When AI Points a Gun at Creativity: A Reflective Blog

 

Since the pandemic era (2020–2022), AI has sparked endless debates among academicians, students, professionals, and society at large. For me, AI itself is not the problem—it can be a powerful tool for research, writing, and innovation. But when it comes to AI-generated art, I draw a clear line.

I’m reflecting on this because, just last week, our college came under public scrutiny for producing an AI-generated poster to promote an event. Reactions poured in through Facebook groups, chats, and other channels. Many students expressed disappointment, some even condemnation, largely because the poster was created by a member of the college administration.

The creator defended AI as a tool for creativity and innovation—even within a college devoted to art and design. I respect that perspective, but I remain critical. As Walter Benjamin once observed in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, the aura of art—its uniqueness and presence in time and space—is diminished when it is mechanically reproduced. AI-generated art pushes this even further, stripping away the human intuition, struggle, and lived experience that give creative work its depth and resonance.

I myself use AI, but only as an assistive tool, never to generate entire works. I want to preserve my ability to think critically, to create with intention, and to remain human in essence. Generative AI in art and design is like a gun always pointed at the head of the creatives, waiting to be triggered. If we allow students or faculty to fully immerse their creative works in such AI, the risks are not just aesthetic—they are ethical and educational. AI can hallucinate, producing false or misleading information, and its outputs can be manipulated by anyone feeding it data. If the academe pushes generative AI as a primary learning tool, the very foundation of education—critical thinking and independent problem-solving—will be compromised. Ethical use of AI must be researched, institutionalized, and carefully monitored, guided by experts, rather than left to chance.

I want to be clear: I am never anti-technology. I am pro-responsible use. To use an analogy, a gun is a product of technology—but should we allow it to be used irresponsibly? Like AI, it must be employed in ways that are proper, ethical, moral, and, in the case of education, academic.

This is not a rejection of technology or innovation. Rather, it is a call to recognize that art, creativity, and learning are fundamentally human endeavors. Tools can enhance our vision, but they cannot replace the singular, irreplaceable act of creation that comes from human hands, imagination, and judgment. The debate over that poster is a small reflection of a larger negotiation between human creativity and machine assistance—a negotiation we must navigate thoughtfully, ethically, and responsibly.