision. With the current quality mass media, I'm excited to see singular geniuses with the power of whole production companies at their finger tips.
- krapp 3y ago
  Those "singular geniuses" aren't producing anything truly creative or unique, they're just typing "x in the style of Joe Quesada" (or whomever) into a textbox. AI isn't erasing the gap, it's just making the theft of other artists' work easier, and putting the artists themselves out of business. All for software that doesn't even allow real freedom of creative control, or autonomy of vision - the best you can ever do is hope to get an approximation of a concept that probably still has to be run through Photoshop or something to keep everything on model and fix all of the six-fingered hands. If you can't afford to pay real artists to draw for your comic book, maybe you shouldn't be in that business?

pmoriarty 3y ago

Humanity is just starting to get some competition. Some people just can't deal with that. If genuine, unaided human creativity is so great then AI generated creations should not be much of a challenge. The sad fact, though, is that a lot of human creation is really not that good in comparison, or at the least is slow and expensive, while AI creations are often cheap, fast, and good -- you can have all three.

pixl97 3y ago
Eh if you understand the history of the Luddites you may see their position better. If there is 'cheap' digital competition then a huge number of people end up with no way to survive in our current paradigm.

danielvaughn 3y ago

I see it as any other technology - you can either use it as a crutch or as a stepping stool. Inevitably we're going to see a lot of both, but the former are not going to get very far, because they're going to be vastly outshined by the latter.

jamesjuicy55 3y ago
I agree. AI is a tool. A hammer. Those who do not wish to use the hammer and go on strike because the hammer workers are faster or better, will be left behind.

fnovd 3y ago

Takes like this confuse me. ChatGPT is not stopping anyone from making art. It may stop you from profiting off of your artistic labors. Though, if you need a profit motive to make art, were you really making anything truly expressive and creative to begin with? We're seeing the same thing with the actors and writers striking. Sorry folks, if you're making me choose between embracing neoluddism or living with some artsy folks not having their dream job, I'm going to pick you being out of a job. I do not care that background actors are going to be replaced by AI and I do not care that AI is going to let 1 writer do the work of 5. Background acting is not anyone's passion and writing predictable soapy sitcom stories is probably not anyone's passion, either. AI is going to give us better creative work not because AI will become super creative, but because people who actually have creative thoughts worth expressing will just do that instead of being crowded out by humans chasing the lowest common denominator. Now we have computers chasing the lowest common denominator, something they are very good at, and we have humans who will create when they feel compelled to create, not because they want to make money but because their creativity compels them to act, make, and do. If a songwriter is being replaced by an AI, their skills are not something we're going to miss. Sorry, not sorry. Artistic sensibilities have arguable never been the driver of what music is popular and I don't see the issue in having AI replace the bubblegum rubberstamp dime-a-dozen trash that the modal artists must produce to make money. Again, now you are totally outmatched by the AI and you can actually focus on creating an authentically human work without being distracted by the needs of industry. If there is no market for that then it is not because of AI but because of our own preferences. The "human spirit" is just a story we tell ourselves to justify our dominion over everything we see. I'd be more than happy to see it die. Humanism is great if you're a human, but life is moving in other directions and we can either adapt to the notion that our primate brains aren't magical engines of wonder or die alongside our brittle egos.

buildsjets 3y ago
There is nothing un-artistic about wanting to both make art and to be able to afford rent, dinner, and pants.
- fnovd 3y ago

agumonkey 3y ago

In a way chatgpt is just the prolongation of humans laziness and quest for leverage.. but the effect are not linear. what we benefited from not having to carry weights and lift stuff all day long is not the same as not having to think, imagine, dream .. and society has a strange response to cultural productions because if it's too often, too easy, too obvious (and when people don't try hard, they will repeat the same things, it's inherent to that structure) it has no value.

jancsika 3y ago

The entire argument shifts if you think back to the spirit of say, file-sharing in a college dorm in the late 90s. A bunch of kids running local LLMs to generate art and entertainment doesn't sound dreary or scary in the least.

the-printer 3y ago

I’m taken aback by the idea of the integrity of the human spirit being kept together by songwriting and other artistic practices that AI threatens. If anything, AI is proving how trivial certain aspects of art can be; that human beings have mechanized them at a scale that more vital aspects of life have yet to experience.

QuantumGood 3y ago

I have been a professional writer for over 40 years. ChatGPT is useful, but I never come close to using it's unedited results, even as I use ever more advanced prompt sequences. But if you're new to something that ChatGPT can help you with, I don't see how it can be resisted. What value is there to you to not use it?