I’ve been a big fan of Game of Thrones since the TV series was released in 2011 (at least the first four seasons anyway). The fantasy world that George R.R. Martin had created, with all its shades of human nature and political intrigue, had a depth and richness expertly conveyed by the talented actors and cinematographers, as well as the detailed efforts of the costume, set design and special effects teams to name but a few departments that made this story come alive and captivate millions. All the elements that came together to form this magic were born from human imagination, creativity and ingenuity.
How sad it is then to learn of the accusation levied at the publishing house of an illustrated special edition of A Feast For Crows, the second in George R.R. Martin’s books of the Song of Ice and Fire series that Game of Thrones is based on. The accusation? That the art featured in this edition was generated by AI. After examining the images and knowing a thing or two about the world George had painstakingly described, it is not at all difficult to see why such an accusation was levied. While the publishers have denied any willful use of AI in the creation of these images, they have stopped short of explaining the multitude of observed anomalies and inconsistencies with the material that smack of AI generation (see https://winteriscoming.net/a-feast-for-crows-illustrated-edition-artwork-draws-ai-accusations-from-fans for examples)1. Needless to say, the fans aren’t buying it (and neither am I). Interestingly, and one of the grand ironies of this situation is that, at present, George R.R. Martin himself is embroiled in a separate legal battle against AI for copyright infringement of his creative works2.
The intrusion of AI into the creative space is one of the greatest threats humanity has ever encountered, and I say this without hyperbole or exaggeration. Firstly, we should not resign to calling an AI-generated image ‘art’ – to call the technological process of simply mashing together existing works of art to create something that falls within the boundaries of a prompt, “art”, is to wash the term of all meaning.
Art necessitates a creative input; the use of imagination or divine inspiration, and machines cannot ‘think’ creatively. That is to say, they cannot generate an image of something that has not been conceived or created before beyond an amalgamation of existing inputs (there are many critical analyses of this thesis online, the most prominent being the example of AI being unable to generate an image of a wine glass full to the brim, since the AI could not find a single instance of such a phenomena from its training model). In a 2023 article in the Journal of Creativity, the question of whether or not AI can be truly creative was examined by first considering what it means to be creative3. Arguing that authentic creativity encompasses more than the standard definitions centered on originality and usefulness, the article states that, “intrinsic motivation, mindfulness and choice are enormously important parts of creativity but lacking in AI”, and that, “the authentic individual expresses ideas and feelings without manipulating them for the sake of others. It may be that AI can avoid filters, but there is no self to express, so no possibility of authenticity.” (Runco, 2023). The concept of ’emergence’ seems a vital one when attempting to decipher the ‘how’ of the authentic, individual creative process, yet remains poorly defined despite a plethora of research on the subject. In my view, the academic approach here breaks down for the same reason that scientific investigation into the nature of consciousness has yielded no clarity; it is a symptom of a spiritual connection between the self, or soul, of a unique individual to that of source. The expression of self by giving in to our intrinsic motivations is the reason why we are here. Our divine purpose.
For our most meaningful insight into the creative process it makes sense to ask our most creative artists. A common theme astonishingly emerges that I believe is crucial for humanity to grasp and fully integrate. Overwhelmingly, our most creative minds are humble in the face of their creations and notably back away from taking full responsibility for them. They describe ideas being placed into their minds. A bolt of inspiration; not the result of arduous mental strain focussed on producing an outcome, but is fundamentally an ethereal process. The abstractions are manifested in the Great Mind, through the Music of the Spheres, and are divinely channeled to those with the potential to do the abstraction justice in birthing it into the world through their uniqueness and skill.
All this to say that true creativity is distinctly human and is a manifestation of our spiritual nature. So powerful is the creative force that it can profoundly impact our thoughts, emotions, feelings; and by extension, change our world. This is why, ultimately, we must honour and protect our creative power and our expressions of it, refuse to outsource that which cannot be digitised, and fight against legally protected creative works being openly scraped and dehumanised for mere inputs to a soulless corporate algorithm that disregards copyright. Our creativity defines us as human, and this soulless invasion of AI into this space should be rejected at every turn. Without creativity and the inherent struggle that is synonymous with it, we give our own souls away.
Going deeper, I have no doubt that the deliberate intrusion of AI in the creative space is nothing less than an act of war.
Cymatic Visuals therefore stands behind artists around the world that seek to denounce AI mimicry of true art and protect authentic creative expression:
https://www.aitrainingstatement.org
References
3 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2713374523000225