AI and the Threat to Art

Fri, 11 Sep 2026 03:11:44 -0600

Looking Back at My Criticism of AI on Art

Reading back through my old blog posts, I came upon this gem: AI Writing and now feel like a prophet.

Well, yeah, people were already voicing their hatred and criticism of Artificial Intelligence, but I feel that I hopped on the elevator at the 3rd floor. There were rumbles about AI fucking over the arts, but not as prominent as it is now.

I double down on my criticism. AI is not art!

I will die on this hill. As a professional writer, I’m now faced with skeptical readers asking did he use AI to write this? It’s an obnoxious question created by an obnoxious technology. I’m not one of those who is advocating for the death of AI, and I believe many artists are overreacting, but when Apple Music is posting a Top AI music chart, no matter how small it is and AI music has infiltrated the Top music charts on Spotify and other streaming services, something is going on. And AI can’t be ignored.

<!–more–>

And in the writing community, the tempers run from The World is Ending to Meh, it’s become difficult to get anything new published.

Use the em dash in your writing? Must be AI! Or how about the stately Oxford comma? Definitely AI-created. Self-Published? Written by ChatGPT (or Gemini if low on funds).

While the writing landscape in today’s world of AI-written slop produced just to make money is harrowing, it’s not as doom-and-gloom as the critics claim. First, a professionally written journalistic article is easy to spot. The writer of a professional article focuses on the main topic, using unique and creative word structure, whereas an AI article is vague, repetitive, and lacking creativity. It should be easy to see the real writer amongst the AI slop.

However, the constant upgrading of AI models by the big guys OpenAI, Google Gemini, Anthropic (safety AI my ass), and Meta AI (kinda; I barely count it as a big one considering its focus on social media) has writers scrambling to sound “authentic” even if it means purposely adding grammar and spelling errors in their work. It seems editors should also be scared.

So, not to ramble on about a topic I already rambled on about (seriously, read the article linked at the beginning of this piece), art can never be fully reproduced by a computer or AI. Art requires access to pain and happiness and sadness and heartbreak and giddy love. Art is an expression of what it is to live as a human (see my reference to Saussure’s Sign and Signifier). No AI, no model, no matter how advanced, can reproduce the human experience. And if it eventually can, I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.

I found this article on Substack discussing the fate of writers in an AI world. And although I disagree with many of his analyses, I do think he’s onto something concerning the future of self-published writers. Read it here:

AI’s Impact on Future Writer Career Path (long)

I could write so much more on this topic, but I’ve already covered it, and Nicolas Cole goes very in-depth in his article. Seriously, take the time to read it. He makes some great points.

Bottom line: AI will not destroy art because AI cannot replicate the human experience.

(grammar embarrassingly checked by AI: Grammarly)

Addendum:

On a whim, I asked ChatGPT to write a short story in my genre l, Cyberpunk Horror. Here’s the result. Think what you will of it:

The Ghost in the Glass

Really? Ghost in the Glass? I mean, it’s a direct reference to the seminal cyberpunk film and manga Ghost in the Shell? It’s not even hiding its plagiarism. Or if not plagiarism, definitely heavily influenced.

I’ll take a great novel by William Gibson or T.R. Napper over any AI slop inspired by the real art.

Art on Cigarettes and Soda

AI and the Threat to Art

Looking Back at My Criticism of AI on Art