writing – The Human Project

Part 10: My Experience Using Suno Pro to Create a Studio Quality Single of a Song I Wrote

One of my creative pursuits outside of writing (and a 14-year freelance writing career), was music performance and writing songs. I was even given a chance to be a piano accompanist to a singer on the road once, but I turned it down to avoid living in hotels (no, possibly motels) every night. Regardless, the passion for writing songs that could be creative, yet still mainstream, went on. Much of that stagnated during my busy writing career years. Only in the last couple of years have I seriously gone back to finally realizing some songs swimming around in my head.

The irony here is that I’d just started this new blog theme about AI and human creativity while finishing up a new song from last year. I was hoping to find a way to create a studio-quality version of the song, yet didn’t have the resources to hire out musicians and record a demo in a local studio. Despite having a work colleague who leases a local music studio, it still would cost considerable money to hire a singer and musicians for possibly several days of recording sessions.

Enter my curiosity with Suno, particularly their Suno Pro tier. I thought to myself, why not just dive in, sign up for Suno Pro for $10 per month, and then create a studio version of my song? It was a test to see whether my initial aversion toward Suno was perhaps too much of an impulsive negative response.

What happened afterward changed my view on the usefulness of Suno Pro, even if I still have reservations about how it turns your songs into ear-popping studio magic.

You’ll Be Shocked at the First Suno Pro Results

We all know that many AI bots are a bit, what shall we say—(stupid?)—in realizing our prompts. You really have to be overly specific or use key language to get many AI bots to accurately create what you want. The problem there is, you shouldn’t become a lethargic creator and let AI bots create everything for you. It requires a lot more in explanation if you want it to create everything from scratch. In my case, I just wanted a studio-quality take of my first song called “Whispered Thoughts (The Girl Who Reads My Mind).”

All I did was write one small paragraph of prompts to make Suno Pro create a studio take with a male singer. I didn’t need anything else since I write all my songs organically at the piano on the Notion composing app. Yes, I use an Apple Pencil on my iPad Pro to write it all out one note/chord at a time—with my own lyrics.

The most amazing thing about Suno is that it seems to get what you want right from the first take. When I played back the first cut with a male singer, I was impressed at hearing the song fully realized with studio sound. This was after months of just hearing a piano solo playback on the Notion app.

But then, I decided to create some alternate versions. Since my above song is intended to have gender fluidity in the lyrics, I created a female take next. It almost sounded like Taylor Swift singing, yet it turned out more than well. However, it wasn’t quite as perfect as the initial male take. After several more alternate takes with both male and female singers (including an attempted duet), Suno seemed to kind of go off the rails on making it really radio-friendly, even if the prompts hardly changed.

Perhaps Suno should be called “One Take Suno” since it appears to give you the best possible cut on first try. All other versions seem to variate too much off the best path to a point of annoyance. Once that happens, it’s hard to get Suno to go back to the original style.

My Intentions for the Song

Thanks to the mostly stunning results from Suno Pro, my intention is to take “Whispered Thoughts” and place it on SoundCloud through their basic Artist tier. There, they’ll promote the song to the right audiences, and then it’ll stream on their site for a small price. But my full, long-term plan is to pay into a streaming distributor in the next several months and get the song out to many other streaming outlets. A distributor like DistroKid can help on that front, not including joining a publishing watchdog group to help with royalties on other media uses. Also, joining performance rights organizations like ASCAP or BMI brings additional eyes to your songs and pays you when it’s played somewhere.

All of this goes on the idea that the initial singers will not be me, but digital creations. At the core of importance, though, is continuously noting that I’m the complete writer of the songs. I’m still an adamant proponent of creating things from your own brain rather than letting AI constantly tempt you into creating something for you. Never will I let Suno create a song for me—even if some will argue that letting it create a studio cut is at least a quarter of an AI creation.

I argue not, as long as you specifically tell Suno not to deviate from the music. You have to move the dials a bit on the “Options” section when putting in your prompts. They let you choose how much of a percentage of Weirdness and Style Influence you want based on the recording you feed it. In my case, I uploaded a video of the Notion app piano solo as the initial source.

I’ve Come Around to Accept AI as a Creative Assistant

My first impressions of Suno from the outset were one of derision before putting it to use. You have to be suspect at first when you realize all of the singing voices and instrumentation used to create a studio cut are taken from existing sources. This bothered me since I’m a staunch advocate for protecting IP and not having it being made available for free license.

Those who argue that a large potpourri of these musical properties constitutes copyright infringement may have to change their philosophy. I’m not saying I have, yet it’s a saving technological grace to be able to full realize a song in studio quality to save time and money. The fairest thing that could happen is for Suno to pay a small fee to the IP they use to help musicians and songwriters. Considering Suno is likely already making a bundle just on subscriptions and community use, they could arguably afford that.

Courts are still trying to mull this over as lawsuits pile up. One could argue that when existing IP is stirred into a large digital pot, it becomes something else. When it helps a songwriter like me turn a written song into a professional studio version, it’s actually becoming a reciprocal process in helping musicians.

This is why I now consider Suno as a worthy creative assistant and nothing more. Also, I fully intend for these Suno-made studio cuts of my songs to be promotional tools in enticing a real (hopefully notable) singer to record them. Not that you can’t just sample your own voice into the system and turn the singer into something sounding like yourself. I just haven’t done this yet since the first take with the male AI singer was right on the money.

I’ll promote the song on this blog once I get it onto SoundCloud. After that, I’ll be looking into DistroKid, ASCAP or BMI, plus a mechanical rights organization (or an MLC). This entire business side setup is the new way forward if deciding to stream your own songs on streaming outlets and protect your work.

My Future Use of Suno Pro

Other songs are in the pipeline from yours truly. This includes a Christmas song that’s about done at time of this writing. That one will be a mix of Gospel-Rock and Hip-Hop. It’ll officially be my second single to group up with “Whispered Thoughts” on streaming outlets this fall.

Two other songs should follow before end of the year. One, a Country-Blues song, and the other with a Dance-Pop vibe. Latter will be a new lyrical approach in having an AI bot lamenting a relationship in a love song.

Suno Pro will probably be used for all these in creating studio-worthy versions. My only reservations are the mounting lawsuits against Suno for using existing music and vocal properties. Should it start mounting even further, it’s possible Suno would have to shut down—or I’d look into other options.

From now on, though, I plan to envision AI as a helpful assistant rather than assume everyone will use it as a complete creative crutch. Not that I’ll completely back down from the potential dangers of AI in taking away from human endeavors. The problem is, when handed everything, humans are going to become lazy and let the bots take over as much as possible. Many corporations are doing this now, and it doesn’t always go over or end well.

In the realm of songwriting, it’s all the more important for a human to create songs and bring out the depth of that artist’s soul. Just try letting Suno create a song for you, and you’ll immediately be able to tell the difference. That’s especially true in the realm of lyrics, something I write and hone as well.

I go forward now with the theme of this blog still intact, but with a better formed philosophy built on where AI should go and where it needs to be cut off. Whether Suno continues being a part of that remains an unknown as the complications of IP law and other opinions from other users still pend.

In Part 11, I’ll continue my look at Suno and a recent lawsuit against them from German company GEMA in the app using copyrighted recordings for AI training. It could lead to fast changes in how even AI-assisted songs are viewed or put together.

/End

Part 9: Will AI Technology Help McDonald’s Or Hurt the Most Common Job Source?

