Is AI an existential threat to creativity? Or an increasingly necessary part of how we work in the modern age? I asked two creatives to exchange views - here's how it went down.
When you see your neighbours start to till the soil and plant crops, you can:
1. Lament the loss of your former hunter-gatherer lifestyle while you reluctantly take up farming. Live a life of resignation and resentment.
2. Embrace the new farming techniques and learn to use it more effectively, maybe even learn to brew some beer and wine. Set in motion the development of civilisation as we know it.
3. Reject farming. Commit more fully to hunting and gathering. Create a community of like-minded individuals. Occasionally, visit the farming communities when you need supplies. Comment on how soft and spoiled the farmers are. Drink their wine and beer.
When you see your neighbours start using AI to streamline their work, you can:
1. Reluctantly adopt AI while you lament the loss of your former ‘creative’ life, where you had to spend hours on small, mind-numbingly repetitive tasks. Live a life of resignation and resentment.
2. Embrace the new AI tools and learn to use it more profitably. Create AI girlfriend sexbots and pictures of prawn Jesus. Set in motion the destruction of civilisation as we know it.
3. Reject AI. Commit more fully to farming and homesteading. Create a community of like-minded individuals. Occasionally, use AI when you need to streamline a task or create a meme. Comment on how soft and spoiled AI users are. Drink their wine and beer.
Thank you James and Alex for another respectful exchange, and thanks Matt for arranging it. Can’t think of any other publication where two opposing voices are given equal footing at the same time, in the same place, without shouty sloganeering, and that alone is invaluable.
Writing in TechRadar Becca Caddy put it very well. “The truth is, we're not just training machines. We’re training ourselves to accept a world where our most meaningful expressions become raw material for someone else’s profit."
Also, there's always the venerable Dr Ian Malcolm, "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."
I spent twenty years working as a senior marketing pro in both hardware and software technology, and now teach at an Art School in a University, and I’m firmly on Alex’s side. I think we’re rushing through/over a dangerous point of no return and we’ll look back at this decade as one of unforgivable carelessness and recklessness.
AI technology is catastrophically unsustainable* and worse, profoundly undemocratic. The ownership and usage of technology that is rapidly reshaping every aspect of human life needs strong democratic governance, oversight and accountability. There is none, and no government seems to have the appetite to tackle it, so we play with this tech at our peril. Like children who’ve found a loaded gun.
Technology is now all about politics and politics is all about technology. The last decade has shown that the owners of technology manipulate politics with impunity, and the world’s most powerful men own all the AI with zero oversight or citizen governance.
All governments have failed to understand how to ‘manage’ the growth and regulation of digital technology and the internet, so every point I make is wide open to whataboutery and accusations of hypocrisy, but I feel that the thoughtless adoption of AI in everything is some kind of beginning of some kind of end.
Everything I’ve read about the potential for AI to help us become more sustainable is loaded and leveraged with a lexicon of unknowns (‘could, might, possibly, if’) at best, and more often with wildly unprovable speculation. In the meantime we literally burn through precious and irreplaceable rare earths and minerals* because we’re too lazy to answer our emails, or too tight to hire a photographer.
So I believe the weapon analogy is a strong one, and we should have looked at AI use and regulation like we look at gun-control. There are legitimate use cases for guns, but any sane and safe society strictly regulates access to them. You need to prove that you know what you are doing, and why you’re using it, and if you really need to use it, before you get to pick up a gun. Your fellow citizens should write and agree to the rules, not just the richest five blokes.
So I fear that James is right that the proliferation of AI is (sadly) inevitable and unavoidable, but I’m going to try and minimise my exposure to it, and use of it, as much as possible. More of a dissenter or conscientious objector than a Luddite. I’m also going to focus my activism on a democratic revolution.
Both may be futile, and may make me sound like a self-righteous prick, but I think I’ll sleep better for trying.
*Links to a couple of credible sources. TL/DR AI computation burns through energy, and rare and irreplaceable graphics cards, at exponentially growing and unsustainable rates, and all arguments for the potential mitigation are spurious and unproven.
Thank you Tim for this fantastic reply. I completely agree. I very much doubt that resistance to AI can actually change what is inevitably come down the pipe, but I also see it as a moral imperative – regardless of outcome. And if a future AGI sends a Shrike back through time to punish mortals who opposed it (tip of the hat to Dan Simmons) then I guess I'll be one of the ones who ends up on the tree of thorns! :P
As a creative very much in the “I don’t think I’m on the chopping block _just_ yet” camp, my feelings are: Alex - Heart, James - Head. But as someone who, as a bolshy 14-year-old kiddo, defiantly refused to give up a Sony Discman and huge CD collection (built over years of two-hour round journeys on a double-decker to Plymouth) and cede Steve Jobs, I await the micro re-embrace of tangible creative artefacts. Like vinyl. Twenty-five years from now.
Until then, I thank Claude.AI for subbing this comment.
Thanks Chris – and I think this embrace is here already. Film photography is exploding, print isn't going anywhere, and people are rethinking their relationships with devices and services. Countercultural forces are building... and some of us never gave up CDs (just ask my wife!)
Although I do see AI as a tool, as Alex and Tim have said the lack of governance/ control does put peoples livelihoods, not just creatives, at threat. Is it just me that thinks the fact 128 people made $390M in a year from start up using AI is crazy / concerning? (I added them up in head from the graphic in the stack, apologies if they’re not accurate) I know some publications, agencies and brands have made AI policies which is great and sets out their stall on what is acceptable usage. The quick changing landscape of AI’s ‘powers’ will require policies to change as quickly.
I think one of the really interesting things about *this* particular tech revolution is we can see it happening in real time, and almost predict the impact in ways that just weren't possible with the Industrial Revolution, to take the example used in the exchange.
Exactly and the sad fact is that policies won't (can't?) change anywhere near fast enough to protect people. By the time governments get the memo, reality will have been dictated by capitalist power grabs. There's no other way this plays out.
Really appreciated this conversation. It’s rare to see this kind of care and depth in a discussion about AI. Alex I really felt the weight of what you shared around the emotional and ethical sides of it all. There’s a lot in here that made me pause and reflect.
In the creative and neurodivergent communities I’ve been part of AI hasn’t replaced creativity. It’s helped give access to it. For people like me and many others with ADHD or dyslexia the hardest part of the process isn’t always coming up with ideas. It’s staying with them. Getting them organised. Finishing. Traditional systems can be overwhelming and often aren’t built with us in mind.
Through the UK’s Access to Work scheme I’ve had support from a neurodivergent workplace coach and together we’ve built a rhythm that suits how my mind works. I often record conversations or voice notes then use AI tools to transcribe and reflect on what’s there. That part helps me make sense of patterns or ideas I might miss in the moment. It’s not about getting AI to do the creative bit. It’s about helping me stay with the work long enough to shape it.
This has been a big shift in my practice. With photography, film, and storytelling it helps me stay connected to what matters rather than rushing to keep up or forcing a process that does not fit.
I don’t say any of this to dismiss the very real concerns around AI. The questions about ownership, power, and sustainability really do matter and I hold that too. This is just a window into a part of the creative world that often gets left out of these conversations. It is a space where AI, when used carefully, can actually help people stay in the work instead of being pushed to the edge of it.
For a lot of us it’s not a shortcut. It is a way in. It is a way to stay present with creativity in a world that often feels like it was built for someone else’s pace.
As I’ve mentioned before, I truly respect your views on this @Mike Guest, and in all honesty there isn’t much I can disagree with here! It’s an important part of the debate – alas one I didn’t feel I had space for in my discussion with James. The key thing is that you are using the technology to empower yourself in a tangible way (that’s the missing ingredient in most ‘AI is inevitable’ discussions). And I know you’re far from deaf to the ethical murkiness of it all.
What a fantastic read. This conversation was full of what we need more of in society right now. Respectful discussion between 2 people that have differing opinions. I think that AI has the potential to add incredible value to our lives, and in many ways it is already doing so. On the flip side, as a photographer, I have concerns about the "ethics". How is it trained? How its being used to deceive and distort reality. And how already, we have people trying to pass AI generated images (which I have no problem with) as "real" photography.
I think the Boris Eldagsen/Sony situation was a wake up call for a lot of photographer's. I've listened to several podcast with Boris. His take on AI image generation is very interesting and he is clearly very thoughtful about his process. To me, the image was clearly AI but the accelerated improvement in image quality since 2023 is staggering. There are still a lot of unknows and I do believe we need to tread carefully.
When you see your neighbours start to till the soil and plant crops, you can:
1. Lament the loss of your former hunter-gatherer lifestyle while you reluctantly take up farming. Live a life of resignation and resentment.
2. Embrace the new farming techniques and learn to use it more effectively, maybe even learn to brew some beer and wine. Set in motion the development of civilisation as we know it.
3. Reject farming. Commit more fully to hunting and gathering. Create a community of like-minded individuals. Occasionally, visit the farming communities when you need supplies. Comment on how soft and spoiled the farmers are. Drink their wine and beer.
When you see your neighbours start using AI to streamline their work, you can:
1. Reluctantly adopt AI while you lament the loss of your former ‘creative’ life, where you had to spend hours on small, mind-numbingly repetitive tasks. Live a life of resignation and resentment.
2. Embrace the new AI tools and learn to use it more profitably. Create AI girlfriend sexbots and pictures of prawn Jesus. Set in motion the destruction of civilisation as we know it.
3. Reject AI. Commit more fully to farming and homesteading. Create a community of like-minded individuals. Occasionally, use AI when you need to streamline a task or create a meme. Comment on how soft and spoiled AI users are. Drink their wine and beer.
Well played Rian, well played!
Thank you James and Alex for another respectful exchange, and thanks Matt for arranging it. Can’t think of any other publication where two opposing voices are given equal footing at the same time, in the same place, without shouty sloganeering, and that alone is invaluable.
Writing in TechRadar Becca Caddy put it very well. “The truth is, we're not just training machines. We’re training ourselves to accept a world where our most meaningful expressions become raw material for someone else’s profit."
Also, there's always the venerable Dr Ian Malcolm, "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."
I spent twenty years working as a senior marketing pro in both hardware and software technology, and now teach at an Art School in a University, and I’m firmly on Alex’s side. I think we’re rushing through/over a dangerous point of no return and we’ll look back at this decade as one of unforgivable carelessness and recklessness.
AI technology is catastrophically unsustainable* and worse, profoundly undemocratic. The ownership and usage of technology that is rapidly reshaping every aspect of human life needs strong democratic governance, oversight and accountability. There is none, and no government seems to have the appetite to tackle it, so we play with this tech at our peril. Like children who’ve found a loaded gun.
Technology is now all about politics and politics is all about technology. The last decade has shown that the owners of technology manipulate politics with impunity, and the world’s most powerful men own all the AI with zero oversight or citizen governance.
All governments have failed to understand how to ‘manage’ the growth and regulation of digital technology and the internet, so every point I make is wide open to whataboutery and accusations of hypocrisy, but I feel that the thoughtless adoption of AI in everything is some kind of beginning of some kind of end.
Everything I’ve read about the potential for AI to help us become more sustainable is loaded and leveraged with a lexicon of unknowns (‘could, might, possibly, if’) at best, and more often with wildly unprovable speculation. In the meantime we literally burn through precious and irreplaceable rare earths and minerals* because we’re too lazy to answer our emails, or too tight to hire a photographer.
So I believe the weapon analogy is a strong one, and we should have looked at AI use and regulation like we look at gun-control. There are legitimate use cases for guns, but any sane and safe society strictly regulates access to them. You need to prove that you know what you are doing, and why you’re using it, and if you really need to use it, before you get to pick up a gun. Your fellow citizens should write and agree to the rules, not just the richest five blokes.
So I fear that James is right that the proliferation of AI is (sadly) inevitable and unavoidable, but I’m going to try and minimise my exposure to it, and use of it, as much as possible. More of a dissenter or conscientious objector than a Luddite. I’m also going to focus my activism on a democratic revolution.
Both may be futile, and may make me sound like a self-righteous prick, but I think I’ll sleep better for trying.
*Links to a couple of credible sources. TL/DR AI computation burns through energy, and rare and irreplaceable graphics cards, at exponentially growing and unsustainable rates, and all arguments for the potential mitigation are spurious and unproven.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.16026
https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-and-ai
Thank you Tim for this fantastic reply. I completely agree. I very much doubt that resistance to AI can actually change what is inevitably come down the pipe, but I also see it as a moral imperative – regardless of outcome. And if a future AGI sends a Shrike back through time to punish mortals who opposed it (tip of the hat to Dan Simmons) then I guess I'll be one of the ones who ends up on the tree of thorns! :P
‘Technology is now all about politics and politics is all about technology’ - the simple truth at the heart of it all. It always is.
As a creative very much in the “I don’t think I’m on the chopping block _just_ yet” camp, my feelings are: Alex - Heart, James - Head. But as someone who, as a bolshy 14-year-old kiddo, defiantly refused to give up a Sony Discman and huge CD collection (built over years of two-hour round journeys on a double-decker to Plymouth) and cede Steve Jobs, I await the micro re-embrace of tangible creative artefacts. Like vinyl. Twenty-five years from now.
Until then, I thank Claude.AI for subbing this comment.
Camp two in the house
Thanks Chris – and I think this embrace is here already. Film photography is exploding, print isn't going anywhere, and people are rethinking their relationships with devices and services. Countercultural forces are building... and some of us never gave up CDs (just ask my wife!)
Viva La Resistance!!
Although I do see AI as a tool, as Alex and Tim have said the lack of governance/ control does put peoples livelihoods, not just creatives, at threat. Is it just me that thinks the fact 128 people made $390M in a year from start up using AI is crazy / concerning? (I added them up in head from the graphic in the stack, apologies if they’re not accurate) I know some publications, agencies and brands have made AI policies which is great and sets out their stall on what is acceptable usage. The quick changing landscape of AI’s ‘powers’ will require policies to change as quickly.
I think one of the really interesting things about *this* particular tech revolution is we can see it happening in real time, and almost predict the impact in ways that just weren't possible with the Industrial Revolution, to take the example used in the exchange.
And the truly interesting thing, for me, is just how much we see history repeating itself. Almost nothing about the AI boom is new or even futuristic.
Exactly and the sad fact is that policies won't (can't?) change anywhere near fast enough to protect people. By the time governments get the memo, reality will have been dictated by capitalist power grabs. There's no other way this plays out.
Really appreciated this conversation. It’s rare to see this kind of care and depth in a discussion about AI. Alex I really felt the weight of what you shared around the emotional and ethical sides of it all. There’s a lot in here that made me pause and reflect.
In the creative and neurodivergent communities I’ve been part of AI hasn’t replaced creativity. It’s helped give access to it. For people like me and many others with ADHD or dyslexia the hardest part of the process isn’t always coming up with ideas. It’s staying with them. Getting them organised. Finishing. Traditional systems can be overwhelming and often aren’t built with us in mind.
Through the UK’s Access to Work scheme I’ve had support from a neurodivergent workplace coach and together we’ve built a rhythm that suits how my mind works. I often record conversations or voice notes then use AI tools to transcribe and reflect on what’s there. That part helps me make sense of patterns or ideas I might miss in the moment. It’s not about getting AI to do the creative bit. It’s about helping me stay with the work long enough to shape it.
This has been a big shift in my practice. With photography, film, and storytelling it helps me stay connected to what matters rather than rushing to keep up or forcing a process that does not fit.
I don’t say any of this to dismiss the very real concerns around AI. The questions about ownership, power, and sustainability really do matter and I hold that too. This is just a window into a part of the creative world that often gets left out of these conversations. It is a space where AI, when used carefully, can actually help people stay in the work instead of being pushed to the edge of it.
For a lot of us it’s not a shortcut. It is a way in. It is a way to stay present with creativity in a world that often feels like it was built for someone else’s pace.
Thanks for this Mike, a really interesting and necessary perspective.
As I’ve mentioned before, I truly respect your views on this @Mike Guest, and in all honesty there isn’t much I can disagree with here! It’s an important part of the debate – alas one I didn’t feel I had space for in my discussion with James. The key thing is that you are using the technology to empower yourself in a tangible way (that’s the missing ingredient in most ‘AI is inevitable’ discussions). And I know you’re far from deaf to the ethical murkiness of it all.
What a fantastic read. This conversation was full of what we need more of in society right now. Respectful discussion between 2 people that have differing opinions. I think that AI has the potential to add incredible value to our lives, and in many ways it is already doing so. On the flip side, as a photographer, I have concerns about the "ethics". How is it trained? How its being used to deceive and distort reality. And how already, we have people trying to pass AI generated images (which I have no problem with) as "real" photography.
I think the Boris Eldagsen/Sony situation was a wake up call for a lot of photographer's. I've listened to several podcast with Boris. His take on AI image generation is very interesting and he is clearly very thoughtful about his process. To me, the image was clearly AI but the accelerated improvement in image quality since 2023 is staggering. There are still a lot of unknows and I do believe we need to tread carefully.
Hey thanks Tom, and really glad you got so much out of the discussion. I'm not familiar with the Boris Eldagsen thing, will do some digging