11 April 2026
Regardless of your industry, as a worker in the mid-20’s, it’s quite difficult to avoid talking or hearing about Generative AI, especially if you work in the arts or technical fields. I wanted to take the time to try and collect my thoughts in this post.
Generally, I’m deeply reluctant to become a regular user of LLMs (Large Language Models, such as ChatGPT) and other Generation tools that come with similar baggage, for areas such as writing, image, video, 3D models, and music.
For avoidance of doubt, I’m talking specifically about application of GenAI in the arts, and not in areas such as healthcare, meteorology, etc. where it is invaluable
My concerns include some* of the following:
- Ethical: You’ll often hear that “GenAI is theft”. This is because most models are trained on the creations of others without their consent, compensation, or even their knowing. It is then used to create profit for tech companies. As well as this direct theft, the tools also rob the creatives who would have carried out the work, were the AI not used.
- Environmental/health: Those living in proximity to data centres are facing respiratory sicknesses. The enormous energy and water consumption to power this tech is no secret.
- Societal: Studies are increasingly showing that overuse of GenAI is contributing to loss of critical thinking, particularly among students. Incidents of AI psychosis and chatbot-linked suicides are making the news. In a world of growing inequality, do the ultra-rich deserve even more of your custom?
- My feelings as an artist: It defeats the point of art as a human experience, in which we better ourselves through craft, and create a meaning dialogue with the audience driven by our unique, human perspective.
Some will say, ‘you can’t argue with the results‘. Firstly, I think you can. If you’re willing to engage, there’s a lot of conversation on how productivity gains aren’t manifesting, partly due to the generations being sub-par leading to significant efficiency gains being lost in fixing them. But moreover, even if we DO accept that it leads to a positive result, is it morally defensible? If you mug someone, yes, you personally have a positive result – what about the victim? If you think this is a ridiculous comparison, I invite you to read again the concerns I raised above, and see the victim is not necessarily an individual.
Others might reasonably say, “why aren’t you a vegan then, if these sorts of things trouble you? Throw away your smartphone while you’re at it!” I accept that’s a fair point. People aren’t perfect – we can be hypocritical or inconsistent in where we pick and choose to apply our morals. Well, I choose this. These technologies are so new, the court of public opinion isn’t settled yet, and we can all remember life before this. We know that this isn’t something that we need.
Nothing is absolute: I’m sure circumstances will change rapidly, and I know that not all of the points above apply to all tools. For example, Adobe Firefly has a more ethical approach to artist compensation and sourcing data, and some models can be run locally to minimise environmental impact.
So, this is my current stance. I expect many more nuances will emerge over the coming months and years as humanity and legislation collectively catch up. I’m told “it’s not going away“, which I think is likely true. I can only hope that things move in a direction that makes creative jobs less endangered.
*These aren’t all of my concerns, but to go into them all would overshadow what I’m trying to say. An honourable mention though is Economic: Like so many in creative roles, I have seen friends and family lose job security in the name of adoption of AI tools. If you believe AI will create some kind of universal-basic-income-powered utopia, I hope you’re right, but looking at the way in which billionaires run the world now, I don’t expect to see them having a moral epiphany and start to look after the masses.