Why AI Can’t Replace Human Artistry

This decade’s labor strife in Hollywood, with the WGA, DGA and SAG-AFTRA all squaring off against the studios, had the poor timing of running straight into the latest tech hype train: artificial intelligence.

Many hype cycles hold visions of utopia, or at least massive profits, for the disruptors, change and pain for the disrupted.

But the promises and threats of AI are unlike anything we’ve ever seen. The future rarely plays out exactly like we expect it to, particularly when it comes to new tech developments. Since we don’t know the AI endgame, any fears shouldn’t supersede writers’ focus on improving streaming residuals and other key contract issues.

I would still argue that effective art is the unique domain of human creativity. Judging by the recent deal forged with the DGA, the studios agree AI won’t be used to perform the ordinary duties of directors. Likewise, no algorithmic decision tree will ever actually be as good at wringing a tear or dollar out of an audience as a human creative, no matter how much data might be fed into it, because no large language model will ever understand what compels people to be moved by or support culture and entertainment.

Veteran filmmaker Joe Russo, among others, has said everyone should be afraid of AI. Certainly in an adverse scenario, ChatGPT-generated scripts might become nearly indistinguishable from some formulaic Hollywood movies. On the plus side, that could have the effect of advancing human creativity and encouraging writers to produce more personal, idiosyncratic work, with specific human choices about character, plot, art design and music.

It will also be difficult to separate art from artist in the human imagination and our connection to art itself. For better or worse, entire debates and narratives, such as last year’s “Tár,” have revolved around the enmeshment of the two. Acknowledging human artist biographies deepens our connection to the art itself, whereas AI art threatens to strip away those connections, likely removing some of the art’s actual worth. There is value in knowing a real person has made a piece of art, probably struggled with and maybe even because of it.

That doesn’t mean AI won’t become a means of supporting or auditing creative work, suggesting plot twists or like a superpowered version of autocorrect. That old “only in Hollywood” job of the script doctor is probably going to change, but even that possibility remains unclear.

We should be wary of studios using AI to exploit Hollywood labor forces or build automated systems that will only serve to carry out old biases more efficiently. But artists will always remain vital as the principal agents capable of generating authentically human ideas a machine will never be able to replicate.

Ian Chaffee is a technology and startup media relations consultant based in Los Angeles who has worked with AI brands and researchers.

See our full catalog of artificial intelligence articles …