When Chat GPT, a free open source of an automated language model, first emerged in November of 2022, the fear arose that AI would soon replace humans in workplaces. Samantha Murphy of CNN claims: “Some of the biggest names in tech are calling for artificial intelligence labs to stop the training of the most powerful AI systems.” Even though artificial intelligence is developing rapidly, there is still a high probability that artificial intelligence can replace many professions – but not artists. Unlike other professions, artists will never be replaced by AI because it does not have the capacity for human ideology and emotions that make art meaningful, and AI cannot produce creative new art since the premise of its creation is to have an existing formula or model as a reference.

AI can never fully replace artists due to a computer’s lack of human sensation and understanding. This truth has been presented since the earliest days of AI research. In his 1972 book What Computers Can’t Do, Hubert Dreyfus argues that Artificial Intelligence cannot replace many aspects of human ideology, since, “...it is doubtful that a computer program can be devised to take account of a human's background awareness, such as what it is to have a body, to have feelings and other intangible mental aspects that humans possess.” As one of the earliest researchers into the impact and scope of artificial intelligence, Dreyfus understands this technology intimately, and therefore his opinion should be valued. To fully understand the implications of Dreyfus’s argument, we need to look no further than the words of one of the greatest artists of all time. In a famous letter to his brother, Vincent Van Gogh wrote: “I want to reach the point where people say of my work, that man feels deeply and that man feels subtly” (Van Gogh 2). Van Gogh’s ideas fully embody that good works of art are closely connected with the artist’s thoughts and feelings. Take an example from one of Van Gogh’s most well-known works, Starry Night. In this piece, the colors and objects Van Gogh included were closely influenced by his mental state and illness. The Vincent Van Gogh Organization explains: “...the symbolism of the stylized cypress tree in the foreground [of Starry Night], link[s] to death and Van Gogh's eventual suicide” (Starry Night 1). A good piece of art reflects the feelings and thoughts of the artist, and AI cannot accomplish that, simply because it does not share human ideology and emotions. According to an article from Wired Magazine, a group of researchers from the University College London and the University of Copenhagen did an experiment where they gave people two images — one made by a machine, the other made by a human — and asked them which one they liked. The outcome of this experiment was that “[p]eople not only claimed to prefer the (identical) human-made pictures, their brain’s pleasure centers lit up more brightly” (Pelc). This clearly shows that the audience favors man-made art over those created by machines, due to the lack of human touch and emotionality. Aside from the clear limitations of AI art in terms of emotionality and ideologies, AI replacing artists would also create stagnation in this field.

Because AI is trained to generate works “by exposing them to large quantities of existing works such as writings, photos, paintings, and other artworks” (Zirpoli and Attorney), AI art is inherently unable to further the evolution of artistic style and process, and therefore can never fully replace human artists. Art is not just about creating pieces of work: uniqueness, depth, and creativity are what make good art. Although it cannot be denied that AI does a good job of copying a painting or creating a song based on an existing song, AI is not going to create unique, new, or groundbreaking art. In the article, “Cognitive Processes in Artistic Creation: Toward the Realization of a Creative Machine,” Charles Albert Tijus, the Director of the Cognitions Humaine et Artificielle Laboratory, confirms this point: “Since the transference of creative expertise from an artist to a machine is inadequate for developing a creative machine, it is first necessary to formulate a definition of artistic creation” (Tijus 168). Tijus explains that for a machine to create artwork, the artist will first need to give formulas and directions to the machine for it to function. In other words, AI can reproduce the Mona Lisa using known formulas, but this is only because da Vinci had already created the Mona Lisa as a model for AI to copy. From this idea, we can see that while AI might be able to replace a painter who made his living duplicating the drawings of da Vinci, AI cannot replace artists like da Vinci himself. Aside from the limitations of AI being a response to inputs and imitations, the definition of art is a constantly evolving concept that cannot be specifically answered. According to The Journal of Aesthetic Education, many authorities on art such as Benedetto Croce, Robin Collingwood, Leo Tolstoy, Morris Witz, Arthur Danto, and George Dickie had different definitions of art over time because art is not one thing — it is almost infinite possibilities. However, all their definitions share the common idea that art is closely linked with the artist’s feelings and the world’s circumstances, responding to what came before it (Humphries 14). Art evolves as the world around it develops and changes; because AI is not capable of understanding cultural circumstances, it will never truly achieve the ability human artists have to continue evolving ideas. Per the recent start of the Writers Guild of America strike in Hollywood, the concern over AI-generated scripts has become a hot topic for negotiation, and writers are trying to work to keep AI out of writers’ rooms. According to a recent article by The Hollywood Reporter, WGA negotiating committee co-chair David Goodman claims that the WGA wants the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers to, “...say they are our partners. [To] make that commitment and say, ‘We are only going to work with writers who are human beings’” (O’Connell, 2023). In addition to the current writers’ strike, the possibility of a multi-union strike including the Directors' and Screen Actors’ guilds is not out of the question. It displays the strong opposition to AI in the arts and entertainment industries. The united artists in Hollywood against AI demonstrates AI will not replace artists in any industry, simply because no one wants to cooperate with robots.

Furthermore, according to a recent CNN article, Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla and Twitter, signed a letter on March 22, 2023, that claims, “AI labs are locked in an out-of-control race to develop and deploy ever more powerful digital minds that no one – not even their creators – can understand, predict, or reliably control” (Murphy). From this, it can be seen that AI is developing to a point where even its creators cannot understand it; hence, its ability to make art is questionable. Furthermore, due to its lack of human characteristics – such as sensation and ideology – and its reliance on pre-existing formulas, AI cannot create new styles of art or fully replace the originality and importance of human artists.

Works Cited

Dreyfus, Hubert. “What Computers Can't Do.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol. 27, no. 2, 1976, pp. 177-185. PhilPapers, muse.jhu.edu/article/599491/pdf. Accessed 29 April 2023.

Humphries, Holle. "A Philosophical Inquiry into the Nature of Computer Art." The Journal of Aesthetic Education, vol. 37, spring 2003. JSTOR. Accessed 30 Apr. 2023.

Murphy, Samantha. “Elon Musk and Other Tech Leaders Call for Pause in 'Out of Control' AI Race | CNN Business.” CNN, Cable News Network, 29 Mar. 2023, 

O'Connell, Mikey. “Writers Strike: How the Studios' Retort Went over at the Picket Lines.” The Hollywood Reporter, The Hollywood Reporter, 5 May 2023.

Pelc, Krzysztof. “AI Will Make Human Art More Valuable.” Wired, Conde Nast, 16 Mar. 2023.

Tijus, Charles Albert. “Cognitive Processes in Artistic Creation: Toward the Realization of a Creative Machine.” The MIT Press, vol. 21, no. 2, 1988, pp. 167-172. Project Muse.

Van Gogh, Vincent. “249 (250, 218): To Theo van Gogh. The Hague, on or about Friday, 21 July 1882. - Vincent van Gogh Letters.” Van Gogh's letters, Van Gogh Museums, 21 July 1882, vangoghletters.org/vg/letters/let249/letter.html. Accessed 29 April 2023.

VincentVan Gogh.org. “Starry Night:10 Secrets of Vincent van Gogh Night Stars Painting.” Vincent van Gogh, vincentvangogh.org/starry-night.jsp. Accessed 29 April 2023.

Zirpoli, Christopher T. and Legislative Attorney. “Generative Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law.” 24 February 2023. Accessed 9 May 2023.