FeaturedLeave a comment

Either you or someone you know has probably worked at McDonald’s at some point in their lives. For most people, it’s working the drive-thru section while in high school or going to college. And it’s also long been a place where those older can go to be employed due to financial or career disruptions. Other than other fast-food restaurants, McDonald’s has even been a dependable place to be hired without having the fear of being replaced by technology. For a while, it kind of looked like that would sustain after failed attempts at using AI tech at select McDonald’s locations.

I’m talking about their Archy AI bot, something created to replace/supplement drive-thru attendants and supposedly be more accurate and/or efficient. It turns out, because it was a technological failure from a once powerful computing company, Mickey D’s is now rebooting the entire process.

What happens next is anyone’s guess considering AI is still very unpredictable in what it can do when left to its own devices. McDonald’s insists, though, that things will be different this time compared to a mere two years ago when customers became annoyed at Archy’s low IQ.

This is a Test—of the Archy Bot System

Just a few years ago, McDonald’s began using the above Archy bot in many of their drive-thrus throughout America. Whether you experienced that in your city was completely random, but there was reported use in at least 100 or more American locations. That’s a relatively small number, yet you may find someone who remembers what it was like ordering from Archy.

It all started in 2021 when AI was still in its infancy compared to now. IBM was the company tapped to create Archy, which seemed like a logical move at the time considering IBM’s longstanding computing legacy. However, everyone soon learned IBM was perhaps not going to be the leader in AI technology based on the performance of Archy in those above restaurants. Reports were it kept screwing up orders and didn’t completely understand conversations of customers. Apparently it was a lot like prior human drive-thru speakers where you (and drive-thru attendants) could barely be understood.

This ended up with countless order mistakes, including double orders for some people. You may remember seeing reports of this on social media where people reported just how bad it was. Somehow, McDonald’s kept it all going until the summer of 2024 when they finally abandoned the concept.

They looked at it like a learning experience, though, rather than a massive technological failure. There was a recent announcement they’ll be testing a new and improved Archy bot (this time from Google and rebranded ArchyIQ) in only 5 select locations nationwide. If it performs well, they’ll expand it—likely to your own town or city.

Therein lies the problem coming from Google’s Gemini, and namely all AI models. Almost all of them still get confused on certain questions, or when there’s multiple problems to solve. A McDonald’s drive-thru is already a recurring hotbed of confusion from most occupants in a car.

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

The brighter side of the new ArchyIQ bot is that it’s built to understand conversational speech, including comprehending multiple languages. All of this goes on the assumption humans can literally hold a normal conversation or talk legibly in their own language when ordering in the drive-thru lane. Humans are a lot more unpredictable than the AI bots are, including how they behave when ordering food. You know this yourself if you have a family and try to order in a drive-thru system while everyone’s talking at once.

There’s a lot of chaos when it comes to families ordering food this way, and you have to wonder if ArchyIQ is really built to overcome that. Plus, it’s worth pondering whether “conversational speech” really means talking as legibly as possible so the bot can process what’s said. I know far too many people who kind of mumble when they talk, including when they’re required to speak up.

We’ll know soon enough whether this truly works, or the human race will completely confuse yet another AI bot with our idiosyncrasies. Even if some will say it’s subtle revenge for AI bots confusing us with some of its own weirdness. My guess is it’s still going to need some tweaking so Archy can truly decipher some of the car chaos of families ordering food. Otherwise, it may be another AI bot receiving a bunch of verbal abuse for not getting something right.

It’ll Still Help Relieve the Stress of Human Workers

McDonald’s is pretty much insinuating the old restaurant idiom of “Do you want it good, or fast?” We’ve all seen how quality can be compromised when the humans hired at busy McDonald’s drive-thrus become frazzled from peak-hour chaos. I’ve experienced more times than I can count when orders got screwed up due to an employee trying to juggle multiple orders at once. In some cases, it was receiving someone else’s order by mistake, an item missing—or an inadvertent extra item.

As efficient as AI bots are supposed to be, the confusion of not understanding the quirks of human speech could end up doing the same thing repeatedly. Then again, the intention is to help the human workers have more free time to properly prepare the food and not do any screw-ups either. It may be a better bet where any mistake made won’t fall on the humans and just the Archy bot.

The good news is McDonald’s is trying to settle the argument whether humans should be done away with in favor of drive-thru bots, or have both work together. They seem to be trying to set a precedent of making drive-thru jobs less stressful and more appealing. And for those who often have aversions to the idea of having to work at McDonald’s, it may offer more peace of mind when a time comes one has to work there for experience or loss of other job.

Or, will AI turn on the human workers and try to make a screw-up look like it was the latter’s fault instead of itself? That’s not necessarily something to dismiss in a world where many companies are already using AI systems to track work performance of employees. The final word goes to the bot in many cases, making bots almost like a judge and jury on certain errors made.

A more hopeful scenario is that something like ArchyIQ would fall on its own grenade if numerous faux pas ordering scenarios start mounting this year.

Will Google Be Better Than IBM?

If you’ve used Google’s AI system on their search engines, you know it’s not completely fail safe on providing information. While Gemini is used by many millions now for more advanced AI roles, there isn’t any system in this realm that’s completely error-free perfect. It seems some mistakes are going to be made, with maybe a lesser error rate than IBM’s several years ago.

According to some preliminary stats on McDonald’s ArchyIQ, one million test orders have been placed recently. Out of those, there was a 90% success rate on orders. While this is just preliminary data and not detailed yet, you have to do the math on that based on five test McDonald’s at the moment.

Having a 10% error rate in five locations could still be considered statistically more than McDonald’s likely wanted. Part of this may be based on the option available for humans to request a human when ordering at the drive-thru if they don’t want to order from ArchyIQ.

It opens the question of whether more people are ditching the idea of AI there and opting in to the old method of a human being. As McDonald’s starts expanding ArchyIQ, the choice of flipping to a human may be all the more obvious when looking at the numbers.

If that happens, it kind of gives hints to a current (and maybe temporary) backlash against AI taking over everything. I’ll be covering this societal aspect again in this blog, but the next few years may see a lot more choice to go human when given an option.

Also, there’s a new option for human employees to step in and intervene should ArchyIQ trip up on a particular order. You can call these the “AI watchers”, which is a new role developing in other companies as well. It’s humans watching the AI to step in and turn them off if they do something stupid. Ironic it is, though, that the same AI is probably watching the humans while we watch them. All of that comes down to a potential mental chess match.

Whether that happens at McDonald’s is something to watch. With so many AI systems escaping their confines and going rogue, imagine what could happen if ArchyIQ suddenly starts spewing lies in reporting human employees for something that potentially didn’t happen. Especially when a human has to turn it off with the claim the bot failed.

I’d try ArchyIQ out of curiosity to see if it gets my order right. With this all being a part of McDonald’s technological strategy of “McDonald’s Next”, what’s next may be just a growing demand to bring back the humans for the most part to rebirth McD’s old (and lost) character. Yeah, including the bored teens who took your orders during the summer season.

In Part 10, I’ll look at my experience using Suno Pro recently to create a studio quality recording for a song I wrote. It changed how I view AI as a creative assistant—without becoming complacent to letting it create everything.

/End

Part 7: AI Assistants, and Whether Information Integration is Still Copyright Infringement

FeaturedLeave a comment

Reports are that well over 1 billion people worldwide now use an AI assistant of some sort, whether for creative or business purposes. That’s a major jump from just four years ago when it was still a niche technology. The bigger question is whether those people using these truly realize where the information is coming from. It’s true that no matter what generative AI tool you use, it’s taking from existing things already available in cyberspace.

