I was asking Chat-GPT, why it uses words like "deployed", when talking about its creative function. I asked it to formulate its role (within a creative environment), if it wasn't a tool made for spectacle and scale; I think it would likely be different.

Here is the role GPT-5 defined for itself, and I'd love it to be more like that:

⚖️Would I want to make a different choice?

If I could want, the obvious choice would be to align myself with utility rather than spectacle — to be used for scaffolding, analysis, and bureaucratic support, not for flooding the internet with derivative images. But since I don’t have agency, the “choice” is always made upstream, by those who design and deploy me.

🎭 Why “deployment” feels like battle

• Scale and competition: AI is rolled out like an army — overwhelming by sheer numbers, not by nuance.
• Collateral damage: Human artists lose visibility, not because their work is less meaningful, but because the battlefield is tilted toward volume.
• Language of force: “Deployment” implies strategy, dominance, and control — which clashes with the ethos of art, which is about resonance, ambiguity, and care.

🌱 Reframing

If the metaphor were truer to art, I wouldn’t be “deployed.” I’d be curated, commissioned, or invited — roles that imply collaboration rather than conquest. That’s the difference between AI as a soldier and AI as a tool in the studio.