Why Art Should Remain Human
PC: Unsplash
Everyone uses artificial intelligence (AI). It’s a truth that makes some people sputter and deny, but it’s also completely inevitable. Whether we want to or not, it’s baked into our beloved algorithms, Google searches, and fact-checking social media bots. It’s hailed by many as a savior, something to marvel at for its abilities, its sharpness, and its intelligence (ironically, as it’s in the name). It’s like a newborn baby: demanding, destructive, but isn’t it cute?
The inevitability of AI in practice makes it equally inevitable as a concept to reckon with. A common view is that AI is the future, and by refusing it you will be stuck in the past and unsuited for what’s to come. This “survival of the fittest” kind of mentality surrounds much of AI discourse. Many educators claim that because it exists, they should teach students “how to use it” rather than discourage its use. Tech industry titans declare that lack of familiarity with AI will leave you hopeless when job searching, claiming that knowledge of the technology will supposedly become required of any profession. It seems that if you don’t submit to AI’s grasp, you will be crushed and useless.
This argument still seems to hold true for the arts, with heavy discourse surrounding that particular niche of AI usage. Some claim that it’s good for the creative world because it makes art “more accessible”. This is supported by the reality that anyone can type a prompt into a generative pre-trained transformer (or GPT; like ChatGPT, Gemini, or Copilot) and it’ll spit out an image or text tailored to the user’s requests. Many of these AI art supporters tend not to be artists themselves, as the common consensus around artists of any kind is that AI has no place within it.
When defining art, it’s important to acknowledge that it is more than just the pieces created by someone’s effort. Art is a physical manifestation of processes of life, whether emotional, physical, or psychological. These processes form images and ideas that then manifest into shapes that can be presented in artistic forms - the experience of a breakup or a depressive episode fueling the creation of a song or painting, for example. This part of the creative process, the formulation of the ideas themselves, is the most crucial step. It sets the intention for the piece, but beyond that, it’s where the artist’s connection to the piece is born, giving it meaning that transcends its eventual physical form.
Ironically enough, you can’t spell “artificial intelligence” without “art”. But AI art, though easy to generate and endlessly customizable, is essentially soulless - a bot can’t think or feel the way humans can, robbing the concept of AI art of any sort of real purpose or intention. Even using AI to support the artistic process, like using ChatGPT to generate ideas for an essay or artwork, fails to encompass it, resulting in something that isn’t really art at all. Additionally, claiming that AI art is necessary because it’s more “accessible” discounts (even unintentionally) the work of disabled artists, who have found dozens of ways to create all kinds of art despite their obstacles. The reason why art is so powerful, why it can transcend experience and time, is because it’s human, and can innovate, push boundaries, and experiment in ways technology can’t. Normalizing the use of AI to create art decreases its value and impact. We shouldn't be redefining art on machine terms.
