My Major Statement
Artificial Intelligence is a tool that can take assistant jobs, but not creative ones. Jobs in creative fields vary from music to art and film, making these areas the big three from an outsider's point of view. As a college student studying the music industry right now, I’ve seen the topic of AI getting brought up time and time again, which brought me to this statement as to why I don’t believe AI will dominate creative industries. Questions that I’ve heard from classmates so far would include; Will AI artists be a thing? Will songwriters be necessary anymore if AI can write a song in seconds? How will the music industry tackle AI? When the answer is so clear in our faces. AI lacks a human brain, despite countless AI tools that claim to have one, so why are creative industries so threatened by it? Regardless of how intimidating AI may be, I firmly believe that AI cannot operate in these types of industries because AI was designed to think logically instead of creatively.
Starting with the music industry, the question of whether AI is going to further disrupt the way the industry works is still pending, but I assume not due to several reasons. One being that the highest-charting songs released were created without the assistance of AI, especially when it came to the songwriting process. Looking at Sabrina Carpenter’s career, for example, she went through a breakthrough in her career after releasing “Espresso” last year, shifting her from being a mildly known artist to a mainstream one. Examining how “Espresso” was made (focusing on who wrote the song and produced it), the song was written by Sabrina Carpenter herself, along with Amy Allen, Steph Jones, and Julian Bunetta. Julian Bunetta was in charge of producing the song, but he has songwriting credits on it as well outside of the mixing and mastering engineers alongside him. It’s crazy how it only took four people to write this smash hit, which lets me (and the public) know that if Sabrina had chosen to use AI at any point of making this song, who knows if it would’ve gained as much popularity as it did. Not only that, but nowadays, music lovers can easily detect when a song was solely made by AI or had some parts of it in it and will choose to not stream or listen to it for that reason only.
But what about replacing a real artist with an AI one? In an article I found on Sage Business Cases titled, Virtual Artists Are Taking Over, Not: FN Meka Gets Signed and Dropped in a Week (by Andrae Alexander & Ziyin Zhao), this question gets answers by the article as it shares an example of when an AI artist was signed by a major label and how that worked out in the end. Dating back to when this occurred in August of 2022, “Capitol Records announced the signing of FN Meka on the popular music industry news website Music Business Worldwide, in which Capitol Records called FN Meka the number one VI on TikTok and the first AI artist to sign with a major record label.” Informing the music industry at the time that all an AI artist needed to have was a huge TikTok following to get signed. Of course, the music industry and the public did not respond well to this as Capital Records quickly dropped FN Meka due to the backlash. The backlash was described as some believing that “FN Meka perpetuated Black stereotypes, and his music included the repeated use of the N-word, though the creators behind the project were not Black. Further, one of the most controversial Instagram posts showed FN Meka incarcerated and beaten by a police officer in a prison cell.” which rings true once you do some research on him. This case (out of others I’ll mention) shows how relying on AI to develop an artist won’t end well if there wasn’t any human thought (or creativity) behind it, even if they reach success at some point. It seems as though FN Meka only existed for clout, taking away a spot that could’ve been filled by a real artist without major controversy surrounding them.
Another aspect to consider is the legal regulations regarding AI and how to work around it (if it’s even possible). How can a song completely made by AI be granted copyright protection? As of now, the Copyright Office attempted to answer this by implementing strict guidelines for AI and how to properly use it without getting into legal trouble. For instance, in August of 2023, an Artificial Intelligence and Copyright guidance was released by them, addressing any concerns and questions the public might’ve had about how to regulate AI usage. In their statement, they acknowledged how they’ve received “Applications to register works containing AI-generated material, some of which name AI systems as an author or co-author. At the same time, copyright owners have brought infringement claims against AI companies based on the training process for, and outputs derived from, generative AI systems.” (page 2) showing how stressful it’s been to handle the chaos of AI usage between those that use it and those that don’t.
