Canadians: Send an urgent message to legislators urging them to stop Trudeau’s ‘Online Harms Act’

(LifeSiteNews) — As a writer, I’ve always been interested in a great story. From the time I was young, I have always found that a well-written story not only had the power to move a person emotionally, but in rare cases, spiritually. This is probably why I was initially drawn to the Bible. One element that has always stood out were sayings and proverbs that, although uttered centuries, or even several millennia ago, still prove useful today. 

Over the past week, I have heard another old proverb (although not biblical) that has continually crept back into my psyche: “for what the grete steide is stole, thanne he taketh hiede, and make the stable dore fast,” or in its modern iteration, “don’t shut the stable door after the horse has bolted.” The original quote can be traced back to the writings of John Gower’s poem, Confessio Amantis, published in 1390. Although over 630 years old and considered one of the longest-standing English proverbs, it still proves to be just as useful today. The proverb’s meaning is thought to convey the futility of taking precautions once the damage has been done. Although profound, that isn’t the part that interrupts my time, which would be better served focusing and concentrating on the task at hand. No, the thought that keeps betraying me is – what ever happened to the horse? 

As I stated earlier, I’m a writer, specifically a screenwriter, although I have written two children’s books and have dabbled in songwriting. I consider my creativity in general as a gift that God has bestowed (and I pray that I use it wisely). I am also employed at my local Catholic church as a caretaker and find there is no shortage of opportunities to be creative (especially when trying to maintain the surrounding buildings and a church that is over 100 years old). Either way, creativity is often times the handiest tool in my belt and the one I reach for the most often. Even Einstein opined often about the power of creativity with quotes such as, “creativity is contagious, pass it on.” And although reassuring, this is what makes my current venture so conflicted. 

Over the past two years, I have witnessed personally the inclusion of AI-based tools being used in almost every element in the writing and film creation fields. At nearly break-neck speed, these tools have gone from unique to nearly ubiquitous. Just over the past year, I have witnessed personally the advancement of AI from writing screenplays to generating images to now generating video clips. The implications are profound. Imagine the potential of what can be accomplished within the next year, or even five years. Needless to say, as a screenwriter and generally creative person, this makes me worry about what the future holds. I personally share the same view of many artists that not only would these works of art be of a lower quality compared to their human counterparts, I worry that they may lack a certain “human” element and depth. 

So, where is the conflict? The problem is, I’ve also listened to others that utilize this technology (many considered artists in their field) and can understand their argument when they claim that AI has provided them with an avenue, a path, to creation that previously was not open to them. They view it as a way to “democratize” the art creation field – giving others the capability to create (to take ideas stuck in their heads and bring them to life) and not have to go through “gatekeepers” (i.e., companies like Disney, for animators). I myself am working on an animation project that was written roughly eight years ago and have considered using AI tools to assist in the project in various capacities. Instead, I have opted to learn animation as a field and will attempt to do this the “old-fashioned” way – knowing it will take years to develop this project, while companies like Disney will continue to exert their industry and cultural dominance in the meantime, to the displeasure of many parents and children alike. This naturally makes me question, would it be better for society in general if the artists that are considered to be on the “margins” of what is acceptable in these industries (because they have different views and find the current trajectory abhorrent, not that they lack skill) were able to utilize tools like these to get past the gatekeepers and provide content that has the ability to build up, rather than destroy? 

This leads me to my current venture… and conflict. With the help of my wife and our 13-year-old twins, we decided to put our faith into practice and wrote the words for several pro-life music tracks. Half of the songs are against abortion, and half of them are against euthanasia – a topic to which not many have created works of art challenging the concept of (probably because the threat of euthanasia has grown just about as quick as the advancement of AI). We also have two tracks dedicated to those who intercede – for people like those at Red Rose Rescue for the unborn and the Guardian Angels for those at risk of euthanasia. We wrote the words in a way that challenges the underlying narratives surrounding the issues and attempts to address the very real feelings of those impacted – like in the song titled “Saved Me Too” (which was co-written with my son), about a father who mourns the loss of his child on the one-year anniversary since being aborted. We decided to title the album “Cradle To Grave.”

So, where’s the issue? Well, as a family, we considered finding artists to collaborate with, but don’t know where to begin when undertaking such a task. Considering also that the entire planned album would be pro-life (and understanding where many in the industry stand on the issue), we opted to generate the music ourselves using an AI song generating tool. Needless to say, it was more difficult than I anticipated, yet more rewarding in some regards. Although we lacked the live artists, we were able to “guide” each track and achieve a sound that is rich and moving, not just emotionally, but I would argue at a spiritual level. This, oddly, is also a source of personal conflict. When others hear tracks like, “If We Met Up In Heaven” (which was co-written with my daughter), many are moved to tears. Then I tell them it was generated, and the reactions have been passionate, to say the least. People have either accepted it (and in many cases the overall message) or downright rejected it (with many ignoring the overall message). Did we do the right thing? 

Was it wrong? These are critical questions with moral, ethical, and spiritual implications that need to be explored more rigorously. 

As new technology emerges in any era, people are often left to wonder about the loss of the “human” element. Think of the introduction of the printing press, the gramophone, the automobile, or more recently, the home computer, and the list goes on. The introduction of each of these has come at the expense of the “human” element, to which their defenders may counter by saying, “but now people have access to more literature, we can enjoy music from the comfort of our own home, the elderly can have more independence, and people can communicate over long distances in a fraction of the time and resources.” Does this justify them? Do AI-assisted tools fall into this category? If the goal was to do something “good” with AI, does that make it morally acceptable? In our case, is it still considered art – although we wrote it, guided it, and had to be extremely creative to complete it? If AI is used in the medical field to heal the sick, would it be justified – and if so, would trying to heal the soul through art with the assistance of AI tools be justified? The most pressing question I personally struggle with is whether or not this would be considered evil. Many of us can agree that we need to start taking back the culture, but is this a viable way to do it? 

I will be the first one to admit that I don’t have any “clean” answers, only more questions. I’m left with the realization that being creative isn’t the most important requirement for finding a solution. In fact, with issues like this, a vivid imagination may actually be harmful – “creating” answers that suit a predetermined conclusion. I would speculate that with regard to an issue like this one (or any other question that has profound moral and spiritual implications), what is required is less creativity and more clarity. For less focus to be placed on what could be true, and more emphasis to be placed on what is true. This again is where I would encourage others to join in the debate and have a robust yet productive conversation on the topic. 

I played the album for a woman recently. Although she herself said the songs were “beautiful,” she recoiled at the thought that these songs were now part of the learning model, to which I initially empathized with her perspective. Upon further reflection, I must admit that I wondered whether that might actually be a good thing. Do we share in the responsibility to “train” these models with what is good, right, and true? Or do we leave the training up to individuals in places like Silicon Valley that detest our values? Once again, I’ll be the first one to admit that the answer for me is currently elusive. 

I am reminded of a scene from the TV show Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, in which a character, James Ellison, is reluctantly tasked with teaching John Henry (the first iteration of the human/AI hybrid) the basic concept of morality. James turns to John Henry’s creator, Catherine Weaver, and says, “You want to teach it commands? Start with the first ten.” 

There can be no doubt that with AI’s rapid advancement, the “horse” is officially out of the “stable,” and I understand the futility of concerning myself with the stable door. The question I struggle with is – now that the horse is out, what do we do with it? 

Canadians: Send an urgent message to legislators urging them to stop Trudeau’s ‘Online Harms Act’