As a writer, with a background in moral philosophy and art history, I’m fascinated by the current dance with the nascent technology of artificial intelligence and what it means for human creativity.

I did my best to condense this very broad discussion into a 1-hr presentation for a conference in Vegas, but wanted to also share the detailed notes since we covered so many topics. Here is the PDF version, or you can scroll to the end for the full conference notes. I’ve ALSO turned the entire thing into a very, very long article that will serve as the basis for the book I’m writing on this subject. I hope you enjoyed it and please leave me a comment if you have any questions I didn’t answer or address in person!

The Creative Response to AI

The discussion around generative AI has evoked a wide range of responses over the past few years. One meme that caught significant attention captures the sentiment perfectly: “I want AI to do laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes.” This quote struck a chord with many people, appearing not only in social media posts but also in newspapers and magazines.

The idea behind this quote is simple: people are generally comfortable with technology replacing mundane tasks, like cleaning or organizing, but are resistant when it comes to creative endeavors. There’s a picture of a Roomba, which exemplifies how robots can do menial chores, and many people have dishwashers to lighten the load. The automation of domestic chores isn’t replacing a skilled worker; it’s simply systematizing tasks that would otherwise require our own efforts. When we discuss AI replacing work, the discussion changes when it shifts from repetitive labor to something inherently creative.

In online discussions, you might come across different views on AI. For instance, someone might say, “There’s literally no situation where AI is morally okay.” Ironically, the person who posted this even misspelled the word “literally,” which is almost humorous in its own way. Grammarly—a tool that some consider a form of AI—could easily correct that spelling error. It’s not necessarily a creative task to ensure words are spelled correctly, but it’s still a useful tool to help us communicate effectively.

Another comment that I found interesting reads, “AI can be a tool for mundane stuff like grammar or research, but the second it begins being used as a replacement for creative elements, the project is shot.” This comment embodies how many people feel about AI. There’s a line people draw between what should be automated and what must remain untouched by technology. But what does it mean when we say the “project is shot” if AI is involved in the creative process? Does it mean the work is doomed to fail, or that it loses its value?

When evaluating creative work, I tend to judge it based on the value it provides to others. Whether a piece succeeds in connecting with an audience, whether people enjoy it, or whether it brings satisfaction—those are the metrics that matter to me. There are people who create solely for the sake of the process, and that’s fine. But I’ve also experienced years as a struggling artist, and I know that no one buys something that doesn’t connect with them in some way. For me, it’s not about what makes the process valuable, but about whether people are willing to engage with the outcome.

A key argument against AI in creative fields is that it lacks a soul. People argue that anything produced by AI is devoid of the emotional essence that human creation possesses. But ultimately, isn’t it up to the audience to decide if a work resonates with them? If people enjoy, purchase, or connect with something, does it matter if it was generated by an AI?

The discussion around what creativity is and what makes it authentic is one that has evolved over centuries. The belief that creative work should remain untouched by technology while automation can replace other tasks reveals a hierarchy of values. Replacing someone’s work in the service industry is often seen as acceptable because it’s not considered “creative.” However, why should certain industries be deemed replaceable while others are deemed sacred?

Historically, creativity has always been seen as something mysterious, even dangerous. In Greek mythology, Hephaestus—the god of the forge—created mechanical beings, including robots that performed tasks for him, from cleaning his household to providing entertainment. There’s also Prometheus, who defied the gods to bring fire—technical mastery—to humanity. This act of empowerment, meant to elevate humans, led to severe punishment. Similarly, Pandora, crafted by Hephaestus, was a sentient creation whose purpose was to bring suffering to humankind. In a sense, Pandora herself was a kind of artificial intelligence, used as a weapon by Zeus.

Mythology is filled with stories about human ambition clashing with divine control, and creativity often took center stage in those tales. The myth of Pygmalion tells of a sculptor who fell in love with his own creation. When Aphrodite turned his statue into a real woman, Pygmalion struggled to love her as deeply as he loved his creation. The myth of Arachne similarly reflects the dangers of challenging the divine. Arachne, a talented weaver, dared to compete with Athena and, although her work was technically superior, was punished by being transformed into a spider. Then there’s Icarus, whose father, Daedalus, created wings so they could escape imprisonment. Icarus’s hubris—flying too close to the sun—led to his death.

