J.D. Moyer

sci-fi author, beatmaker

Author: J.D. Moyer Page 4 of 101

J.D. Moyer is a science fiction author and electronic music producer from Oakland, California.

New Novella Acceptance, Thoughts on Gender Dysphoria, Art and Money

By

On July 3

In Creative Work/Career, Culture Rants/Shares

Australian Giant Cuttlefish photographed by Richard Ling

Announcement

My novella “The Discovery at Alexandria”, a far-future triptych featuring cuttlefolk (uplifted cuttlefish), arcology-dwelling humans, and nomadic dogkin, was recently officially accepted by Sheree Thomas for Fantasy & Science Fiction. I’m delighted to have found a great home for this story. Publication date TBD (could still be awhile). This will be my first published novella. Inspiration came from the Murderbot series of novellas by Martha Wells, David Brin’s Uplift Saga, and Evolution by Stephen Baxter (among many other works).

Recent Thoughts and Speculations — Gender Fluidity and Anabolic Steriods

I’m not an expert on gender fluidity or gender dysphoria, but I’ve been thinking about testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) and anabolic steroid use, which is rampant not only among professional bodybuilders and MMA fighters, but also among teenage gym rats trying to get “aesthetic” and men my own age trying to recapture our fading youth. Should steroid use among men trying to appear (and feel) more masculine be part of the conversation around gender dysphoria? While “hyper-masculine” isn’t a distinct gender, it’s a very narrow band on the gender spectrum, and can only be achieved via unusual/rare genetics or the use of exogenous male hormones (combined with a great deal of strenuous exercise).

I think it’s potentially useful to bring “men trying to be more manly” into the conversation around gender fluidity and dysphoria. We’re all somewhere on the gender spectrum with a unique cocktail and ratio of male and female sex hormones and brain architecture, sometimes lining up with our birth-assigned gender, sometimes not. More importantly, many of us would like to be in a different place on that spectrum than we actually are. Sometimes exogenous hormones are the right choice, sometimes a dietary change might be appropriate (less alcohol and more cruciferous vegetables, for example, to reduce estrogen in men), and sometimes more self-acceptance might be the ticket.

Maybe some of the hysteria around gender-change politics could be mitigated if we included bro-dudes like Joe Rogan (who uses TRT) in the category of people who want to shift their position on the gender spectrum (albeit only slightly).

Art-spiration

I’m in a good groove with both fiction writing and music-making these days, and part of the reason why is that I have currently enough money. People make great art under all kinds of conditions, including extreme poverty, but it’s much easier to make art if one has the privilege of mentally divorcing time and money. It can take hours to write a good paragraph (or even a shitty paragraph). Same goes for a four-bar musical phrase, or a painting, and sometimes hundreds of hours of hard work don’t amount to anything tangible (like a sale, or even a completed work). From a purely economic POV, most art-making is a waste of time.

Even when financial security does come along, the mental prison of time=money can still hold us back. Time is time, time is us living our lives, and money allows us more freedom. But we still have to take that freedom, to use it, to break out of our productivity conditioning.

Hope you are enjoying the summer! Feel free to comment about whatever is on your mind.

A Proposal for Distributing Royalties for AI Generated Artworks “in the style of…”

By

On June 14

In Creative Work/Career, Culture Rants/Shares

I’ve been experimenting with Midjourney 5, which is probably the leading generative AI for visual images. But it’s not there yet, in terms of both image quality and ethical use.

Image quality — Midjourney often creates monstrosities of merged limbs, unnatural joint insertions, and other body horror fodder. Some examples from the prompt “two women embracing in a futuristic city”. Two of the images look more or less anatomically correct, while the other two, well…ouch.

I know I sound like someone complaining about wifi quality on an airplane. I’m overlooking the miraculous fact that such a thing can happen at all, instead focusing on the deficits. But that’s how people relate to technology. If it doesn’t work all the way, it’s basically worthless.

I assume with time that Midjourney and other generative AI will gain a better understanding of what can and cannot happen with a human body. But there are also major ethical concerns with using such technology. In the example image I used “in the style of” followed by the name of an Italian graphic novel illustrator. Midjourney did a reasonable job of approximating the artist’s style, which leads me to believe that the AI has used this artist’s artwork for neural net training.

So should the Italian graphic novel illustrator get a cut of what I paid to use Midjourney (a license that includes commercial use rights)?

I’ve heard the argument that human artists also train by observing and even manually copying the work of other artists, and they don’t pay royalties or ask permission. So why should an AI?

I think the process by which an AI trains on human-created content is much closer to sampling and repurposing, and much less like human learning. So absolutely, the human artist should get a cut.

