In late 2022, following the release of Chat-GPT 3.0 and its image-based counterpart DALL-E 2.0, an AI revolution took the world by storm. In just under half a year, Open AI, GPT’s parent company, went from less than 100,000 monthly visits to nearly 2 billion. Immediately, dozens of large tech companies, like Amazon and Google, rushed to develop their own AI-powered products.

Now, few dispute the power of these tools in applications as diverse as medical diagnoses, autonomous vehicles, and environmental planning. For example, the Brazilian non-profit, PrevisIA, is using AI to identify parts of the Amazon rainforest at risk of deforestation by analyzing vast amounts of satellite data. However, in fields of creative expression, like the visual arts, literature, or music, the use of AI has proved controversial.

This conflict was central in this year’s SAG-AFTRA and WGA labor strikes, where writers, artists, and actors alike feared that AI was and would continue to be used in place of their own creativity. While the strike was eventually resolved with a provision that dictated that AI could not be used to “undermine a writer’s credit” or “reduce a writer’s compensation,” it nonetheless raised an important question: what is the value of human creativity over AI “creativity”?

At the center of the debate is interpretation of creativity. According to influential philosopher Immanuel Kant, it is the “ability to produce works that are “new” and “exemplary.” There, a problem arises. AI, despite appearances, cannot spontaneously create original work—known as Strong Artificial Creativity. Programmer Ada Lovelace proposed that for a computer to possess Strong Artificial Creativity, it must be able to produce results that cannot be explained by its creator.

However, AI-generated results have a very simple root—the work of human artists that the system was trained on. Essentially, AI is fed millions of samples of human work (without the creator’s consent) and then regurgitates a product according to the prompt it is presented with. Throughout this process, there is no innovation—AI cannot create truly original work, rather it relies on human ideas. The result is a mass production of art devoid of meaning or thought, which overwhelms the truly new.

Unfortunately, corporations seem willing to sacrifice quality in the name of profit margins. In November of 2023, Michael Whelan—an illustrator known for designing book covers for the likes of Stephen King and Brandon Sanderson—told the New York Times that while he doesn’t feel particularly threatened by AI creativity, he believes competing with machine-made art will be “really tough” for younger artists, not necessarily because AI produces stellar results, but because of the high speed and low cost that comes with it. In fact, several publishers have already admitted to using AI-generated art on book covers, and many artists are understandably frustrated over this new development.

The sense of pride and accomplishment you feel after standing back and observing an art piece that you created, a product of your own creative mind, is something special. Creativity is our purpose and our pride, the one thing that defines our individuality. So, the thought that this might be replaced by an emotionless machine is not only upsetting, but also terrifying. AI-generated art will never be a true replacement of human art, nor should it be. If the strikes have taught us anything, it’s that while the defense of human creativity may be difficult, it’s surely worth fighting for.