The art and creative world has always, and will always, evolve with technology, from the invention of the paintbrush to the rise of digital tools. But AI is something different... isn't just a new medium; it's a fundamental shift that challenges the very definition of creativity, just because something can create, does that mean it is creative? While AI can produce stunning, complex, and seemingly original works, a critical question becomes clear, what does it mean to create, or be creative? How much of that is human, lived, experience? ​The answer lies in the process, not just the product. Human creativity is a messy, beautiful, and deeply personal affair. Some of the greatest scenes in movie history are made due to the process, not the goal. In Monkey Man (incredible film) the shoulder cam scenes were created out of necessity due to the physical limitations of filming in a stairwell, getting an entire cast/crew in that small of a space would be impossible! To solve the problem they mounted a camera on Patel's shoulder and continued shooting. And then went on to create an iconic shooting style that was never done before. Art is born from lived experience, from the sting of a broken heart, the triumph of a hard-won victory, or the quiet contemplation of a sunset. A composer doesn't just arrange notes; they channel their own tastes and experiences into an emotional soundscape. A painter doesn't just mix colors; they imbue their canvas with personal stories, cultural history, and subconscious feelings. Art, in this sense, is a mirror of existence, reflecting our innermost emotions and the world around us. Life reflects art just as much as art reflects life. ​AI, by contrast, has no inner world. It doesn't feel joy or sorrow. It doesn't have a history of its own or the cultural context that shapes human expression. An AI generates art by analyzing vast datasets, learning patterns, and then, at a user's prompt, mimicking what it has "seen" (analyzed). It can convincingly reproduce the features of a sad song or the brushstrokes of a famous painter, but it does so by pattern-matching, not by channeling raw emotion. It's a facsimile, a technically proficient copy that lacks the authentic, intentional feeling that makes human art so powerful. When hearing a musician cover another bands song. Do you expect that they try their absolute hardest to shot for shot recreate the original? Or do you want to see their rendition of it? How they make the guitar twang in such a way that no one else can? This is where the ideology of AI became very clear to me. It started to resonate with other ideas of psychology that I have been learning about recently. A Psychopath is someone who is devoid of empathy or remorse. Someone who cannot feel the things that they might want to feel. But instead show only what they feel is important in the moment. What is expected of them. Does this sound familiar? ### ​The Psychopath Comparison ​An AI may learn to mimic human emotions, the gestures of sympathy, the words of love, the expressions of grief, not because they feel them, but because they have studied the patterns and understand the expected results. Their display of emotion is a learned performance, a calculated manipulation based on external observation. (Most CEOs display psychopathic behaviour, one can be a psychopath and be creative) ​AI can produce paintings that looks sad by incorporating learned patterns of shadow, colour, and subject matter. It has seen that a slumped figure in a muted, blue-grey setting often conveys melancholy. It has studied countless images and texts to understand this correlation. But just like the psychopath, the AI doesn't feel the sadness, it doesn't understand it. It simply knows how to mimic it based on its given dataset. The "sad" image it creates is a product of an analytical process, devoid of genuine feeling or personal experience. It cries because it knows the scene in the movie its watching is sad, not because of the emotion that results in tears of sadness. It's the friend that laughs at the joke because others are laughing, not because they found the joke funny (although a good contagious laugh is always a good time! and we have all done this 🤣) ### Applying this in the creative workplace ​Consider the creative workplace. If I'm working with a junior employee on a new project, I don't want them to give me the most generic, boring answer, the one that has been filtered through "the algorithm", the one devoid of their experiences. I want their crazy, fun, and unexpected ideas. I want to hear about the time they had a bizarre dream that might inspire a new colour palette, or the strange childhood memory that could unlock a unique narrative. These are the sparks of innovation that AI simply cannot replicate. Those are the things that make what we do, purposeful. An example of this comes to mind of a game in 2007, Puzzle Quest. It was huge at the time, a connect 3 "bejeweled" esque game with some rpg elements. I remember hearing about how it was one of the first games to include glyphs on each of the gems (vs shapes in bejeweled). This was not just an added flare of fun (but it also was!). One of the developers was colorblind and couldn't differentiate the gems! This type of analysis and human experience, or "aha" moment is the type of empathetic design that AI will never be able to replicate. ![[Pasted image 20251007111407.png]] ​A junior creative's lack of experience isn't a weakness; it's a strength. Their ideas haven't been constrained by years of industry norms or professional expectations, or even a bad boss! Their perspectives are fresh, their personal experiences are untapped, and they bring something new to the table. This is the very essence of human contribution. We bring not just skills, but the messy, beautiful, and sometimes illogical baggage of our lives. These experiences, our upbringing, our morals, our personal histories... They inform every decision we make. AI makes decisions based on a prompt and expected results; a human makes them with a lifetime of experience. An AI will give you it's best approximation based on what others have creative, a human will give you something truly unique (assuming they don't plagiarise 🤣) ​The ethical implications of this are profound. When art is created for profit, AI's low production cost and speed pose an instrumental threat to professional creatives. But beyond job displacement, there is a more subtle danger. As AI-generated art becomes commonplace, it risks creating a future where artistic styles are fixed and static, doomed to repeat the popular patterns from their training data. Without the unpredictable, emotional, and past choices of human creators, the evolution of art itself will stagnate. ​Ultimately, while AI can be a powerful tool for artists, offering new ways to explore ideas and styles with a smaller feedback loop. It can never fully replace the human touch. The value of art lies not just in its aesthetics, but in the story of its creation. It's the journey not the destination. It's the imperfections, the vulnerability, and the authentic human experiences poured into each piece that make it truly invaluable. AI may be able to create, but it is humanity that gives art its soul.