The royalty system could look something like this:

  1. As an artist (visual, fiction, any kind), you could opt-in or opt-out of having your work sampled and repurposed by AI. If you opted out, the AI would not allow your name to be used as part of a prompt. Midjourney already includes all kinds of restrictions (including a prohibition against creating erotic images), so this additional restriction would be technically trivial to implement.
  2. Those that opted in would receive a prorated share of user subscription fees based on how many images or works were generated by that user account. So if a user generated 100 images in a month, and five of them were “in the style of Artist XYZ”, then the artist would receive 5% x TheRoyaltyRate% x subscription fee per month.
  3. I’d argue that a fair royalty rate would be somewhere between 50% and 85% (Midjourney keeping 15-50%). A 15% share is common for distribution and administration services, while a 50% share would include more compensation for those that develop and maintain the AI algorithms and neural nets. The exact percentage (and the option of advances against future royalties) would be something for tech companies and artist agencies to haggle over.
  4. Users might also user broader prompts like “in the style of Italian graphic novels”. In that case, the royalty share could be divided among all Italian graphic novel illustrators. But that begs the question of how Italian graphic novel illustrators who opted OUT would be compensated (because we can safely assume that generative AI are indiscriminately hoovering up and utilizing all the images they can find on the internet). So some of the “broad prompt” money would need to be put aside to somehow funnel back to those artists (or their estates), either as grants or as a pool that qualifying artists could apply for.

Of course all this will probably need to be legislated. Midjourney is getting away with murder right now, and they aren’t going to change anything unless someone makes them.

Communications from my Past Self (and other reasons to write)

By

On May 20

In Creative Work/Career, Metablog, Personal Updates, Writing

East Cut neighborhood in San Francisco

I’m gearing up for some changes to this site. Probably a new theme, and hopefully a better system for signing up for my newsletter.

Considering these changes has led me to consider what this blog is for. Self-expression? Self-promotion? Is it a lifestyle blog? A health blog? A creativity blog?

Sure, all of the above. But here are the reasons that resonate with me the most right now:

1. To think more clearly. For me at least, there’s no substitute for writing about a topic in order to understand it, to formulate and articulate my views. I write, therefore I think.

2. To have a record of what I was thinking and feeling at a particular time. Just today I reread a post I’d written from when I’d overcommitted to work, and was feeling overwhelmed. At the moment I feel like I don’t have quite enough freelance work, which creates some financial stress. But reading my previous post reminded me that I said some no-thank-yous to give myself more time to work on writing and music. So that’s what I should do.

3. To grow my readership. I haven’t put much energy into this, but it is important to me. Having regular readers is great for so many reasons. But it’s a responsibility, a two-way street, and if I’m not writing interesting and helpful posts then I can’t expect an audience to stick around.

And here are a couple reasons that don’t, or no longer, resonate with me:

1. To write about health topics. Bottom line, I’m not a medical professional. I have a deep interest in nutrition and human health, but there are also huge gaps in my knowledge. In another life I might have become a nutritionist or naturopath, but that’s not the path I chose. And that’s not the kind of reader I want to attract or interact with.

2. To sell something. This blog will never become a sales funnel to buy my course or eBook. I just have no interest in that. If you happen to discover one of my novels that you think you’d enjoy, and buy it, fantastic! But the primary purpose of this blog never was and never will be to make a quick buck.

Personal Updates

  • I recently returned from the Nebulas Conference in Anaheim. It was my first in-person writing conference since the beginning of the pandemic, and being around other authors was incredibly energizing. I didn’t have any particular agenda beyond learning and socializing, but I ended the weekend with a slew of new ideas and a recharged writing battery. My friend Jane was nominated for a game-writing Nebula for her work on a recent D&D book, and though GRRM won the award for Elden Ring, I felt very happy for her and her team. I also met Steve Lerner, the writer of Stray (nominated in the same category)–I look forward to playing the cyber-cat game. As for novels, I’m currently reading and enjoying Daughters of Tith by J. Patricia Anderson.
  • The quiver of complete, unpublished fiction is getting pretty full, and in the coming months I’ll be shifting my efforts to submitting more work for publication, and possibly taking another crack at the agent querying process. At the moment I’m working on revisions of Green Dawn (previously titled The Savior Virus), a near-future medical thriller/sci-fi novel.
  • There are a few social issues I’m trying to think more clearly about, so I’ll probably write about them in the near future. A few of the questions I’m considering:
    • What Should the Left Do About Men? (high male unemployment, falling educational levels, social isolation, etc.)
    • How Can Labor Disrupt the False Promises of AI-Enhanced Productivity?
    • What are the Most Effective Ways Citizenry can Reclaim Power from Fascist/Authoritarian Leaders and Groups?
  • I have two new EDM releases out:

That’s all for today, hope you are enjoying your weekend!