These myths illustrate how creativity has often been viewed as risky, even dangerous, and as something that must be approached with reverence. Inspiration was thought to be a gift from the gods, and taking credit for it without acknowledging its divine source could lead to punishment. Even in literature, this theme persisted. Epic poems like “The Odyssey,” “The Iliad,” and even Milton’s “Paradise Lost” begin with invocations to the muse—an acknowledgment that creativity was not merely human but was channeled through divine intervention.

This idea has persisted throughout history. Even today, when people experience writer’s block, they talk about losing their “muse,” as if creativity is a force beyond our control that can come and go as it pleases. While it can feel magical when you’re in the creative zone, relying solely on an external muse can be paralyzing when inspiration doesn’t come.

The irony is that the most authentic creativity doesn’t necessarily come from within—it comes when we allow ourselves to transcend our ordinary limits, to tap into something greater. Historically, creativity was seen as a force that came from beyond us, and people feared it. For thousands of years, being too creative, thinking too far outside the box, was seen as a threat to societal norms. Those who dared to challenge the status quo were often punished.

During the Enlightenment and Romantic periods, the perception of creativity began to shift. Creativity was no longer seen as purely divine; it was considered intimately human. Romantic poets like Wordsworth described poetry as “the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings.” For them, true art came from deep emotional introspection rather than technical skill. This idea of rugged individualism, as portrayed by figures like Thoreau, became the ideal. Art was about personal expression, not proficiency.

This shift represented a rejection of earlier views that prioritized technical mastery. For centuries, art was about skill—training in the craft, mastering the tools, and producing work that was technically perfect. The Romantics turned that on its head, emphasizing emotion over skill. Yet, it’s important to remember that even during this period, many artists used whatever tools were available to enhance their creativity. The Romantics were known to experiment with newly discovered substances like laughing gas, which helped them experience the emotions they valued so highly.

The interplay between inspiration and technical skill is something we still struggle with today. The debate over what constitutes real creativity—whether it’s purely the result of hard work or spontaneous inspiration—is a conflict that can be traced back to the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. Plato believed creativity was divine madness, while Aristotle saw it as the result of learned skill. These opposing views continue to shape how we perceive creativity, especially in the face of AI.

It’s interesting to consider how historical figures might react to the tools we have today. John Milton, for example, dictated “Paradise Lost” after he went blind. Without someone to transcribe his words, he would never have been able to complete his work. Technology like voice recognition could have transformed his experience, just as AI tools are transforming the creative landscape today. The debate around AI and creativity often boils down to this idea: should technology be used to make the creative process easier, or is there inherent value in struggling through the hard parts?

We often hear that real art requires suffering, that without struggle, creativity loses its value. But that’s a narrative we’ve constructed, rooted in Romantic ideals. Vincent van Gogh, for example, struggled to find an audience during his lifetime, while Bouguereau, a classical painter known for his technical realism, found success. Today, Van Gogh is celebrated for his unique vision, while Bouguereau’s work, though still admired, is often seen as lacking the emotional resonance of Van Gogh’s. The value we place on technical skill versus emotional authenticity has always been in flux.

Generative AI tools have reignited this debate. Some argue that using AI to create art or literature diminishes the value of the work because it bypasses the struggle. But what if that struggle isn’t always necessary? What if the value of creativity isn’t in the effort but in the outcome—whether it connects with people, whether it makes them feel something? Authentic creativity, after all, has always been about using the tools available to us to push boundaries.

Throughout history, artists and writers have used whatever means they could to enhance their creativity. The Romantics used laughing gas. The Beat poets of the 1950s used speed. Even today, coffee and sugar are staples of many creative routines. These substances enhance our ability to create, just as AI might. Authentic creativity isn’t necessarily about doing everything the hard way—it’s about using what’s available to bring our visions to life.

It’s also worth noting that creativity has always involved an element of rebellion. The myths of Prometheus and Pandora, the stories of Faust, and countless others revolve around the dangers of defying limits and seeking more. Humanity’s creative impulse is inherently transgressive—it pushes us to break rules, to seek out new ways of doing things, to challenge the status quo. AI is just the latest chapter in this ongoing story.

The question we need to ask ourselves isn’t whether AI should be used in creative work—that ship has already sailed. The question is how we use these tools, how we adapt to new possibilities, and how we preserve the aspects of creativity that matter most to us. Creativity has always been about pushing boundaries, and AI offers us a chance to do that in ways we’ve never imagined before. What we need to decide is how we’ll embrace these changes without losing what makes creativity meaningful in the first place.

The Role of Struggle in Creative Authenticity

One of the most pervasive narratives around creativity is the belief that true art must come from struggle. This notion, deeply rooted in Romantic ideals, suggests that suffering is an essential part of the creative process. We see this narrative repeatedly in the stories of artists like Vincent van Gogh, whose life was marked by emotional turmoil, poverty, and a desperate longing for recognition. The idea that Van Gogh’s struggles somehow imbued his art with greater authenticity is a romanticized but problematic perspective.

The struggle-versus-outcome debate becomes even more pronounced in the context of generative AI. If AI can produce a visually stunning painting or an emotionally evocative poem in seconds, where does that leave the human artist who labors for years to perfect their craft? Does the ease of creation diminish the value of the work itself? These are difficult questions without straightforward answers, but they challenge our assumptions about what makes art “real.”

There’s also the question of gatekeeping—who decides what is authentic? For centuries, the art world has had gatekeepers: critics, curators, and established artists who define what is worthy of praise. The emergence of AI-generated art disrupts this structure by democratizing creativity. Suddenly, anyone with access to AI tools can produce works that rival traditionally created pieces. This shift challenges the traditional power structures that have long governed the creative world.

Consider the example of Bouguereau versus Van Gogh. Bouguereau, a technically proficient artist, was celebrated during his time for his masterful realism. His paintings were precise, beautiful, and well-received by the art establishment. Van Gogh, on the other hand, struggled both financially and emotionally. His work was far less appreciated during his lifetime. Today, however, Van Gogh is celebrated for his emotional depth and unique style, while Bouguereau’s works are often viewed as lacking in emotional resonance. This shift in perception illustrates how the value of art can change over time, influenced by cultural attitudes toward authenticity, emotion, and the artist’s personal narrative.

AI challenges these narratives by stripping away the backstory. An AI-generated painting doesn’t have a tortured artist behind it. There’s no story of sleepless nights, emotional breakdowns, or years of toil. And for some people, that lack of a compelling backstory strips the work of its value. They argue that art without human struggle is devoid of meaning—that the artist’s journey is an intrinsic part of the work’s authenticity.

AI and the Future of Creative Collaboration

As we move forward, it’s crucial to think about how we can use AI as a collaborator rather than as a replacement. The key lies in understanding the strengths of both AI and human creativity. AI excels at processing vast amounts of data, recognizing patterns, and generating content quickly. Humans, on the other hand, bring emotional depth, context, and a capacity for empathy that AI cannot replicate.

Imagine a scenario where an author uses AI to help brainstorm plot ideas. The AI could generate a hundred different potential storylines in seconds, providing a wealth of options that the author might not have considered on their own. The author could then choose the ideas that resonate most and develop them further, infusing them with personal experience and emotional nuance. In this way, AI becomes a tool that enhances the creative process rather than replacing it.

This kind of collaboration isn’t new. Throughout history, artists have used whatever tools were available to them to push their work further. Michelangelo used scaffolding to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Beethoven, who began losing his hearing in his late twenties, used modified pianos to feel the vibrations of his compositions. These tools didn’t detract from the authenticity of their work; they enabled these artists to create at the highest level possible.

Similarly, AI can be seen as a tool that extends our creative capabilities. It can help us break through writer’s block, suggest new directions, and even handle some of the more tedious aspects of the creative process, such as editing and formatting. By freeing us from these tasks, AI allows us to focus on the parts of creativity that are most meaningful—the parts that require a human touch.