Diving deeper in this document, the Office addressed how this issue has been “dealt” with in the past, dating back to 1965 where an annual report was released stating how “Developments in computer technology had begun to raise “difficult questions of authorship”—namely the question of the authorship of works “‘written’ by computers.”(page 2) So far, my point on how AI won’t take over creative industries still stands based on how the Copyright Office is handling it. We’re still unsure of how to fully legally bind it as it seems like only parts of a work can be copyrightable if that part was made by a human against the AI-generated ones. Again, “The Office explained that where a human author lacks sufficient creative control over the AI-generated components of a work, the human is not the “author” of those components for copyright purposes.” (page 4)
Continuing this conversation about the legal implications of AI in the music industry, another case study that I came across, published by Stanford University called AI & Copyright: A Case Study of the Music Industry, Lila Shroff (the author) brought up many concerns regarding AI and copyright but one area that I couldn’t seem to ignore was her view on what an artist’s perspective might be on it. She expressed that an artist may feel one of two distinct emotions in this scenario, fear or favor. Rather than focusing on the fears, I didn’t agree with her take as to why an artist would favor AI, especially since we’re talking about the possibility of AI taking jobs in creative industries. According to Shroff, “AI offers an opportunity for producers and songwriters to work with singers they’d never otherwise have access to,” (page 7) which is true to a certain degree. Yes, AI can help artists connect but I still don’t believe that it should be granted that much control. Other points made by Shroff included how, “Other artists feel that AI can be a tool for financial benefit.” Sharing an example of this, where a Canadian artist named Grimes, voiced on Twitter how she’ll “Split 50% royalties on any successful AI generated song that uses my voice. Same deal as I would with any artist I collab with. Feel free to use my voice without penalty. I have no label and no legal bindings” (page 7). This idea that artists will favor AI because of the freedom that comes with it only applies to certain artists, specifically well-established ones that didn’t have to grind to the top. This is another reason why I believe AI should refrain from dominating creative industries, especially when it comes to music. It will benefit those who are already at the top instead of those who may not have as many resources.
Drifting away from the music industry for a bit, let’s explore the film industry and how AI has come close to imploding it (if it hasn’t already). Revisiting the year 2023, when the writers strike was in full swing, movies released during this period lacked depth due to the shortage of writers. Speaking as someone who currently works at the movie theaters, I can say for sure that I’ve watched my hours drop by a lot when the writer’s strike was happening. I remember upcoming movies like Avatar 3, Blade Runner 2099, and Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider Verse getting delayed because of the strike, which further causes people to not want to come to the movies. It was an interesting era to say the least. This could explain why I have no memories of 2023, as it felt eerily quiet amidst this strike taking place.
Reflecting on this incident, this strike among writers was triggered due to low pay rates linked to the film industry’s changeover from promoting shows on traditional television to streaming services. Streaming services paid out smaller residuals per view compared to standard television, which was a huge issue, but not the only problem present. The threat of AI was another reason behind the strike, as Hollywood recognized its potential to significantly reduce the need for human writers, leading to job insecurity and lower wages for those who were still employed. So far it seems like the film industry was a little more accepting of AI taking the jobs of those who needed them and worked hard for them. Luckily, these writers took control and went on strike as a response to the nonsense that this could ever work, supporting my statement once more.
In a research journal titled AI in the creative industries: Strikes, debates, and implications. written by A. Hümeyra HÜSMEN, Husmen touched on this topic commenting that, “The 2023 strikes were among the longest in Hollywood history and had a significant impact on the industry. As a double strike, their effects were further intensified. Lasting an average of four months, the strikes slowed or even halted productions, delayed releases, and caused major financial losses for the industry. Ultimately, both unions reached an agreement with the AMPTP. After the 2023 strikes, SAG-AFTRA, the performers' guild, regulated AI usage to protect actors' rights and required consent for digital replicas. Their primary goal was to ensure that human performance remains central in productions. (page 3) Overall, the writer’s strike is a great example of how trying to replace jobs in the film industry with AI will have negative consequences. Hopefully, this “striking” strategy will become more common, especially in fields unrelated to creative work.
AI’s presence in the film industry also emerged the trend of using virtual actors powered by AI. Similar to the discussion I had earlier about AI artists and their longevity, (to which I felt that they won’t end up successful), the film industry has taken this route as well, instead they use these actors for specific scenes or voices that need to be completed. These actors would consist of past ones or ones that don’t exist. For example, James Earl Jones licensing his voice to AI for future Darth Vader appearances and Carrie Fisher’s AI-generated presence in Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker. It was scary to see at first glance, but now it seems normalized after seeing some examples of it. The fact that virtual actors were created as an attempt to take real actors' jobs is insane considering that they're placed there for one shot and not for the entire film.
On the topic of Carrie Fisher’s AI-generated presence in Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, I remember this being my first time seeing a virtual actor on screen (or at least in a widely known movie) and it not only got a mixed reaction from me but from the public as well. The Rise of Deepfakes: A Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda for Marketing (written by Lucas Whittaker) article mentions this, discussing how Carrie Fisher’s appearance pushed the rise of “deepfakes” to where it is today. Examining the process behind the creation of Carrie Fisher’s AI-generated persona, “Carrie’s daughter, Billie Lourd, acted as a stand-in actor during shooting and Carrie Fisher’s facial and voice features were digitally overlaid. Such digital manipulation of visual and audio is not just limited to Hollywood blockbusters, as it becomes increasingly facilitated by artificial intelligence (AI) technology.” (page 2) This was a result of fans wondering if Carrie Fisher was still going to be featured in this film, letting me (and the world) know that if I want a dead actor to be re-added into a film I like, this can work using AI. Overall, it’s looking like the film industry is more accepting of AI and its ability to take people's jobs, but just because they're letting this happen, does not mean that everyone will accept it.
Lastly, moving our attention to the art industry, there's no doubt that this industry has been impacted the most by AI due to AI art going viral in the last few years. For example, on certain social media platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube, funny videos/memes can be found on these sites, including this type of art underneath a funny caption above it. These pieces of “art” are usually eye-soaring as they have an uncanny look to them most of the time. On top of that, AI art is easier to detect compared to AI music and film because there’s no movement or audio so you’re able to spot every error in one glance. When you pause and think about how a real person looks, you’ll think about the hair, face, hands, and other features they’ll have so you know what’s real and what's not. AI art will try to test this ability by letting you or another user prompt it to draw anything (using AI art tools like Piclumen, Midjourney, OpenArt, etc.), hopefully warping you or that person's view on how the real world should look. This can either cause fascination or judgement in the public sphere. Real artists don’t aim to do this when sharing art, so again, why are we letting AI replace them when it’s not sustainable?
Peddling back to copyright protection once more, let’s see how AI art gets protected or not, and the reasons why based on the Artificial Intelligence and Authorship in Zarya of the Dawn case analyzed by Julianna Simpson in her article. In the Zarya of the Dawn case, (similar to how people were submitting AI-generated music for copyright) we’re focused on one artist, Kristina Kashtanova who applied for copyright registration of her work “Zarya of the Dawn,” (an eighteen-page comic book, sharing a story of a young person seeking to find their identity in an abandoned city). Kashtanova wrote the plot but unfortunately used Midjourney to generate the comic’s visuals. Upon submitting the comic, it was “Initially granted on September 15, 2022.” (page 7) “Shortly after the work’s initial registration, comments on social media informed the Copyright Office that Kashtanova had created portions of the work using Midjourney. Because this had not been disclosed at the time of registration, the Office canceled the registration.” (page 8) Seeing how this all went down, it serves as another reminder that trying to submit AI-generated work for copyright protection won’t work, especially with art.
Given that AI art remains to be a huge treat within the art industry, how have real artists responded to it until now? In an article called Pushing Boundaries? Artists' worldview in the AI era from a relational work perspective by Alina Dumea, Dumea answers this question by conveying how artists perceive AI art while also sharing a perspective of one “artist” who chose to use it and benefited from it. For instance, “In September 2022, an AI-generated piece entitled “Théâtre D’opéra Spatial” won an art prize in the Colorado State Fair’s annual art competition. The artwork’s creator, Jason M. Allen, submitted his work under “Jason M. Allen via Midjourney1,” stating its origins clearly. To the artists who accused him of cheating, he responded, “I am not going to apologize for it. I won, and I did not break any rules. Art is dead, dude. It is over. AI won. Humans lost.” (Roose, 2022). This event sparked the controversy that the algorithms of AI image generators could beat human creativity.” (page 6)
“Artificial Intelligence is a tool that can take assistant jobs, but not creative ones.”, I remember saying before banging my head against the wall after reading the Jason M. Allen situation. Maybe you can win awards after submitting AI art in a competition, but you can’t use that moment to kickstart an art career out of it. Why did he feel so confident saying that “Art will die” after he won these awards? There’s nowhere in this text that says that he took an artist's job nor gained money after winning the awards, so this is where his conclusion is incorrect.
Steering away from this man to further analyze how the public feels about AI art, the last article I found that sheds light on this called AI-Generated vs. Human Artworks. A Perception Bias Towards Artificial Intelligence? by Martin Ragot, this article displayed “A wide-scale experiment in which 565 participants are asked to evaluate paintings (which were created by humans or AI) on four dimensions: liking, perceived beauty, novelty, and meaning. A priming effect is evaluated using two between-subject conditions: Artworks presented as created by an AI, and artworks presented as created by a human artist. Finally, the paintings perceived as being drawn by human are evaluated significantly more highly than those perceived as being made by AI. Thus, using such a methodology and sample in an unprecedented way, the results show a negative bias of perception towards AI and a preference bias towards human systems” indicating that again, AI won’t fully destroy the art industry due to human art being more favored.
After examining all three creative industries and how AI has attempted to insert itself into them, we can only blame CEOs, higher-ups, and people who encourage it for letting this happen. Remember, AI is a tool that can take assistant jobs, not creative ones, so every time a company or label believes that AI can take over a job that can only be done by a real person, it backfires completely. With cases like Carrie Fisher’s AI presence in Star Wars, FN Meka getting dropped from a major label, Jason M. Allen’s AI statement, and Zarya of the Dawn. You’re only seeing negative parts of each story, reinforcing the idea that AI will never be able to take over creative industries. No matter how well it’s programmed, an error will always be exposed.