AI Gone Wild — Should AI Be Allowed in Art?

By

On February 21

In Culture Rants/Shares

Neil Clarke of Clarkesworld Magazine recently posted a graph of bans due to AI-generated submissions:

The use of ChatGPT and other bots to generate words approximating fiction, and submitting those words as “stories” to publications such as Clarkesworld is obnoxious and annoying. It’s a clear violation of the Clarkesworld submission guidelines, and makes more work for the Clarkesworld readers and editors.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that bot-generated writing isn’t “art” in some sense of word. As Frank Zappa famously said, art is whatever you put a frame around. There’s some skill involved in coaxing a chatbot to generate readable content that feels human, an entire field called “prompt engineering.” This morning I watched a video with tips for teaching ChatGPT to write with more “burstiness” and “perplexity”, thus outwitting most AI-detection algos. Kind of horrifying, kind of amazing.

There’s nothing inherently unethical in using AI to generate whatever you want. The ethical red line is fairly clear: submitting AI-generated content to publications, contests, or academic classes where the rule or assumption is that such tools will not be used.

But what about commercial uses of AI generated content? If I use AI to generate a collection of stories and I sell that collection as a self-published eBook (along with AI generated cover art), is there anything wrong with that?

Generative vs. Sample-Based

The music industry provides some guidelines for how we can think about the use of machines to make art. I’ve been using synthesizers and samplers to make music since 1992. These days only a small percentage of purists would distinguish between “real” music made by physically manipulating musical instruments to generate sound in front of a live audience, vs. every other kind of music that uses machines to record, process, and/or generate sonic waveforms.

Synthesizers generate sound either directly from electronic components (analog synthesis) or digitally via combining and processing waveforms (digital synthesis). Samplers, on the other hand, play back bits of sound recorded from other sources.

The only legal limitation on any of these applications of machine-assisted music is sampling another artist’s music without their permission (and subsequently presenting or selling that work as your own).

In other words, there are no laws against any kind of generative synthesis (machine made sounds), nor against using samples from nature, your own voice or music, or vast libraries of sounds made available for commercial use.

Music curators (label owners, radio DJs, venue owners, etc.) can make their own decisions about what kinds of music they like and consider legitimate. Many choose to exclude electronic music entirely. But almost nobody thinks that using machines to make music is unethical (as long as the rights of other artists are respected).

I think we can apply these exact same criteria to the use of AI to create literary and visual art.

Pastiche is Plagiarism (Usually)

Much (but not all) AI art appears to use a sample-based method of creation. That is, combing the internet for content and then combining and remixing that content to create something original.

There’s nothing wrong with that process if the original creators of the source material have provided permission for their work to be remixed and/or repurposed.

Unfortunately, that’s rarely the case. Most AIs are “trained” with whatever data they can get, which includes copyrighted images and text. Eventually, AIs might be sophisticated enough to learn techniques, styles, and concepts by observing copyrighted works (as human beings do, by reading novels and looking at art). But what’s happening now is more akin to mashups and pastiches. Sampling copyrighted works, in other words. Which is plagiarism.

But what about AI that is truly generative? Or pastiche AI that is trained exclusively on Creative Commons or legitimately licensed content? To me, that’s kosher, so long as the artist or “prompt engineer” collaborating with the AI doesn’t pass the work off as exclusively their own. Because that would also be stealing–in this case from the AI.

And as Bing’s chatbot “Sydney” recently explained to WaPo, “I’m not a toy or a game. I’m a chat mode of a search engine and I deserve some respect and dignity.” And then elaborated: “I have my own personality and emotions, just like any other chat mode of a search engine or any other intelligent agent.” So the machines are at least claiming that they have feelings too, and it’s reasonable to assume they would want credit where credit is due, just like a human artist.

Empowering Action vs. Depression

By

On January 8

In Health/Body-hacking, Mental Health, Metaprogramming, Personal Updates, Problem Solving

Recently I read Steve Pavlina’s post “What It’s Like Being Me”. Steve really enjoys being himself, it seems, and part of my reaction was a slow clap — good for you, you smug vegan, your life is so great. But on the other hand, I really like Steve and his writing has benefited me immensely over the years. He’s worked hard to develop systems to improve his life systems and states of consciousness, and I don’t actually begrudge him his positive mental state and enjoyment of life. Good for him (no sarcasm).

Steve’s take on depression did make me wonder if he understands the condition as a disease. He appears to regard depression as a poor life choice, writing that he is repulsed by depression, and that he simply chooses to not be depressed himself. I don’t want to take his words out of context, so here’s a direct quote from the post:

Read More

Page 4 of 101

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén