Artificial intelligence can now produce creative work that is, at the very least, as compelling as much of what human beings produce. Let me give an example.
Suppose someone submitted the following concrete poem, titled “boots on the ground,” to Open Arts Forum:
boots on the ground
mo boots on the ground ther
fa boots on the ground ther
ch boots on the ground ild
br boots on the ground ead
wa boots on the ground ter
do boots on the ground or
boots on the ground
boots on the ground
boots on the ground
wi boots on the ground ndow
ta boots on the ground ble
bl boots on the ground anket
le boots on the ground ft
ri boots on the ground ght
le boots on the ground ft
ri boots on the ground ght
si boots on the ground ster
bro boots on the ground ther
gr boots on the ground andmother
boots
boots
boots
on the ground
on the ground
ho boots on the ground use
ki boots on the ground tchen
sc boots on the ground hool
na boots on the ground me
fa boots on the ground ce
st boots on the ground reet
boots on the ground
boots on the ground
boots on the ground
bo boots on the ground dy
bl boots on the ground ood
bo boots on the ground ne
cr boots on the ground ying
bu boots on the ground rning
wa boots on the ground iting
no boots on the ground doctor
no boots on the ground water
no boots on the ground answer
pr boots on the ground ayer
sl boots on the ground eep
dr boots on the ground eam
boots
boots
boots
boots
on
the
ground
so boots on the ground n
da boots on the ground ughter
fa boots on the ground ther
mo boots on the ground ther
erased
broken
missing
boots on the ground
boots on the ground
boots on the ground
ho boots on the ground me
li boots on the ground ght
he boots on the ground art
gr
ou
nd
gr
ou
nd
grief
Now, you may or may not like concrete poetry. (I do.) But if a human being had submitted this, I suspect that person would be published on the front page of Open Arts Forum quickly enough.
But what if we learned that the poem was produced by AI?
What changes, exactly?
Does the work become dismissible? Does it become less moving, less effective, less worthy of attention? And if so, why?
When we say that a work is worth reading, viewing, or contemplating, what exactly are we praising? The work itself? The human labor behind it? The intention? The struggle? The biography of the maker? Some combination of all of those?
This seems to me one of the central questions AI now forces us to confront, and perhaps not comfortably.
As both an editor and an author, I evaluate creative work all the time. I like to think I can judge a work on its own effectiveness, apart from who made it. But can I really? And should I?
I’m curious how others here think about this.
If an AI-generated work genuinely moves you, is that enough?
Or does authorship remain central to artistic value?
What, in the end, are we responding to when we respond to creative work?
Click the Comments link below to join the discussion.