The Ethics of AI in Creativity

Of course, the use of AI in creative fields raises important ethical questions. One of the primary concerns is authorship. If an AI generates a piece of art or writes a chapter of a book, who owns the rights to that work? Is it the person who programmed the AI, the person who prompted it, or is it somehow public domain? These questions are still being debated, and there are no easy answers.

There’s also the issue of accessibility. Not everyone has access to the latest AI tools, which could create a divide between those who can afford to use these technologies and those who cannot. If AI becomes an integral part of the creative process, will traditional methods of creating art become obsolete? Will artists who choose not to use AI be left behind?

These are valid concerns, and as we navigate the integration of AI into creative fields, it’s important to ensure that the technology is used in ways that are fair and inclusive. Creativity should be accessible to everyone, and AI has the potential to democratize creative tools—but only if we make a conscious effort to ensure that access is equitable.

The ethical considerations also extend to the data that AI models are trained on. Generative AI models are often trained on vast datasets that include copyrighted works. This raises questions about intellectual property and whether it’s ethical to use someone else’s creative output as training material without their consent. Artists, writers, and musicians have voiced concerns about their work being used in this way, and it’s an area that will need careful regulation as AI continues to evolve.

Preserving the Human Element in Art

Ultimately, the challenge we face is how to preserve the human element in art while embracing the possibilities that AI offers. Authentic creativity is about more than just producing a finished product—it’s about the journey, the struggle, and the connection between the artist and the audience. While AI can assist in the creation of art, it cannot replicate the depth of human experience that underlies truly meaningful work.

The human element in art is what allows it to resonate on a deep level. It’s the imperfections, the quirks, and the unique perspectives that make a piece of art stand out. AI can mimic style, generate content, and even create aesthetically pleasing works, but it cannot replicate the individual experiences that shape an artist’s vision. The stories of love, loss, joy, and sorrow that inform our creative output are what give it meaning—and that is something that AI, no matter how advanced, cannot replicate.

As we continue to explore the role of AI in creative work, it’s important to remember that technology is a tool. It can enhance our abilities, provide new opportunities, and push the boundaries of what’s possible. But the heart of creativity will always be human. It’s our capacity for empathy, our ability to find beauty in the mundane, and our drive to express our innermost thoughts and feelings that make art truly special.

Conclusion: Embracing AI Without Losing Ourselves

The rise of AI in creative fields is both exciting and challenging. It offers us new tools, new ways of thinking, and new possibilities for expression. But it also forces us to confront our own beliefs about what makes creativity valuable. Is it the struggle? The personal connection? The emotional depth?

AI has the potential to change the way we create, but it doesn’t have to replace the human element. Instead, it can be a collaborator—a way to push our creativity further, to explore new ideas, and to bring our visions to life in ways we might not have imagined on our own. The key is to use AI thoughtfully, to recognize its limitations, and to ensure that it serves to enhance, rather than diminish, the authenticity of our creative work.

Creativity has always been about pushing boundaries, challenging norms, and exploring the unknown. AI is simply another tool that allows us to do that. By embracing it without losing sight of what makes us human, we can continue to create work that is meaningful, impactful, and authentically ours.

Slide 1: Authentic Creativity as a Response to Artificial Intelligence

• Introduction to the topic.
• Present Derek Murphy and the key challenge: AI versus human creativity.

Slide 2: Quote on AI Use

• Meme quote: “I want AI to do laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes.”
  • Popular on social media, appeared in newspapers and magazines.
• Automation: People are comfortable replacing mundane tasks with tech (e.g., dishwashers, Roombas).
• what if you could remove all those completely unrelated tasks, to free up more mental bandwidth for writing? We are entering a phase where technology can help replace a LOT of these pedantic, meaningless jobs that don’t add value to your life in a significant want; things you don’t enjoy doing. Little things that don’t matter. But altogether, they add up.
• Today I want to take a deep, deep look on what it means to be creative, what are the benefits and dangers, is it worth the risk?

Slide 3: AI as a Tool vs. Creative Element

• “There’s litterly no situation where
  using AI is morally ok.”
• “AI can be a tool for mundane stuff like grammar or research or stuff like that. Factual things. The  second it begins being used as a replacement for the creative element the project is shot.”
• Discuss moral considerations of AI in creativity, and set up the problem statement for the presentation.

Value Judgments:

• Debate over the creative aspect vs. menial aspects of tasks.
• Value metrics: Connection with audience, engagement, satisfaction, or emotional impact.
• “AI can be a tool for mundane tasks like grammar or research.”
• Discuss differentiation between creativity and supportive tasks in a creative project.

Slide 4: Three Key Questions

1. Which part of the work is creative?
2. Which part of the work is valuable?
3. Which kind of workers deserve to get paid?

• Prompt questions to challenge the audience’s perception of creativity and value.

Slide 5: Creativity is Dangerously Foreign

• Part I: Historical Context
• Introduce the concept of creativity as something ‘alien’ or external to normal human behavior.

Slide 6~8: Greek Mythology Examples:

• Hephaestus:
  • Built robots to perform tasks, from household chores to entertainment.
• Prometheus:
  • Stole fire (techne – technical knowledge) and gave it to humans; punished by Zeus (eagle eating his liver).
• Pandora:
  • Created by Hephaestus to punish humanity; not a curious human but an AI-like entity built to bring suffering.

Slide 9: Divine Inspiration

• Pygmalion:
  • Fell in love with Galatea, a statue he created; Aphrodite brought it to life.
  • Struggled to love the real human, preferred his “perfect” version.
• Arachne:
  • Weaved better than Athena; punished by being turned into a spider (hubris against divine).
• Icarus: Wings made by Daedalus; hubris led to flying too close to the sun and his demise.

Slide 10: Divine inspiration versus the danger of hubris.

• Greek epics like “The Odyssey”, “The Iliad”, and “Paradise Lost” start with invoking the Muse.
• Creativity seen as an external divine force. Reflective of early views that inspiration wasn’t human-made but “gifted.”

Slide 11: Authentic Creativity is “not-human”

We are most creative when we are not normal. Not us.

Slide 12: Bargains & Barters (Warnings in Storytelling)

• Shortcuts in creativity can be dangerous.
• Bargains with the Fae or the devil as metaphors for taking easy paths without putting in the work.
• The Uncanny Valley Effect
• Skepticism towards things that mimic humans but are slightly “off.”
• First versions of generative AI (e.g., Midjourney, DALL-E) had too many fingers and teeth—indicative of AI limitations at the time.

Slide 13: Creativity Viewed as Dangerous

• Historically, creativity was a gift from the gods, requiring humility.
• “Fantasia” (1940), Disney’s “Sorcerer’s Apprentice”:
  • Based on 1897 composition by Paul Dukas.
  • Mickey animates a broom to do chores but lacks technical control—illustrates the danger of shortcuts.
  • Warning of the medium through the medium

Slide 14: Historical Creativity Boundaries

• Boundaries of creativity, moral considerations, and avoiding hubris in creative work.
• It’s tempting to cheat, but valuable creation requires sacrifice.
• And some things are off-limits.

Slide 15: Creativity is Intimately Human

• Part II: Humanist Shift in Values.
• Creativity as a deeply human characteristic.

Slide 16: Martin Luther’s Contribution

• Martin Luther’s 95 Theses (1517):
• Rejection of intermediaries between people and divine.
• Reflected in later cultural shifts valuing personal expression without mediators.
• Relate this to eliminating ‘shortcuts’ or ‘indulgences’ in the creative process.

Slide 17: Romantic Shift in Values

• Wordsworth: “Poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings.”
• Rilke: “Go into yourself. Find out the reason that commands you to write.”
• Focus on creativity emerging from emotional reflection and self-discovery.
• Shift from Craft to Self-Expression

Slide 18: The Value of Experience Over Output

• The true value lies in the creative process, not just the final product.
• Importance of self-expression.

Slide 19: Where does creativity come from? (Skill vs Talent/Inspiration)

• Skill (craft, technical mastery) vs. Inspiration (emotion, raw talent).

