“when it comes to creative expression, generative AI falls short”

I decided to get on the bandwagon and test out ChatGPT with a self-referential piece on the futility of using generative AI for any form of meaningful creative expression. It wasn’t quite an ‘if you type “Google” into Google, you can break the Internet’ moment, but I was pretty pleased with the outcome. It’s good to see ChatGPT arguing for its own restricted use.

Here’s ChatGPT’s response (no changes made!):

Generative AI has come a long way in recent years, offering impressive capabilities that have the potential to revolutionise numerous fields. From generating realistic images and videos to producing natural-sounding speech, the technology has proven to be incredibly versatile and useful for a wide range of applications.

However, when it comes to creative expression, generative AI falls short. While it may be able to produce impressive works of art or music, these creations lack the depth, individuality, and meaning that only a human can bring to the table.

Art and music are deeply personal expressions of the human experience. They are not just products of technical skill or a set of rules; they are the result of an individual’s unique perspective, emotions, and experiences. When a person looks at a painting or listens to a piece of music, they are not just observing a set of colours or sounds – they are experiencing something that resonates with them on a deeper level.

Generative AI may be capable of producing something that looks or sounds similar to a piece of art, but it cannot replicate the human element that makes that art truly special. Without the human touch, a piece of art or music is simply a collection of pixels or notes, devoid of any true meaning or emotion.

Moreover, generative AI lacks the ability to understand context, which is crucial when it comes to creative expression. A human artist or musician can draw inspiration from their surroundings, their culture, and their personal experiences, all of which influence the way they approach their craft. Generative AI, on the other hand, is limited to the data it has been trained on and cannot incorporate new experiences or emotions into its work.

Another limitation of generative AI is its lack of intentionality. When a human creates a work of art or music, they do so with a specific intention in mind. They may be trying to convey a message, express an emotion, or evoke a particular feeling in the viewer or listener. Generative AI, on the other hand, lacks this intentionality and simply produces a piece of art or music without any underlying meaning or purpose.

Of course, there are some who argue that generative AI can still be useful in creative fields. For example, it can be used as a tool to help artists or musicians come up with new ideas or to automate certain parts of the creative process. However, even in these cases, the final product still relies on the human touch to bring it to life and give it meaning.

In conclusion, while generative AI may be great for a wide range of applications, including image and speech recognition, it falls short when it comes to creative expression. Art and music are deeply personal and meaningful expressions of the human experience, and they require the human touch to truly come to life. While generative AI may be able to produce impressive works that look or sound similar to human-created art or music, they lack the depth, individuality, and intentionality that only a human can bring to the table. So, the point of a person reading an article, looking at a painting, or listening to a piece of music is not just to observe a collection of pixels or notes, but to experience something that resonates with them on a deeper level and touches their soul.

Pictured above: ‘uktv-it-crowd-finale-moss’ by TNS Sofres, shared under an Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) licence