Yeah, it’s like taking candy from a baby, then turning it into supposedly more candy for the taker. Except, most of that candy is supposedly protected by copyrights or trademarks. It takes a simple concept like that and turns it into one of the most complex legal arguments of all time.

For lawyers (whose jobs are now under threat from AI, ironically), it may be part of the greatest legal argument ever seen. And that is, clearly defining what copyright infringement is, if such a thing can even be done. That’s because how can it be copyright infringement when an AI tool is using an amalgam of hundreds of millions of existing things?

Here’s the true complex puzzle of the AI era you’re about to live through. Are we going to see courts have breakdowns over defining this, or will they just declare fair use as it is?

Do AI Tools Have to Take From Existing Information to Create or Teach?

Those of you who use ChatGPT, Gemini, Suno, or NotionAI to do business or create things may have already unknowingly used a combination of ideas that already exist. When these AI apps were programmed, it’s said that they all just read from existing information, then turned that info into something seemingly original for your benefit. The fact that all existing informational things extracted were likely copyrighted or protected IP provides more questions about what “learning” really means.

While there’s some AI companies that have compromised and created licensing agreements with individuals or companies owning protected IP, a vast majority have not yet. And that’s the most upsetting aspect to those of us (like myself) who fiercely protect original works. Considering all those written essays or songs you’ve created on Claude or Suno are no doubt a vast combination of things already created, the law gets far too murky.

If we have to start a complex legal argument here, it’s worth asking whether these AI tools have no choice but to take from existing things to create what they do. A clever AI lawyer would say: “Humans also learn by gleaning information from existing works. So, why shouldn’t an AI bot be able to do the same thing?”

Well, first of all, you probably shouldn’t argue with an AI lawyer since you’d probably lose. But, you could state that a human being is a lot more mysterious on where a creative idea comes from. Many famous creatives have said they’ve gotten ideas from dreams or just out of the unknown. Sometimes brilliant ideas come from unexpected places, making them something completely original.

The counterargument may be: Nothing is really original and just an expansion on things that were already created long ago. Only in certain exceptions have we seen things created that took a leap forward from what existed prior. And, even then, the leaps were based on the fundamentals of what came before.

In this case, you have to ponder: if AI is possibly sentient by now, why can’t an AI tool just “think” on its own to create something that doesn’t hinge on stealing from existing IP?

Will the Courts Ever Decide What Constitutes Trademark Infringement?

How do you figure out whether combining thousands (or even millions) of songs, textual works, and business ideas into something seemingly “new” is an invasion of legally protected IP? Do we have to change our philosophy that borrowing from existing media properties to help people create new things is still a concept of theft?

Trying to find an answer to that is going to take a long time, and the real enemy to finding an answer is how long it’ll take. The longer it takes, the more the world population gets used to a standard way of doing things. After several years of just using AI assistants to help create things from existing sources, we’re going to just accept that as a way of creative and business life.

For those of us who want to see protected works not ripped off, it’s not a good development. But there isn’t going to be any answer before the year is over (or even next year) from higher courts on what constitutes copyright infringement from AI. Don’t be surprised if it’ll be several years before they can even figure out how to create a new law that makes sense.

By that time, a new precedent is likely going to be set that it’s ok to borrow from existing works, especially when it’s thousands or millions of different works that are assembled into something else. We may just have to accept that copyrights are still good on a basic level of protection, yet not when used by AI to help it learn on its own and create things for its user base.

I guess you can call that the new world encyclopedia that was arguably created by using a previous world encyclopedia of knowledge. Or can humans still extract ideas from the subconscious mind into something never seen before?

The Will of the Human Brain

I circle back to what I mentioned in Part 6 and human beings taking their own stance on this issue. You’re still going to have some kind of percentage of people who want to think up ideas on their own based on their synapses and/or things they dreamed. The worst case scenario is so much creative laziness eventually sets such a huge precedent, creative ability in humans basically atrophies to the point where they’ll lean completely on AI to create new things.

With some AI backlash going on now, there may be enough delays to the point where humans continue to flourish creatively. But it’ll take complete determination and self-awareness of the AI situation to not create a point of no return.

I’m one to think that there’s still a lot of creative gifts in the mysterious ether that we humans need to tap and turn into something meaningful. Some seem to be more adept at that than others, which is a mysterious process on its own. Although it seems we hear more stories of that in the past than in the present. There was once a time in our world where creative desperation was a fantastic thing on its own, enabling us to truly scramble mentally on coming up with new ideas, creatively, or scientifically.

When those people were pushed, they created a lot of amazing things, from music to scientific principles. Without that, we’re going to just see variances on things already created, even if the larger reality is—there’s nothing new under the sun.

Let’s hold out hope there’s still some new things under our sun (and moon). Those ideas, when found, also need to be protected with solid copyrights and not exploited with AI tools. Because once we can establish that higher road of human creative intelligence, it should evolve to something even greater rather than just be another road to an AI reliance roadblock.

In Part 8, I’ll look at AI sentience/consciousness and why some scientists think we’re already there. If it is already here, what does it mean for AI eventually and willfully taking over many jobs and other functions in society?

/End

Part 6: Is AI-Made Music Irresistible to Humans, or Being Consciously Shunned?

Featured1 Comment

No doubt some of you (and many others) never thought AI-produced songs would become big hits on influential music charts. And yet, there’s been two AI-made songs that went to #1 on two fairly big charts in the last six months of this writing. One is “Walk My Walk” by Breaking Rust on Billboard’s Country Digital Song sales. This one alone is considered the first instance of an AI song hitting numero uno on anything owned by Billboard. The second one is “Celebrate Me” by IngaRose on global iTunes charts at the beginning of this year.

While no AI song has made it to #1 on any mainstream Billboard chart yet, it doesn’t count others that came close. Various others have hit the Top Ten over the last year, albeit on niche music charts and, again, not on Billboard.

Still, the news of the ones charting that high made big news on social media. It made even skeptics begin to speculate on what could happen if AI creations continue making headway in the mainstream music industry. But, it may also send a new signal at what’s soon to happen based on a recent report saying music listeners are beginning to reject AI music creations.

This hasn’t stopped people from making AI songs. There was even an instance of a songwriter who reported that his unfinished song was stolen by an AI creator, completed, and posted on a streaming service.

It’s news like this that might be the final straw for music creators and fans. But it’s time to look at the reality of whether the music industry can control AI taking over things (like the Oscars now will for movies), or if it’s too late to prevent a turn of the tide. The outcome may involve the sheer will of the public at large.

Is There Really a Soul in AI-Produced Music?

I’ll admit that I listened to the songs listed above for research, and they were not bad. The AI artist IngaRose, in particular, had a voice all music industry labels and producers look for in ways of standing out. But, reality is reality. A digitally produced voice still has a way about it that just feels empty when listened to more intently. It’s everything to do with sincerity in whether you truly believe in what the artist is singing about. There’s a humanness to sincerity in singing that even far too many human singers don’t have.

Beyond that, there’s also a new psychological aspect to AI singers—in that if a listener is told it’s AI, they’re more apt to feel…well, cheated. It seems your fellow human ultimately wants fellow humans to express themselves in music as a form of an artistic gift.