Slide 20: Example of Van Gogh vs. Bouguereau:

• Example of Van Gogh vs. Bouguereau:
  • Bouguereau: Technical perfection, realism (high establishment artist).
  • Van Gogh: Emotional depth and unique style; initially struggled to gain appreciation.
• Klimt and Vienna Secession (1897): Rejected needing formal schooling for creative legitimacy.

Slide 21: Is Writing a Skill?

• Which things are necessary to develop skills? Which part is the creative part that can’t be replaced?
• Core Identity
• The War of Art vs Nobody Gives a Sh!t
• How I Became a Famous Novelist, Steve Hely 

Slide 22: Classical Philosophy on Creativity

• Plato: Muses inspire creativity through a temporary madness.
• Aristotle: Rules and heuristics as methods to achieve creativity.
• Is it too late to Get Good?

Slide 23: Three Creative Fears (Orders of Wretchedness)

1. I have nothing to live for! (Purpose)
2. If I could wish, I could do! (Plan)
3. Why should I wish? I could not do! (Skill)

• Addressing common creative fears and limitations.

Slide 24: Limitations in Creativity

• All artists face limitations, but great artists overcome them.
• Reference to drugs and technology as aids to creativity.

Slide 25: Can The Muse Be Summoned? (Drugs)

• Explore the idea of whether creativity can be forced or is spontaneous.
• Romantics: Used laughing gas to inspire creativity.
• Beat Poets: Used amphetamines to write quickly and prolifically.
• Coffee, sugar, nicotine: Authentic creativity is influenced by external factors like drugs, lifestyle, and environment.

Slide 26: Does it Have to Be Hard? (Tech)

• Questioning if effort is always necessary for valuable creative output.

Slide 27: Humanity is Dangerously Creative

• Part III: AI Solutions.
• Introduce the concept of humanity’s tendency to take creativity to dangerous or ethically questionable extremes.
• Theme: Humans use technology, drugs, and other tools to push beyond natural limitations.

Slide 28: Descartes’ Predictions

• 1637, Descartes argued that machines would never replace humans because they cannot consciously create meaning.
• Machines will never replace humans in creative tasks.
• And yet: “A clock consisting only of ropes and springs can count the hours and measure time more accurately than we can.”
• Explore the boundaries between machine automation and human consciousness (the black box of the brain). Mapping synapses…

Slide 29: Baudelaire on Art and Photography

• Charles Baudelaire, 1859 Salon: Photography as a “mortal enemy” of art.
• “Poetry and progress are like two ambitious men who hate one another with an instinctive hatred.”
• Discuss the impact of technological advances on traditional creative forms.

Slide 30: AI predictions

• 1923 cartoon, Idea Dynamo + Cartoon Dynamo (going fishing)
• Dahl’s 1953 Story “The Great Automatic Grammatizator”
• “Give us strength, Oh Lord, to let our children starve.” Quote from Roald Dahl’s story about the dangers of sacrificing human creativity for mechanized creation.

Slide 31: Creativity as a Human Responsibility

• Snow White, 1937: New technology (animation) used to tell a story about the dangers of temptation.
• Prometheus, Genesis: Warnings against progress and the pursuit of forbidden knowledge.

Slide 32: Apple Intelligence

• The symbolic meaning of the bitten apple.
• Quote: “Intelligence grounded in the things that make you, you.”
• Manfred, Frankenstein
• Chaos, Void (Mary Shelley)
• Solomon’s temple, Faust
• Harnessing the muse with protections.
• For the first time in history… the muse can talk back.

Slide 33: The Three Questions

1. Can AI Replace Humans?
2. Will AI Replace Humans?
3. Should AI Replace Humans?

• Reiterate the risks of creativity when unbounded.

Slide 34: AI as Personal Intelligence

• Audience reception
• Is “REAL” the essential VALUE?
• Is physical reality necessary for effectivity?
• AI has the potential to do what only creative humans could once do. The audience will ultimately decide if the work is good enough.

Slide 35: Potential for harm

• Outrage against “AI bros” who are making things without the struggle
• The idea that hobbies must bring joy, and this is the ONLY point of creative production; the idea that this joy is diminished when other people can also experience it with less effort or dedication.

