"The discourse surrounding generative AI in the creative arts is frequently characterised by a sense of historical rupture, a seismic shift unlike any that has come before. Critics often frame the emergence of Large Language Models and diffusion-based image generators as an unprecedented existential threat to the 'soul' of human expression, a black swan event that may signal the end of human creative sovereignty."
"Early criticism of generative AI focused on the poor quality of its output. GenAI was not yet a threat because it could not compete with human creative output on quality or believability. The visceral reaction against early GenAI perhaps stemmed from a hypersensitivity to anomalies that break the illusion of human authorship. The 'uncanny valley' describes a revulsion response to humanoid representations that are almost, but not quite, human - a phenomenon observed in robots, animatronics, and increasingly, AI-generated imagery. When an AI image displays six fingers or background incongruities, the viewer immediately labels it as 'artificial' and files it away as evidence that AI is easily detectable and low-quality."
Generative AI prompts recurring anxiety analogous to past responses when tools lowered barriers to artistic production. Established artistic classes often react with moral panic, accusations of soullessness, and essentialist redefinitions of art when automation threatens manual craft. Contextualising AI within the longer history of artistic tools clarifies continuity rather than rupture, while also acknowledging real socio-economic and ethical risks to creative labour and ecosystems. Early criticism concentrated on perceived poor output quality and uncanny anomalies that exposed machine authorship, which temporarily reassured critics even as deeper systemic impacts persisted and evolved.
Read at Medium
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]