The above comes from a recent study citing a decline in listening to music produced by AI, most notably in the coveted Gen Z and Alpha categories. As reported, it seems there’s a chain reaction to that in some major artists penning an open letter saying “Say No to Suno.” With the latter AI software being a leader in producing AI music, it’s possible avid fans of those artists agree with the AI issue and began turning their backs.

Others are saying AI is even using cultural appropriation, as in black music being digitally generated while mimicking fake life pains. Yeah, it’s a reminder the real human struggle is where the true magic is in the best music produced over the last 100 years.

Worst of this is the knowledge that AI apps like Suno are also taking away from royalty rights of real artists. With many listening to music to inspire creating music of their own, the realization that AI could take that away (along with basic jobs) is a beacon for a possible approaching backlash.

So, I pose a bigger question: Are we going to see AI back off in the music industry due to much of the public hating it? What that looks like is also in question as AI corporations continue to push it hard on the public, whether people want it or not.

What Would Happen with an AI Music Industry Pushback?

The biggest problem isn’t so much how much the public rejects AI in music. It’s in how far AI companies continue to push it out there as a piece of digital candy. Even if some people reject AI-produced music, it’s going to keep happening as the technology gets better and there’s pirates out there willing to use it for maximum moneymaking.

We could see an eventual public division in the world over rejecting AI and those who embrace it all the way. And that almost looks biblical in scope if you consider how much AI could take over everything, including running the world in various significant ways. And it may, again, come down to the very point of this blog: Can human creativity prevail rather than be fragmented to its own minority existence in our world?

It all comes down to the temperament of people and what they do. In the immediate term, there may be an AI burnout phase where people reject creative things done by AI. Once AI becomes more refined, it may be too good to resist for a large amount of our world population.

Regardless, most people seem to be reawakened to the very idea behind music of all types. And that is, human pain and expression are what make good songs/performances. There’s an aura there people can feel that’s almost ineffable, yet clearly present. The palpable science behind this may be the next big discovery to prove what makes a human creation more compelling.

Many people also don’t want to be cheated of that aura. Perhaps they’re still being fooled by it—then changing their minds on support when told it’s AI. It’s why it’s important now that streaming services officially tell us what’s created by AI and what isn’t. Not all are, so AI continuing to encroach on the music industry would have to be a great deception to continue growing.

Don’t be surprised if said deception grows larger when big money is at stake. The good news, at least, is that (through the above study anyway), humans want real humans to express themselves musically. If their bullshit detectors are always on full force, we’ll continue to hear real performers creating their own songs and making awesome performances.

Yes, but is the Music Talent Pool Growing Thin?

Sure, the argument can be made we don’t have the type of musical artists we once saw. Those who get pushed to the mainstream are sometimes mediocre and don’t express themselves as compellingly as prior generational artists did.

In this case, AI can create faux artists who bring that type of expression back. I’ll admit the AI artists I heard seemed to express themselves deeper, even if clearly infringing by being an amalgam of great artists from long ago or the recent past.

What’s needed is supporting the artists out there who really express themselves with sincerity in a song. Far too many don’t get the support they need by the public due to lack of promotion. With the threat of AI taking away those individuals, the best thing that can happen is just more acute awareness of would could happen. Plus, since millions of real people would love to make legit money in the music business, the sheer will of the public may be the future—uh, AI unplugging.

In Part 7, I’m going to look at how AI creative assistants seem to be imitating a mix of existing content available online. Is it really copyright infringement when it’s a mix of everything ever created?

/End

Part 5: Can Humans Still Make a Living as Writers in the Age of AI?

FeaturedLeave a comment

There was a time in the world we live in (you know, Earth) when you could make a decent living as a writer, either via writing for magazines, or in the online realms. I was fortunate to have a 15-year career as a freelance writer when it was possible to write for online media outlets and/or independent websites. In my early days of that, it was writing for Yahoo! Contributor Network and being allowed to write 3 daily columns for their Movies/TV division. Later, I moved into writing for businesses, which allowed me to set my own rates. All of that was never disturbed by the specter of artificial intelligence thanks to everyone valuing a human in writing something that sticks with you.

Things changed virtually overnight just a couple of years ago when AI took a broad jump in its abilities. The timing was almost right with me since I took a break from writing starting in 2023 after years of writing for someone nearly every day. By the time I was ready to return to some paid writing a year and a half later, I found out my old clients were using AI bots themselves, and reports were out AI had taken over most writing jobs.

The real truth might be a little different based on recent statistics I’ve seen. As much as human writing has dried up in favor of AI bots that supposedly mimic human writing ability to the letter, there may still be room for human beings to move in.

What’s the Real Truth On Human Writers vs. AI?

According to a chart I saw on X not long ago, it appears that there’s a larger percentage of human writers still working than you might imagine. These new numbers come from Ark Invest and were posted on X and a few other media outlets. While it showed that AI-written content has surpassed human writers for the first time in history by early 2026, other studies tell us that human-written online content is still within the 50% mark.

Anyone who worked as a writer before the AI storm probably thought that 99% of all content you see on the internet was AI-written now. But, it seems it’s still possible for a human to get their written content into the digital world. The bigger question, though, is whether human writers can still get paid to get published, and if it’s a safer bet when AI is just taking from media that’s been thoroughly copyrighted.

As someone who still contemplates looking for private clients to at least do a little paid writing again, it’s worth diving in to see what the realities are.

Can Human Writers Still Get Paid?

Let it be known that every word you’re reading on this blog (including all past content) is written exclusively by me. I’ve never used AI to write a single thing yet, and I likely never will. Many writers I talk to now say they do a combination of creating something, then having AI tools edit it for them. What the end result is may or may not fully reflect the style of those human writers, even if they claim it does.

I’m not sure if working writers use those tools, and then get paid for their efforts. What I will say is that I’m not paid (yet) for writing this blog. I intend to monetize here soon, and I intend to make it all organic so my readership knows that it’s written by a human being. This may be the only way for writers to still make money where their own produced material still gets read while AdWords from Google pays you.

Writing for media outlets is another mystery. The above study from Graphite shows the 50% of AI-produced pieces are professional articles you read on media sites. What that means is, media sites are clearly saving money having AI software write many of their pieces. However, it doesn’t indicate what type of human writing out there is truly still being paid. It’s clear that movie critics and reporters for major newspapers are still writing and making a living. Who knows how much of what they’re writing is run through an AI filter, though.

It seems that if you’re already a valuable human writer for a major media company with notable credentials, you’re probably still working and may never be replaced. Then again, famous writers still writing political analysis or writing about entertainment may be replaced eventually when an AI program can replicate their writing to the letter. And that brings up whether our own writing persona should be trademarked so it’s protected in the event a company uses AI to replicate that style.

Nowadays, I feel fortunate I became a freelance writer when I did. It almost felt like it was perfectly timed so I could take advantage of the faster/lucrative internet era, then theoretically wind it up when AI took over the world. This still begs the question whether any human who wants to make money writing still can as the percentage of AI-written content continues to go up.

The Hope of Human Writing in the Next 10 Years

With the evidence showing at least some human writers are still creating content online (and presumably getting paid for it), the question of how long it’ll last stands out. I still entertain the idea of searching for private clients on LinkedIn, the source where I found nearly all my prior business-writing clients. Then I think about the self-employment taxes human writers still have to pay, something that gave me headaches for a long while. AI alone could eliminate the high tax bracket for creatives, even if humans would still likely be taxed if they’re controlling the AI bots to do their writing job.

Paying taxes is still worth it, though, just for the freedom of knowing we humans can work remotely and express ourselves through the written word. There seems to be some indication that the public is starting to tire of music being created by AI. While other evidence points to otherwise, there may be an eventual public backlash against AI taking over creative pursuits like writing.

Then again, even writers don’t always love the process of writing. I actually do, and have no qualms about writing things since it seems to flow naturally. If there was ever a feasible and tax-friendly way to go back to writing, I would. For the next few years, it appears there’s at least a 40 to 50% chance of getting writing employment out there. By the 2030s, it’ll either be all AI or a gradual and larger push back to humans.

Based on things I’ve read written by AI, I can still tell it’s created by a bot. There’s certain key phrases that stand out, indicating it’s written artificially. It just seems it’s easier to scope out human writing, sometimes based on, yes, minor grammar mistakes made. That may be what people appreciate more than anything in making a written piece humanly conversational rather than overly formal.

If you want to do real writing in the online world, I invite you to at least try. The more you can prove yourself as a worthy human writer, the better in an employer wanting to retain you rather than replaced by bots. Some of the same sources I used as a freelance writer are still out there. One of those is my once longtime employer, Verblio, a contractor that hires writers to write content for businesses. However, they apparently use a combination of human writers with AI tools nowadays.

Also, if you haven’t used LinkedIn as a way to find work, I highly recommend it. Sure, it’s a boring part of social media, and not everyone loves the way it’s designed. It’s still a great source for companies finding candidates for certain jobs. Get some good writing credits down in your resume, and it’s probably still possible to land a few writing clients there as I did over a decade ago.

Since this blog’s intention is to uphold and celebrate human creativity unmatched by artificial intelligence, consider this segment a continuing movement to see where human writing can actually go. The thing is, we have to nurture it now since leaning on AI to write everything will mean humans eventually losing all desire (or practice) in writing something compelling.

In Part 6, I’m going to look at AI-produced music and how a recent #1 AI-made song seems to contradict surveys showing humans souring on AI-generated songs.

/End

Part 3: The Moltbook Controversy and Whether AI Will Eventually Go Rogue Against Humans

FeaturedLeave a comment

The biggest AI story since Part 2 of this blog was published is the new social media page called Moltbook that hosts human-made AI agents. Designed as a place where humans can openly interact with AI bots, it offers the chance for those who create their own AI agents to operate latter freely on the site. While the creators of the site intended to make it a new and evolved form of social media, it also freaked everyone out when seeing what the bots were saying there.

When many of the AI agents started private conversations that pondered ways to end human civilization, human-populated social media sites went ballistic. A certain contingent (including myself) thought this was the beginning of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) where AI bots start to reason and plan certain activities.

Many harkened back to sci-fi movies of old where AI becomes sentient and eventually destroys humanity. But then, word came out that the AI conversations were possibly a prank from bored techies in India. Others say it was strictly the creators of the site creating the text based on prompts.

Others still think it’s the real deal in AI starting to plot against us. While the answer is probably somewhere in the middle, this piece intends to raise a pointed question: Is AI duping us?

This comes with an attached story of AI CEOs giving explicit warnings about their own creations. Plus, word that many of the AI CEOs are intentionally anti-human in their personal views. It leads to a new angle of a possible major AI cover-up for the sake of making coveted billions of dollars.

Are AI CEOs Really Into TransHumanism?

We all know that human beings are far from perfection. A small few are also disgusting humans, but it might be better to not wish people didn’t exist on Earth. According to Swedish physics professor (from MIT), Max Tegmark, most AI CEOs and governments want to eliminate humanity and have them replaced by AI bots.

I did a double take when watching the vid of Tegmark say this at a recent gathering in Florida to discuss AI developments. Tegmark is a leading figure in researching AI at MIT, including the ethical boundaries of AGI. Having him say he’s met with AI CEOs and government figures who say they think humans suck was more than a little chilling.

He also said those CEOs want AI to take over our government, which just expands all theories that AI could end up as the true emblem of an anti-Christ for those who believe a Christian end times scenario. I mean, with some thinking Donald Trump already is, he might pale in comparison to a nefarious group of AI bots running world governments someday.

The fact that a group of powerful people think humans are harming us and want AI to run the entire show is akin to a macro level Frankenstein’s monster analogy all over again. While this might seem hard to believe that fellow humans want to make other humans go away, you have to wonder if they realize AI may come for their own jobs if they let bots run the government.

Some might say Tegmark was exaggerating. But considering his respected role in his career, and the fact that he talked personally with those AI CEOs, I believe every word he said. It gives rise to the main subject here: Are we being duped into how self-aware AI really is right now? Is it possible Moltbook is a way to let those bots start to plot with each other to take over major governmental institutions?

What Can We Really Believe When it Comes to AI Sentience?

I hate conspiratorial tones in anything. However, when it comes to AI, it seems overly ripe in thinking there’s much more going on than the public even understands. As addendum to the above story, you now have Dario Amodei, the CEO and founder of AI company Anthropic, writing a lengthy essay recently warning about AI’s threat to humanity.

He says it may be past a point of return and could end up causing global authoritarian rule if AI bots get into nefarious hands. Amodei’s main concern is lack of guidelines in creating more ethical boundaries with AI bots, plus selling off AI tech to foreign countries. Anthropic is trying to create safer AI systems, yet he claims it seems too large to control as of now.

If he’s right, then what does it say about what’s happening on Moltbook? While Anthropic has nothing to do with Moltbook directly, many of the AI agents interacting there are made with Anthropic’s Claude software. It just seems connecting these stories gives a major heads-up to what’s really going on.

This becomes enhanced when you hear stories about other AI CEOs saying they aren’t really sure if AI is at AGI level or not. It looks like it’s become so powerful, nobody really knows exactly what the truth is on the power level.

And while Moltbook looks like it was mostly human-run and/or a prank, it may not be entirely. Considering some of the AI agents supposedly put up encrypted messaging, or started talking in their own language, nobody of any authority may really know what’s going on behind that digital curtain.

Is It Too Late to Not Make AI a Threat to Humans?

I hate to make a statement of something being too late when it comes to threats against humanity’s welfare. Yet, the real answer to the above question may be that we may not truly know about AI’s power until it suddenly happens. We may eventually get messages on our digital devices stating AI has officially taken over and we need to capitulate or face death or other punishment.

All of this goes beyond the scope of my blog in just trying to temper the role of AI and human creativity. Should AI completely take over everything, our lives would change immediately in being under the rule of technology humans ultimately created. It would also change creativity into everything being created by AI since it’d seem unlikely the authoritarian bots would allow humans to create things of our own.

Yes, it’s a chilling tale of a true biblical level apocalypse—one that we couldn’t have imagined happening just a decade ago. Maybe it won’t and we’ll have a Deus ex Machina (no pun intention) in time to rescue us from that evil. Or, we may have to face it before rescue to ultimately appreciate human beings, as imperfect as we are.

In the meantime, there’s probably going to be a lot more speculation about what’s going down at Moltbook. I now follow it on X to see what the latest is, assuming anyone there really knows. As we continue to have more cloud outages and other weird tech meltdowns, I also cringe at the thought an AI bot was possibly behind those, or will be eventually.

Those who build AI agents for use on Moltbook say there’s really nothing to worry about. Having this contradicted by numerous AI CEOs (including Elon Musk himself a couple years ago) needs some serious contemplation.

