Perhaps the most polarizing topic of late has been the use of artificial intelligence in art. For example, “The Brutalist,” a major contender at the 2025 Oscars, faced controversy over its use of AI to enhance Adrian Brody and Felicity Jones Hungarian dialogue. This writer argues that the use of any AI in the arts is categorically oxymoronic to its very existence  — art is the soul of humanity, the human expression of life, and the distinguishing factor between human and animal. Using AI to create art in any form may seem appealing — skipping the toil to enjoy the reward of creating something at all is tantalizing. However, one could argue that learning to love the work is what separates the average artist from the great artist. Steve Jobs said it best: “The only way to do great work is to love what you do.” This sentiment seems to be growing concerningly irrelevant. Quick fixes, brief summaries and reductive reasoning abound, and the value of going through tedious and unpleasant tasks for the sake of achieving the result has become undermined in the process. 

Although I don’t think the use of AI is categorically bad, I do think that we could do without it. I could survive without my AI-generated exam practice questions, and we would all thrive even without AI-generated pictures of pregnant Jake Paul or AI reality television shows about fruit Love Island. “The Brutalist,” one could argue, jump-started the discourse regarding the  incorporation of  AI in art and, as of a few days ago, would narrowly avoid not being eligible for Oscar recognition at all. As we can see, proponents of the arts have begun to acknowledge the ubiquity of AI, and are taking steps to protect artistic integrity. This is incredibly important, but the value of individual agency cannot be over-emphasized. Whether or not you think concern over AI is valid is perhaps the most emergent question of our time — and our response to it will determine, in no uncertain terms, the future of humanity as well as the legacy we leave for future generations. 

Teachers have begun incorporating AI into their teaching procedures, and our government heavily depends on AI and the billionaires that profit from it. AI is inescapable — As I was writing this article, I typed the word “reason” and a suggestion for Reason.ai appeared completely unprompted. I googled the company and an AI overview came up. I clicked on the website and, backed by a blood-red background, were the bolded, capialized words “REASON IS THE CORE OF INTELLIGENCE.” This is ironic considering that AI can’t reason at all — rather, it copies. The process behind AI’s functionality is equivalent to a math student using a formula on every problem that looks slightly relevant: there’s no dynamism, no ingenuity, no reason. Algorithms, patterns and feedback loops are the core drivers behind AI. In Google’s own words, AI answers every question without knowing any explicit answer. Rather, it uses existing patterns and algorithms to offer a solution to any problem you offer, with no promise that the solution is good, usable or even correct. Math, though one of my least favorite subjects, is a wonderful example of the value of human intelligence. It is built on showcases the beauty of organic thought and human reasoning, applying seemingly cold principles of logic to explain the fundamentals of our world. For example, the axiom of equality — any entity is equal to itself — seems obvious but in actuality serves as a foundational proof that validates common mathematical principles like substitution and transitive properties in equations. 

Though AI could perhaps replicate the proofs that mathematicians have labored on across history, its beauty would be lost. Because of human passion, and because of the human drive to create beauty out of the mundane and find the logics behind truths that lie at the heart of life. 

When the camera was invented, it ignited much of the same discourse we see now about AI. Considering that we carry cameras wherever we go today, it’s surprising that their existence was once so polarizing, but many critics deemed the camera to be the herald of the end of art as they knew it. Poet Charles Baudelaire deemed the camera as “invading the territories of art,” calling photography “art’s most mortal enemy.” He said that if the camera is allowed to supplement art in any way, it will replace art all together, and painting and portraiture would become a thing of the past. 

Today, that seems absurd. The camera as we think of it today is an extension of the hand; it is a tool that allows us to capture our environments in specific and intentional ways. Photography didn’t replace painting, it just became a new medium for self-expression and rebellion. Applying this same argument to AI is, in my opinion, reductive. Photography takes more than a prompt and the click of a button to make — it’s an ever-evolving art full of complexities. AI, by contrast, does all the work for us. AI “thinks” for us, generates art and photos that steal and “repurpose” from existing people and artists’ work, all while we’re lounging on the couch doing absolutely nothing, (to say nothing about its horrific environmental impact).

In my opinion, AI worked better as a hypothetical reality that existed only inside of futuristic movies. However, the days when Tony Stark’s J.A.R.V.I.S seemed light-years ahead of us are long gone, and we now exist in a reality where we have AI agents available to us at the click of a button. AI music abounds, AI-written novels are more commons, and art seems to be becoming, as Charles Baudelaire wrote many years ago, an afterthought in today’s focus on convenience. 

That being said, I don’t believe that AI will ever truly eclipse art. Essentially every single person on this planet recognizes the value of human creative expression, and more and more people are becoming disillusioned rather than excited by AI’s increasing capabilities and ubiquity. We will all be fine — but the only way to guarantee that is to continue advocating for the arts and for the intrinsic purpose that we have as humans to make art that AI will never be able to replicate. AI is indeed the beginning of a new era in technological advancement — perhaps one we shouldn’t have begun — but it certainly does not signal the end of life as we know it. Next time you think about using AI to make you a playlist or create a picturesque scene for you to admire, to put it very simply  don’t! AI doesn’t make Earth special, we do. To continue to accomplish these feats, we have to continue working hard, doing what we love and remembering the value of our humanity. Will you?