Between Creation and Algorithm
The debate around artificial intelligence in art is often reduced to simplistic positions: either celebrating technological liberation or mourning creative apocalypse. Yet as with most profound shifts in human expression, reality exists in the complex territory between extremes, where contradictions thrive and nuance matters most.
This collection represents my attempt to explore that territory honestly, without the bias of my own evolving position. What constitutes creativity in an age of algorithms? Who owns the patterns of artistic expression when they're transformed into data? How do we balance accessibility with compensation for skilled labor?
My goal is not to provide answers but to create a space where contradictions can be acknowledged, where complexity is embraced rather than simplified, and where you might discover perspectives you hadn't previously considered.
This multidimensional approach reflects my belief that the most important conversations happen not in echo chambers of agreement but in the challenging space where different truths meet. The future of creativity will be shaped not by those who stake the most extreme positions but by those willing to engage honestly with the nuances of this transformation.
Where I Stand in the Paradox
I think of myself as an artist even though I use AI tools. My work is still very uniquely me: making meaning of my world in my way, from my inspiration and life experiences. It's a complicated position to be in. I won't allow anyone else to define what makes me an artist or whether what I do, my words in whatever form, is art.
At the same time, of course, I feel deeply for artists who feel AI has stolen from them, either their work or their future income. I understand this fear. It is a complicated terrain and I read and watched a lot to try to portray everyone I can. Clearly this is personal for me, but also I hope, outside me, a fair look at this complicated, often toxic topic.
Here's the thing people miss: if you type a generic prompt for a generic song or image to make money, not trying to express anything, trying to create cheap low-stakes imitation, that is AI slop. That is not an artist. That is a hustler with a shiny new tool. This is not the case for many artists who either actually create art in this genre or use it as a tool to bring their ideas, their unique voice to life, lowering the barrier, removing gatekeepers.
In what world would I be able to write as a writer and hear my songs without thousands of dollars to spend? In that world, only the wealthy would be able to try new things. My music is different than most of what I've found. I like lyrics, I like meaning in my music, not just a catchy beat. I was able to create this. This is a human heart. This is my beat. And a lot of AI art is human: meaning making, experiences shared, ideas brought to life with fewer barriers. It is AI in part, like a cyborg. Who is 100% pure anymore?
The Questions Nobody Can Answer
Who actually "owns" what AI makes? Is it the corporation that made it, the prompter who created this work, or the many artists whose work was taken (often unknowingly and without consent), or the particular ones that inspired that particular piece? We won't have an answer for a long time. If artists win, it will be nominal, a few dollars from a class action lawsuit. If the corporations win, perhaps fewer artists will be born in the future.
Currently the copyright office requires human changes to claim ownership. This can be as transformational as my work. I use multiple AIs, then end with a human audio engineer mixing and mastering stems. I have no idea who owns it fully. Sometimes I wonder if we all should, turn this tool into public domain for all.
The reality is that people have been shown to prefer AI-generated poems until they learn the poems are AI-generated. This is the harsh reality for any artist. We try to be unique, but well before AI, things became generic to appeal to the widest audience. As soon as they could test and study audiences, things started having a sameness. AI supercharges this and makes it very clear: most of us will not be popular, and the audience ultimately decides.
We don't have to be enemies. These are young artists using new tools. We need to combine forces, work together, understand each other. I've seen toxicity in most spaces, even something as simple as a child sharing what they've done, with comments saying the parent raised them wrong if they're okay using AI. This isn't how we move forward.
Five Perspectives on the Debate
Songs exploring different facets of the AI art conversation: the paradox of using AI to critique AI, copyright questions, traditional artists' pain, marginalized voices gaining access, and the uncomfortable truth about consumer preference.
The Complete Conversation
Mechanical Monkey
Playful music box introduction questioning the nature of AI creativity through references to other album tracks.
Digital Irony
Self-aware exploration of using AI to create music critiquing AI art. Tongue-in-cheek acknowledgment of the paradox.
Library of Everything
Contemplative comparison of AI training to human learning. Both draw from common knowledge like borrowing from a library.
Thirteen Words
Critical examination of minimal-effort prompts claiming authorship. The difference between commanding and creating.
Who Owns the Echo
Upbeat but thoughtful copyright exploration. Who has rights to content created without direct human hands?
Trained On My Soul
Dark, emotionally charged perspective of artists whose work trains AI without consent. The violation of essence extraction.
Comfort In Circuits
Dark examination of consumer preference. We choose AI content in blind tests, preferring comfortable over challenging.
Patterns, Not Pixels
Experimental track from AI's perspective. Describing how it "sees" art as mathematical patterns without meaning.
Infinite Monkey Theorem
Baroque-influenced philosophical piece. Exploring random chance versus intention in creativity through probability.
Naruto's Selfie
Bouncy exploration of the famous monkey copyright case. Applied to questions of AI authorship and ownership.
Voice From The Margins
Intimate song about those using AI due to lack of resources. Democratization versus gatekeeping in art creation.
Ten Thousand Hours
Anthemic celebration of enduring human creativity. The drive to create regardless of technological changes.
Terms and Conditions
Deceptively upbeat track about how tech companies own AI-generated content through fine print you ignored.
Authorial Intent
Hard-hitting unity anthem. Genuine creators versus profit-driven exploitation, regardless of tools used.
Declaration of Art
Questioning track confronting contradictions. Comparing conceptual art's acceptance to AI art's dismissal.
Nose Up at the Gallery
Satirical take on hypocritical critics. Dismissing AI art while lacking any creative credentials themselves.
Imagining the Impossible
Cinematic, hopeful conclusion. How AI enables previously impossible creative visions by removing practical constraints.
An Invitation to Nuance
I invite you to experience each song both as an artistic expression and as an entry point into deeper contemplation. Listen to the music, read the perspectives, and consider where your own thoughts and feelings reside in this conversation.
Whatever your current position on AI and creativity, whether you align more with concern or enthusiasm, I hope this collection creates space for you to explore the terrain between certainty and doubt, between preservation and innovation, between human hands and algorithmic patterns. It is in this space between positions that true understanding flourishes.
Subscribe to What Interests You
Choose what you want to follow. No spam, just updates on what you care about.
📊 Systems Thinking
Non-fiction book updates, incentive analysis, frameworks
💻 Conscious Tech
App development, technical philosophy, tools that respect users
🎨 Story & Sound
Fiction chapters, music releases, creative process
🔥 The Whole Journey
Everything—weekly updates across all projects