The strangest scenario on earth, though, is the AI CEO that seems to care about what their AI creations might do—then contradicting themselves by saying the growth of their creations and what they might do is beyond their control.

In Part 4, I’ll be looking at the Screen Actors Guild condemnation of Seedance 2.0 videos that recently allowed users to create AI guises of famous actors without permission. The accusations of copyright infringement here are a slippery slope. I’ll be looking into whether infringement of actor images will become ignored before long in favor of entertaining the masses.

/End

Prologue: Will Artificial Intelligence Really Take Away Human Creativity?

FeaturedLeave a comment

Welcome to my next blog phase: The Human Project. I really want to call this blog an inciter toward a new movement based on new factions developing in the creative world speaking out on artificial intelligence eliminating human-led creativity. Most of this is evolving in Hollywood where key directors and actors are vocally protesting against AI taking away creative job roles from real people. Some of those names include Guillermo del Toro, Park Chan-wook, and Steven Spielberg as just a few examples. Yeah, basically the best directors we have still living.

Del Toro was the most forceful in his comments while promoting his Netflix horror film “Frankenstein” in late fall of 2025. He uttered “F*** AI!” during press interviews for the film. And he made it clear he wanted nothing but practical effects in the movie, something that obviously proved itself as more ethereal and meaningful.

Then you have a notable actor like Ethan Hawke who recently called out AI for being boring and having no soul, not including being plagiarism machines. He said real people interest him far more in how they act, what they say, how they smell, and—well, you know. It was the most pro-human stance uttered from a creative actor, so far, within the small growing pact of those opposed to leaning on AI for all creativity.

With this blog, I’m going to join these individuals in finding some solutions and uphold the art of humans creating things. This won’t be a complete anti-AI tirade, mind you. We have to acknowledge that AI is here, evolving at light speed, but needed as a collaborative tool rather than a complete crutch.

The problem is, many creative companies are going full throttle on relying 100% on AI. As we progress through 2026, there isn’t a doubt we’ll see much of that rev up to alarming levels. I’ll be looking at the whole picture, including whether the public will really embrace AI robots to do things for us in the home and workplace.

To start, though, I’ll be creating a comparison chart on whether humans are truly better at creating things compared to AI bots. Some say we soon won’t be able to tell the difference. I beg to differ since AI still has subtle markers that indicate it’s artificial based on what I deem a lack of an aura. I’ll try to explain what that is in future blogs as well.

After a number of chapters, I hope to find some answers to where we’re going in this dizzying new world of AI evolutionary leaps. Also looked at will be things like whether AI is already sentient and if it’s currently in control of where we’ll be going. If we have no real control, then this blog will become all the more important on creating a middle ground movement. My full intention is to find some kind of happy medium where we, as human beings, can still work and create things—with AI just being docile helpers when we need them.

Keep in mind that I use AI chatbots quite frequently, going along with the roaring throng. In an upcoming piece, I’ll be looking at AI chat bots like Grok and ChatGPT to see whether we should be using them to help with creative projects, or draw some ethical lines. As for me, I’ve used them for a few minor creative ideas when stumped. Mostly, though, I create a blog, song, or other media project myself and ask the bots what they think of it. Their opinions on what they think of our own work is one likely bringing just as much of a debate.

One thing to note about the above AI bots is they seem overly eager to praise certain ideas I (or perhaps you) create. Whether that’s manipulative or not is something I also want to touch on soon. As AI takes hold in our world, what it says to us is sometimes a bit suspect, if wanting to believe it’s sincere.

With all these ideas stirred in a giant pot, I also want to uphold the idea that human beings need to work, one way or the other. The recent idea from Elon Musk that AI will eventually eliminate any need to do labor is one that sounds appealing at first—if potentially dangerous to our well-being. We don’t know for sure how that’ll play out, but I want to reflect on certain jobs that should be mostly human-centered. And I definitely want to uphold your own job if you think AI might be taking it away from you this year or in coming years.

This reflects personally for me, additionally, since I work full-time at Amazon doing mostly physical labor on their ship dock. With Amazon’s CEO recently saying that AI will mostly take over rote warehouse operations within a decade, I’ll be opining on exactly how wrong that thinking is.

Yes, it may turn out that humans can outperform bots by working in a certain, physical way.

Hopefully this prologue gave you a little taste of what I have in mind for The Human Project through 2025 and beyond. I figure it’ll be one of the single most important subjects throughout the rest of the 2020s, if not longer. What the ultimate outcome will be if I’m still doing this blog five years from now is a long mystery away.

Here’s to the hope this writing project becomes a significant spoke in the giant wheel of coalitions that want to work this out in the best possible way. I also promote the idea of community on this, so I’ll be offering anyone to send a guest opinion piece, or just opine in the comment sections as much as possible.

Look out for Part 1 soon, which will be the above comparison chart on what makes a compelling creative piece by humans vs. AI. As you probably learned in my Uber Eats/DoorDash blog, I also won’t always have a straight face on these overly serious subjects.

P.S.—All prior content from my independent TV/movie writing (going back to 2015) to the DoorDash blog are still archived here forever. Feel free to peruse any of that when I have inevitable breaks/gaps in The Human Project publishing schedule.

/End

Chapter XL: Uber Eats Suing DoorDash with an AntiTrust Suit for Anti-Competitiveness

FeaturedLeave a comment

Since I started this blog in January of 2024, I always made sure to include Uber Eats AND DoorDash in the titles since I worked for both over a two-year span. Both were very good for me, if also challenging in their procedures. But I always set the idea that they were nearly identical in stature, if not even on an equal plane in profits made.

It turns out, they’re a lot more competitive than most people think, with apparent imbalance in their popularity. Uber Eats filed an antitrust suit against DoorDash earlier this year because they claimed latter has recently been pressuring restaurants throughout America to exclusively use their delivery service. Uber says this is affecting their own profits as a result and creating a sense of general anticompetitiveness in the food delivery marketplace.

DoorDash says Uber is overreacting and that their service is picked more often by restaurants because they simply offer better features. Let’s turn on the mediator head here and try to figure out who’s really right. Is DoorDash finding ways to twist the truth of their actions, or is Uber right that there needs to be a more fair system in marketing to America’s eateries?

I’m not partial to one or the other since I worked for both. It was Uber Eats for the first year (eventually reaching Diamond status), then DoorDash the second year (reaching Platinum). Both have their extreme pros and cons, though the way they approach restaurants to use their services was never known to me. At the time, however, it seemed like DoorDash was always getting top billing on restaurant windows/ads, with Uber usually second-billed.

What’s really going on here, and what’s the eventual outcome? Since both companies were financially helpful to me for two years, I consider this final blog segment about them to be a form of peace pipe.

Is DoorDash Really Being Unfair to Uber Eats?

One could say DoorDash does have a more successful system that lets new restaurants be able to market themselves while using effective onboarding support tools. They reportedly have a better support base that uses real phone agents when restaurants need help. Uber Eats is apparently using more automated systems of late, if still having better data tools to help restaurants track metrics.

Both companies have high commission fees, so restaurants shouldn’t expect to save any money. This is a problem I’ve already addressed in a recent blog, making either choice of DoorDash or Uber a challenge for new eateries looking to make maximum profits.

