A few years ago, we all saw the video of Will Smith eating pasta as an AI. And strangely enough, these videos became the standard for demonstrating the capabilities of generative AI models. As someone who produces videos professionally with a camera, I've given AI, and generative AI in particular, some thought.
I understand that the technology will continue to evolve and that we'll get new tools that will be helpful in certain scenarios, workflows, and areas. I have no objection to that. But let's ignore for a moment the inflated AI bubble that hasn't generated any revenue yet. For me, the point has been reached where human labor is being stolen to train these models, and of course, there are the environmental consequences. So I could stop talking about it now, because you know where I stand.
But if you disregard the vast amounts of stolen data and the environmental impact and focus on the generative capabilities of these models, it's certainly impressive what you can do with a single input these days. As someone who loves art, creativity, and the creative process, I simply don't understand the appeal. I understand that people with little or no creative talent, or without any understanding of the possibilities of art, can inspire themselves to develop artistic ideas and express themselves using these tools.
But I find it hard not to get emotional about this topic because I've been creating things my whole life. I was drawing as a toddler. Art has always fascinated me, and I got my first camera when I was eleven. For me, the most fulfilling thing is starting my own business and producing videos to earn a living, and working in a collaborative creative process. That's precisely why I don't understand this whole craze for generative AI.
It's perfectly clear to me that most of these companies and tech experts have no clue about the creative process and are trying to force AI into every aspect of our lives. Not to help us, but to make us dependent and extract even more money from our pockets, while simultaneously destroying more and more of our natural environment through the construction and operation of these enormous data centers. I've asked myself so many times in recent months: Has a master's degree really improved my life? I know there are tedious and boring tasks, and LLMs are a great help in those cases. But for creative tasks that involve actually creating something, I simply cannot and will not use genetic AI.
"Creativity is the ability to generate novel and valuable ideas or works through imagination." Based on this definition, the question arises whether AI models can imagine things, and the answer is: No. In my opinion, AI cannot imagine anything because it reproduces based on its knowledge and input.
And that brings me to the most important point: the creative process. Sitting down, writing down ideas, talking about ideas, drawing things, recording, or whatever else you do to create something is fulfilling. There's intention behind it, a thought process, self-expression; you draw from your soul, from your life, and let it flow into what you create. Creating something can be liberating. It can be exhilarating, frustrating, the best and the worst at the same time. The creative process itself is therefore already part of the art, and ultimately, sharing it with the world is a part of yourself that you're giving to the public—which can be very enriching and healing.
I know that AI is here to stay, and I know that some tools are excellent for certain tasks. All I'm saying is: creating something meaningless, soulless, and mostly quite trivial is not art.
Human experience gives art its meaning.
