Creativity art is at an existential crossroads

Two prolonged strikes. A lawsuit. The death of a prominent singer-songwriter. These news stories prompt some anxious musings about the future, and profitability, of creativity in the oncoming age of artificial intelligence.

AI’S promise — or threat — is at the heart of the dual strikes that have essentially shut down Hollywood. The writers and actors unions seek to protect their members’ livelihood; the studios are insisting on the liberty to make their productions with as little actual human involvement as possible.

In a somewhat related move, three visual artists have gone to court arguing that AI image-generators violate their copyrights to generate works that copy their unique styles. As with the Hollywood labor war, it is on the surface a business dispute, but at its heart is the role of humanity in creativity — and even the definition of creativity itself.

To a large degree, we suspect the audience is going to decide — and that likely does not bode well for the humans. AI will discern what is most appealing to the public and drill into that; the authenticity of the thought and emotion conveyed in the work may not be readily discerned.

The life and legacy of Jimmy Buffett, who died last week, had little to do with artificial intelligence, but it did have a lot to do with the commerce of creativity. Buffett parlayed his 1970s hit song “Margaritaville” into a billion-dollar brand. His empire eventually branched beyond recordings and concerts to restaurants, clothing and even a cruise line.

While the narrator of “Margaritaville” bemoans his wasted opportunities, Buffett himself clearly let little get away from him.

He may have made more money per note than anybody else in popular music; loafing, or at least the celebration of loafing, has never been so lucrative.

The question is whether the songwriters of tomorrow will have such an opportunity — indeed, if there will be actual humans composing songs.