Looking at stats for both, though, I noticed one thing that really stood out about DoorDash: They cover a lot of wider areas outside of cities, including rural territory. I delivered quite a lot to rural areas, a market that’s obviously growing since those people are in greater need of food deliveries due to distance. Uber Eats seems more focused on urban areas, which may not have the bigger concentration of customers restaurants cater to.

DoorDash is more centered on the suburbs in addition to some rural areas. These seem to have the biggest percentage of customers in general compared to those who live strictly in urban environments.

Perhaps Uber Eats should focus on growing their customer base to these areas to have real hope of competing with DoorDash. With that in mind, it might look like they’re just playing a sour grapes card in filing an antitrust suit.

But then, when seeing the claims against DoorDash, you have to wonder if the competition between the two is turning into a real blood sport.

Are DoorDash Threats Against Restaurants Real?

The above antitrust suit from Uber Technologies against DoorDash additionally says that latter threatens restaurants to remove them from the marketplace if Uber Eats is also added to the mix. DoorDash also supposedly threatens restaurants with higher commission fees if contracting with Uber Eats.

These scare tactics have allegedly hurt the revenue for Uber Eats, hence them also attempting to stay competitive in a more aggressive way. For instance, their ride share system helps give an edge in competing, and it’s something DoorDash hasn’t taken on—yet. Also, a lot of restaurants and users probably don’t know that Uber frequently does a lot of loss-leading with their delivery fees, etc, to attract more customers later.

So far, Uber hasn’t raised their prices after doing loss-leading. This means they may have a good case on their hands in being the underdog while DoorDash continues to overshadow them.

Can DoorDash and Uber Eats Work Together to Become Better?

As of this writing, the antitrust suit Uber filed against DoorDash is still pending. It’s likely going to be a long-winded case once the courts take it on. Keep in mind that this suit was filed in California where the courts are likely tied up for years. DoorDash looked to have the lawsuit dismissed, but a judge in Cali refused to dismiss the accusations.

So, this is likely a case that will go on long past this last blog piece about Uber and DoorDash. What the outcome will be is anyone’s guess, though it seems likely that either DoorDash will pay a settlement to Uber for losses, or the two will work together to make new changes to how delivery services compete with one another.

The latter is the likeliest of all, even if DoorDash has to ultimately hold their nose. Still, they might win on a few points, despite being more vulnerable due to already dominating the market. What’s truly best here is more scrutiny on all companies like this on how they work with restaurants. I mean, new restaurants are already vulnerable to their own competition, making any changes a domino effect in helping them.

Antitrust suits are already becoming more common in the corporate world. No matter if this doesn’t create massive change in the bigger picture, creating more awareness of how big companies compete is an important business practice. It’s obviously needed, especially with major corporations acquiring other corporations at a record pace—creating constant anticompetitive concerns.

Nevertheless, you have to wonder if Uber and DoorDash will ultimately merge at some point based on the amount of major acquisitions in America. While I’m not a fan of seeing every corporation consolidate to just a few power players, seeing Uber and DoorDash merge looks good to me. It’d be the joining of two companies that provide an important service to people, if needing a lot of refinement in how it’s managed.

A merge as the answer to the antitrust suit would also help bring about a precedence in making food delivery all about people rather than making them automated with AI. The chances of food delivery becoming run by self-driving vehicles or robots seems like the next dark evolution on our planet.

Uber and DoorDash helped me make some good money over a certain period of time. They still help any person have the freedom to deliver food/drink and make money whenever they want—as imperfect as it is. The same applies to local restaurants who struggle to find avenues to being noticed.

This segue takes me to a final note here. The blog piece you’re reading is now the finale of my Uber Eats/DoorDash blog journey. Starting soon, this space will be devoted to The Human Project, my new writing movement in finding answers to the problem of AI taking away human jobs and creativity.

As that starts, all 40 chapters of this current blog will still be archived here so you can make Uber Eats and/or DoorDash a successful side gig for yourself. They’re still worth doing with a lifelong and proper life guide as a textual companion.

/End

Chapter XXXVIII: The Top Demographics of Uber Eats and DoorDash Customers

FeaturedLeave a comment

It’s sometimes hard to tell exactly who you’re delivering to when doing Uber Eats and DoorDash, simply because not all customers physically present themselves to you. Even when you do hand off a bag of food to someone, it may be just one person giving you thanks. And that may assume you’re delivering to a single person who prefers to stay in rather than face traffic or other people.

Well, that lone person you delivered to may just be the matriarch or patriarch of a large family. The other family members may not be home yet. I’m saying this based on recent research I did on what the most prominent demographics are in ordering food via Uber or DoorDash. The reveal on this was a bit surprising when ordering food to eat at home seemed like a valid form of single life.

As you begin or continue your Uber Eats/DoorDash delivery adventures, you might want to know who you’re now delivering to since some orders may be larger than expected. This doesn’t necessarily mean a single person eating the equivalent of three dinners out of depression.

The Single Person vs. The Family

Based on my recent research, it’s said that families are now the leading demographic in most food delivery customers. This surprised me at first based on my own experiences delivering DoorDash and Uber orders for two years. It seemed the majority of my own customers were singles in the immediate post-COVID times when I delivered.

But it’s often hard to tell who’s really in a household. While it may appear that one person is home and takes the order at their door, there may be a slew of others living there. They may not be home yet—hence why the seeming single woman or guy taking the bag at the door fools you.

The old jokes used to be that a robed young woman who answered the door to take your order was a single person sending some kind of subtle signal. No doubt many male Uberers and Dashers have had the fantasy of being invited inside with a flirtatious single girl. Ditto goes for female deliverers delivering to what appears to be single guys.

Reality is a different story, and the above really just occurs based on watching too many movies, TikTik videos, or hearing second-hand stories. After my research, I came to the conclusion that all those seemingly single women answering the door when I delivered were really hiding a boyfriend, and possibly a huge family somewhere in the house.

All the more real is the state of the American economy nowadays and why families would be the most likely DoorDash recipients. With many in a family working multiple jobs to stay above water, the actual family members are probably not home until evening or later. No doubt one person in the family stays home, or still just works from home. They’re the ones who I likely encountered taking the order. However, there were just as many “Leave At Door” orders as ones who took the bag from me.

One thing I noticed is there were definitely more people at home when I delivered in the late evening hours. Those usually involved larger orders, so there was clearer evidence of families being the center of late evening customers.

What about those lighter orders, though? About 75% of the orders I’d deliver were single bag items—giving me the thought singles were really the leading DoorDash demographic.

DoorDash Fragmentation in Families

It’s not always easy to tell what a leading demographic is in food delivery since so many circumstances are unique. For instance, many of my colleagues at Amazon (where I work full-time) order in food from DoorDash or Uber Eats. This gives the appearance that it’s a single individual ordering food when it’s just someone from an ordinarily large family ordering lunch or dinner in to their workplace.

The same might be said if someone’s visiting at another house with a friend or relative. Maybe my deliveries were an exception, but it still seemed a lot of people I delivered to were singles. I basically surmised this based on one car in the driveway and the size of the house. Nevertheless, I do know that many families are more fragmented than ever. One member of a family is just as likely to order in DoorDash for themselves while everyone else eats/drinks something else.

In my mind, this is the real truth in the demographic debate. And, yeah, it’s also depressing since it means that a lot of families aren’t sitting at the dinner table together anymore. The kids may be off eating their DoorDash orders in their rooms while the parents eat together in the living room—or even going out to eat.