Slide 36: AI Removes Creative Limits

• If the important thing is the inspiration, it should always be easy.
• If the important thing is the technical skill, it should always be hard.
• Ars vs Techne.

Slide 37: The suffering is what makes it special

• Karate Kid
• Art made with Love
• What is art/not everything has to be ART.
• Cleo Abrah, Mark Zuckerberg: “how do we ensure the muscles we’re building will be stronger not weaker.”

Slide 38: All technology is morally neutral (but still dangerous)

• “All technology is morally neutral.” – Aldous Huxley 1958 with Mike Wallace
• “Art is a lie that makes us see the truth.” – Pablo Picasso
• “What is beauty when it is born in part by evil?”
• “Judge the work, and leave judgment concerning those who wrought it.” – Lord of the Rings (Rings of Power)

Slide 39: Biological Limitations

• I, Robot Movie:
  • “Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot turn a canvas into a beautiful masterpiece?” “Can YOU?”

• Atlas movie, Jennifer Lopez 2024
  • “We’re all programmed. Your DNA dictates your thoughts, emotions, health in the same way that my code determines mine.”

And do you think you have a soul?
I think everything has a soul.
But you can’t find it in your code.
Not any more than you can find it in yours. But I have faith that it’s there.

• The lines are blurring: The Matrix, the illusion of free will versus programming. Vonnegut’s ice9, refusal to be assimilated, erased. How much can you replace until your work is not yours; The Ship of Theseus.

Slide 40: Good, Fast, Cheap – You Can Get All Three

• Technology removes limits previously thought inevitable.
• Accessibility: AI as a democratizing tool or a divider (access issues).
• Decisions about which parts of creativity to keep or automate are subjective and vary per individual.

Slide 41: Evaluating creative work

1. Which part of the work is creative?
2. Which part of the work is valuable?
3. Which kind of workers deserve to get paid?

Slide 42: Glimmers and Triggers

• Glimmers: Things that excite or energize the creator.
• Triggers: Tasks that drain energy or induce procrastination.
• Checklist:
  • Focus on what you enjoy, what you’re good at, and what reduces emotional strain.
  • Replace what limits progress or creates resistance.
  • Replace what makes you tired, avoid what you dread, and prioritize what truly adds value.

43: The Epiphany Bridge

1. Creativity is Dangerously Foreign
2. Creativity is Intimately Human
3. Humanity is Dangerously Creative

(Judging quality based on personal emotional response).

Slide 44: Three Elements of Creativity:

• Purpose: Joy and motivation.
• Plan: Value and respecting readers.
• Skill: Craft mastery through practice.
• Framework for approaching creative work.

Slide 45: We Are Here (Present Day Challenges)

• Dystopian Dreams Realized.
• “The good news is we’re alive, the bad news is we’re alive.”
• Reflect on the current opportunities and challenges facing creatives.
• How are we DIFFERENT? Dissatisfaction. We can be unhappy, want more, and have the freedom to choose to create something different, something that we want to.
• It would be tempting to BREAK the rules; not use good grammar. Not use strong writing. That’s actually what a lot of people try to do right now. But that’s like neo in the matrix; he finds out he was always part of the machine, his resistance was predetermined, even though he’s human, he’s code… free will is an illusion.

Slide 46: Authentic Creativity

• Authentic Creativity:
  • Emotional depth, imperfections, human experiences give art meaning.
  • AI can mimic aesthetics but lacks the underlying human narrative.
  • AI offers new tools for creativity but cannot replace the authenticity that human experience brings to art.
  • Creativity is about pushing boundaries: AI should enhance, not diminish the essence of human creativity.
  • Final Message: We are alive at a pivotal moment in the age of AI creativity.
  • Empowerment: What we do next is our choice—whether to use these tools to elevate creativity or to resist them.

Download the notes from www.creativindie.com/vegasnotes

Derek Murphy

Derek Murphy has a PhD in Literature, is a USA Today and Wall Street Journal bestselling author, and has spent over a decade helping authors write, publish, and sell books through Creativindie. When he’s not critiquing manuscripts or building writing tools, he’s probably in a castle somewhere with cats.