Wine Conversations: Can AI Replace Somms? (III)

Can it? Probably. Should we let it? Hell, no (and not just for the somms' sakes).

Welcome to July’s Wine Conversations! You can find the first two parts of this discussion at Tannic Panic and Bright + Balanced. Long story short from both of those posts: human sensory experience is at the center of what makes wine enjoyable, meaningful, and connective, and therefore AI - which lacks that essential experiential element - can never fully replace the somms and other humans who dedicate themselves to communicating about wine and helping people find wines that match their preferences and contexts.

I can’t argue with that.

And yet, suddenly everyone is talking about the role of AI in the wine industry, and the assumption is that there is a role, because it’s already here, creating social media content, writing tasting notes, organizing wine tasting vacation itineraries, recommending pairings, and more. I’ve conducted a tasting in which I was discussing our wines in incredible detail and weaving in stories of the people and history behind what’s in the glass…while a guest asked GrapeGPT whether he was likely to enjoy the wines that were right in front of him. He didn’t even have to ask me; he could have asked himself! I’m not even going to try to be subtle about the fact that I am not a fan of this kind of behavior, regardless of what I may think about the technology that enables it.

Long before I was getting irked at people consulting Vivino rather than listening to the answer to the question they had just asked me, a live human standing in front of them with personal knowledge of the product they were considering, earlier forms of AI were grinding my gears in my previous vocation. I once came across a sermon published by another preacher and realized I had read these ideas and even many of these exact phrases before. After all, I wrote them. Was this person trying to plagiarize? To be honest, I don't think so. I don’t think he equated the results of his internet search with stealing someone else’s work. It came to him without a clear origin reference, and he’s not the only one who doesn’t think about the fact that web content isn’t spontaneously generated; it comes from somewhere and someone.

I ran into this phenomenon from the other side recently when a moment of white page panic (writer’s block) drove me to ask ChatGPT for some prompts and a suggested outline for the memoir I am trying to write. Let me tell you, it’s terrifying how much ChatGPT knows about winemaking and church trauma, and it even made a startlingly good stab at predicting how one might experience a redemptive arc by leaving religion and obsessing about wine.

The thing is, AI knows those things for a reason. It’s gathering data from human sources: researchers and creatives who have committed time, effort, and resources to putting ideas and information out into the world. Even when it is collecting multiple sources into a seemingly new creation, AI is essentially plagiarizing the work of humans, and that’s no different in wine than any other field. AI doesn’t have a mouth to feel the texture of a wine or a nose to smell it; it’s pulling those descriptors from banks of information originally created and collected by humans. Those tasting notes and the guiding concepts behind food pairings come from real people whose work and income is being stolen.

Nonetheless, we have to take AI seriously because the fact is, AI can do most of what people think they want somms to do. What’s more, AI does it all without the snobbery, intimidation, or gatekeeping many people associate with wine professionals. Human connection drew many of us into the industry, and I still believe that’s an essential part of what is significant about wine. But does the average person buying a bottle on their way home from work think that way? Many of them just want something that tastes good. Even in the high end restaurants where somms are woven into the fabric of the experience, I sometimes wonder if many diners could get equally satisfactory results from a touchscreen app where they could input their meal choice, price point, and preferences and get an automatic pairing. They could even skip the embarrassment of mispronunciations and the discomfort of attempted upselling.

It would be easy for me to dismiss AI as lacking human connection, because I have access to human connection through wine. I suspect, however, that a lot of people are just thinking of wine as a beverage, and that if they see it as a conduit for connection at all, it’s for a community of insiders who have the right knowledge and vocabulary - and money, which I don’t think we can ever ignore when we’re purveying a luxury product. It’s easier to use Vivino and get a personalized recommendation without the kind of human connection that can be awkward and patronizing.

In case I didn’t say it clearly enough above, I think most uses of AI are deeply unethical, and that we should not be tempted by the ease of it. It’s so ubiquitous now that we actually have to actively resist using it, or the consequences to human creativity and interpersonal communication will be dire. For me this isn’t just about wine, but about all areas of learning, art, and relationship. But for me and for some of you, wine sits at the crossroads of those areas of life, merging the things that are most meaningful and personal to us. It is up to those of us who claim wine is rooted in connection to connect, not just with each other, but with casual wine drinkers. If wine can only create community among insiders and those who are already convinced of its worth, we will quickly be replaced by easy recommendations at everyone else’s fingertips, and no one will ever wonder who created all that information in the first place.