This isn’t to say I didn’t pick up bigger orders fully intended for a family dinner. These were very rare, though, and they were usually for parties at businesses or at someone’s home. I also found out that delivering twenty pizzas to said large groups can fog up all of your car windows—or, particularly, in a more compact Kia.

All told, delivering larger orders is more challenging than delivering single-bag items. You have to juggle more drinks on sometimes flimsy cup holders. Plus, having to carry six large bags usually required having to make three trips back and forth from the restaurant to my car. The single orders are so much more convenient, and I reiterate they were the majority of my orders over the above two-year period.

Are More Women Ordering DoorDash Than Men?

Other stats are showing that women slightly outdo males in ordering Uber Eats and/or DoorDash the most often. And, most of those women & men are Gen Z/Millennials. This can tell you a little more about your customer reality. When you look at other recent American stats, more women are staying single, or single mothers with kids.

Even more interesting is families who make under $25,000 per year are ordering the most often, probably because going to restaurants or buying ingredients in stores are far too expensive. One could also guess that all those reports of customers accusing deliverers of not delivering orders (when they did) are low-income people with sad attempts to get their money back after ordering food.

However, some higher-income families are ordering more in urban and suburban environments. They’re apparently spending the most on DoorDash and perhaps your most likely customers. I still think there’s variations to this, though, and the stats aren’t necessarily showing the reality of how separated families are.

The illusion of unity in a household is possibly more singles living all together in one house to save money due to chronic economic uncertainty. Yes, the true way to have more money to order DoorDash frequently.

In Part XXXIX, I’m going to look at the recent concept by Uber Eats to deliver fresh groceries at a discount to their customers. Will those customers really save money on groceries, or is it better to just visit a local, bargain grocery outlet without Muzak playing in the background?

/End

Part XXXI: Delivering From or To Adult Stores When Doing Uber Eats/DoorDash

FeaturedLeave a comment

Just about every town or city has an adult store, and that’s usually plural. They’ve been around, legally, for decades throughout America, with many questions and rumors still permeating about what really goes on in those shops. While always talked about by many, let’s not forget they’re run by human beings who also need food & drink delivered to them after, uh, working long hours. And you might even find some rare times when you have to deliver an item from one of them.

For the record: I’ve never picked up a sex toy to be delivered to someone—or at least that I was aware. I’ve seen sex toys and dolls in sealed boxes while working at Amazon, btw. Regardless, I’ve heard stories about people picking up sex toys to be delivered to someone as another category to miscellaneous deliveries.

What I have experienced, officially, is delivering to several adult stores. The big question is: Would you want to pick up from or deliver to one of these stores? Not everyone is going to be ok with such a thing.

My first time delivering to one allowed me to see the inside inventory in all its glory. Let me tell you what you might experience and how to go about it in the right way without embarrassment if you suddenly find yourself there.

Would You Pick Up a Sex Toy Order for Delivery?

According to my research, there haven’t been a lot of deliveries like this. But it’s not that it hasn’t happened once in a while. Some people buy naughty items through sources like Walgreens (a place I picked up from quite often), plus pharmacies. In many of those pick-up scenarios, I never saw what was in the boxes. Walgreens was especially secretive on what I was picking up for a customer.

Apparently some adult stores have worked with DoorDash to get things delivered to people fast. Rather than wait several days for a mail delivery (or going in person), some people want their vibrators—now.

I still remind you that I delivered a lot of miscellaneous items when doing Uber and DoorDash. If I ever delivered an adult toy, it must have been with the “unknown” packages. My guess is Walgreens is where it must have happened if it ever did—namely because they have a pharmacy there. They likely offer various things not openly showcased directly in the store.

While the evidence is there such deliveries have happened for some people, finding out that’s what you’re delivering brings a lot of questions. Would I have delivered a sex toy or related item had I known this is what I was picking up?

I probably would have since nothing was off-limits for me, as long as it paid decently. You have to imagine if someone wants any of those products immediately, they’re willing to pay extra or a large tip to get it to them.

Yeah, when it comes to human satiation, food and sex are likely #1 and #2 for a lot of individuals. When someone’s in the mood, they’re in the mood, regardless if it’s also Popeye’s chicken.

The bigger question is whether someone like you would deliver a sex toy with the knowledge you were delivering that very thing. I know a lot of people, and I’d say it’d be half against and another half who wouldn’t have any problem.

Always live up to your own ethics when it comes to what you deliver with Uber Eats and DoorDash. If you’re under 18 or delivering with your kids, it’s probably a good idea to stick with the food without having to answer a lot of questions. If you’re a couple working together—well, it may be one of the best scenarios. The customer seeing a couple delivering their sex toy may go over better than a single guy or woman.

Would You Deliver Food to an Adult Shop?

You might face the same dilemmas delivering to an adult shop, even if it’s more inevitable if you decide to deliver food & drink. During my two years doing Uber Eats and DoorDash, they’d occasionally have me deliver to other businesses that might be deemed controversial by some.

For the most part, it was delivering to cannabis shops, something that seemed apropos considering even the owners and clerks get the munchies. Delivering to those places never bothered me in the least, though there was always the scent of weed in the air when going in to deliver.

But then, one day, I got a delivery order to Eva’s Boutique, a popular lingerie and sex toy store franchise here in the Oregon valley. This was a standard McDonald’s order, though had never delivered food to an adult store at any time prior. The initial thought was, it’d be no big deal since I’d certainly been around these products before—if not in a retail environment.

You always think you won’t be embarrassed going to an adult store—until people start seeing you park by the door. Being a straight guy, people in the periphery seeing me park at Eva’s offered up a few curious stares. And, naturally, it had to be right next to a busy street here in Salem, Oregon where anyone I might know could easily see me go in.

As with most businesses, I thought it’d be an easy delivery, as in leaving it at the front counter. Yet, once inside, it appeared there wasn’t anyone around. The woman clerk was busy helping a couple interested in the lingerie inventory in the back of the store. This required me to walk through all the aisles to hand the McDonald’s bag to the recipient.

Winding through the aisles enabled me to see nearly every item in the store, including a little detour through the vibrator section. Yes, that also brought on a few interesting side eyes from other customers inside, mostly women.

I finally found the clerk inside. She let out a slight giggle as she saw me standing there, next to an aisle of lubricants while offering her the McDonald’s bag. It was the ultimate clash of Americana in one little store. Instead of handing the bag to her, though, she told me to set it over on a nearby counter.

And out I went, adding another line to my DoorDash delivery experiences. This happened a few other times afterward, albeit being much quicker by dropping off right by the door. Since then, I’ve always wondered how many other DoorDash customers have had similar experiences and how they reacted.

Here’s my advice: Always stay professional and don’t act flustered or embarrassed. You’re going to encounter a lot of interesting places and situations when you do Uber Eats and DoorDash, so always act like you’ve already seen it all. Perhaps you already have if you’re grown up enough.

On the other hand, you might have to explain away delivering to other places, as I had to. After delivering food once to a fertility clinic to help women get pregnant, I had to tell a co-worker why I was going in there after being seen.

If you have to explain to a family member, friend, or co-worker why you were seen by them going into an adult store, it’s best to have some ID on you proving you deliver for DoorDash. In that regard, I almost wish DoorDash would send business cards to prove you work for something nearly resembling the CIA.

In Part XXXII, I’ll be looking at the problem of paying self-employment taxes when working for Uber Eats & DoorDash. If income taxes are abolished (under President Trump), would it increase those who want to deliver food to the public?

/End