08/09/2026
A GENERAL NOTE ON AI, ART AND THE CURRENT PANIC
There is a serious discussion to be had about AI.
There are legitimate concerns about copyright, consent, creative labour, employment, ownership, deception, training data, corporate exploitation and the possibility of skilled people being replaced because software is cheaper.
Those are real issues.
What is not helpful is turning every discussion about AI into a prophecy about the death of art, the end of human creativity, social control, cultural collapse or some grand conspiracy to make people incapable of thinking for themselves.
That is not critical analysis.
That is fearmongering.
Technology has been accused of destroying creativity before.
Photography was going to destroy painting.
Recorded music was going to destroy musicians.
Electronic instruments were going to destroy "real" music.
Synthesisers were treated as artificial.
Drum machines were accused of replacing drummers.
Sampling was accused of destroying originality.
Home recording challenged professional studios.
Digital photography challenged film.
Photoshop challenged traditional graphic design.
Streaming challenged physical media.
Now AI has arrived, and once again the language of technological apocalypse has returned.
None of this means AI should escape criticism.
It should be criticised.
But criticism should be intelligent, evidence-based and specific.
Ask who owns the material.
Ask who gave permission.
Ask who is getting paid.
Ask who is being replaced.
Ask whether a company is deliberately deceiving the public.
Ask whether an artist's work was used without consent.
Ask whether technology is assisting a human creator or attempting to remove the human entirely.
Those are serious questions.
Saying that everyone who uses AI is destroying art is not a serious question.
Typing a prompt does not suddenly make somebody David Bowie, Francis Bacon, William S. Burroughs, Stanley Kubrick or Miles Davis.
A machine can generate material.
That does not automatically give it experience, memory, cultural understanding, emotional history, judgement, intention or a lifetime of artistic development.
At the same time, pretending that every person using a new tool has somehow committed an offence against culture is equally absurd.
Artists have always used tools.
The tools change.
The argument around who is permitted to use them changes.
The anxiety around them changes.
Human creativity continues.
The much more important danger is not simply that AI exists.
The danger is what governments, corporations, platforms, publishers, record companies, advertisers and employers decide to do with it.
There is an enormous difference between a person experimenting with a creative tool and a corporation using automation to eliminate hundreds of jobs while appropriating the work of the very people it intends to replace.
Those distinctions matter.
Without them, the conversation becomes noise.
I have written several articles examining this subject because I believe the discussion around AI has become far too polarised.
It is increasingly presented as though there are only two positions:
Love AI and accept everything.
or
Reject AI completely and declare that human creativity is dying.
I reject both positions.
The reality is more complicated.
For anyone interested in moving beyond the panic and actually examining the history, labour, technology, creative control and cultural consequences involved, these are my three pieces on the subject:
WHEN THE MACHINE ENTERS THE STUDIO — AI, Computer Music, Human Labour, Lost Recordings and the Price of Making a Song — Where Does the Tool End, Where Does the Creator Begin, and What Happens When the Machine Becomes Cheaper Than the Musician?
https://infectiousuneaseradio.com/2026/08/20/when-the-machine-enters-the-studio-ai-computer-music-human-labour-lost-recordings-and-the-price-of-making-a-song-where-does-the-tool-end-where-does-the-creator-begin-and-what-happens-whe/
THE STREET GOT THE MACHINE — AI, Graphic Design, Creative Control and the New DIY Revolution — The Photocopier Became Photoshop, Photoshop Became the Prompt. The Argument About Who Is Allowed to Create Never Went Away.
https://infectiousuneaseradio.com/2026/09/02/the-street-got-the-machine-ai-graphic-design-creative-control-and-the-new-diy-revolution-the-photocopier-became-photoshop-photoshop-became-the-prompt-the-argument-about-who-is-allowed-to-create-ne/
THE MACHINE MADE THE SONG, THE MACHINE REVIEWED IT, THEN THE MACHINE PUT IT ON AIR — SO WHERE THE HELL DID THE HUMAN GO? — The Machine Commenting on the Machine Through Another Machine.
https://infectiousuneaseradio.com/2026/09/02/the-machine-made-the-song-the-machine-reviewed-it-then-the-machine-put-it-on-air-so-where-the-hell-did-the-human-go-the-machine-commenting-on-the-machine-through-another-machine/
Read them.
Disagree with them.
Challenge them.
Argue with them.
That is healthy.
But if the discussion is going to be about AI, art and the future of human creativity, then it deserves more than panic, slogans and predictions of cultural Armageddon.
The machine deserves scrutiny.
Corporations deserve scrutiny.
Governments deserve scrutiny.
The economics deserve scrutiny.
The technology deserves scrutiny.
But fear should never be mistaken for analysis.
— Gordon Lawrence Taylor
Infectious Unease Radio • Subterranean Zone Radio • Voice In The Void
THE MACHINE MADE THE SONG. THE MACHINE REVIEWED IT. THEN THE MACHINE PUT IT ON AIR — SO WHERE THE HELL DID THE HUMAN GO? THE MACHINE COMMENTING ON THE
