On Artificial Intelligence
from the other side of the screen april 2026
[a column for Creation Magazine's CM Editorial House]
Last month I spent two weeks with my family in California. The drive from SFO to the Bay Bridge was littered with billboards advertising Artificial Intelligence. Fifteen years or so ago, some of those billboards showed iconic images of blacked-out figures dancing against a bright background, easily identified as iTunes and Apple products. There was more variety, both in the products being advertised and the slogans shouting down to the freeway.Â
Now, everything is AI all the time. Advertising looks the same for products that do similar things on the many, many billboards dotting the route out of the city. Contrasting colors, similar sans serif fonts, and short, snappy slogans that all sound the same.Â
My university briefly tried to embrace AI. For the 2024-25 academic year I had to submit a cover page with each essay to declare the use of AI. As long as you declared it, it was okay. I never partook, but many students freely used AI to skate through a Masterâs degree. Since the start of the new academic year, however, the universityâs departments in Humanities and Social Sciences do not tolerate AI use at all.Â
For creatives especially, the growing and normalized use of AI is terrifying. Logging onto LinkedIn means confronting a long list of âwriting jobsâ that are really just training AI. And how long is that stable for? Not a life-long career, just long enough to make oneself redundant and pushed into a soul-sucking job they never wanted and will never love.Â
But, we have to ask if AI is really replacing us completely. Can a mathematical formula really replicate poetry or love?
On the plane into SFO, just before the Great Assault of AI billboards, I finally watched Materialists (2025). What does this romance movie starring nepo-baby Dakota Johnson and handsome leading men Pedro Pascal and Chris Evans have to do with this? Donât worry, put those Hokas on and walk with me a minute here.
To give the run-down for those of you who donât know, Dakota plays a matchmaker who sees people as numbers (age, salary, education) until she is forced to confront this in a decision between Pedroâs perfect-on-paper finance man or Chrisâs perfectly-imperfect struggling actor. Online conversations seemed to miss the whole point with commentary such asâand Iâm paraphrasing hereâwhy would anyone choose a broke, failed actor over a rich Pedro Pascal?Â
Well, just as it is clearly shown in the movie which apparently no one actually paid attention to, there is more to love than a formula. Humans cannot be simply quantified, reduced to a bullet-pointed list of numbers put through an algorithm.Â
Humanity, life experience, and art all come from an indescribable place that no AI can unpuzzle. Matchmaking isnât an exact science, so what makes these tech giants think that they can write enough zeroes and ones to convincingly replicate intimacy, irrationality, emotion, and creation? What is poetry if not love and its inverse pricked into the page?
The world of publishing has recently experienced a major AI-plagiarism scandal around Shy Girl by Mia Ballard. The cover and 70% of the bookâs contents have apparently been generated by AI. Now, Iâve read this book. It came across my screen on NetGalley in the âmost requestedâ list after a publisher picked it up (originally self-published).Â
The premise of a woman being forced to act like a dog for so long that she finally became convinced she actually was a dog appealed to me. I expected a nuanced dive into the perpetual subjugation and dehumanization of women, particularly women of color, in western society. I expected an acknowledgment of slavery and human trafficking, uncomfortable because American history is ugly and we need to be reminded.Â
What I didnât expect was a rotation of the same 3 descriptive words that didnât grammatically or metaphorically work. Or the complete blind eye turned towards the implications of a white man kidnapping and abusing a poor Black woman. Or the sensationalized violence and harm to the female body. I found myself uncomfortable not because of the subject matter, but from the lack of any real substance.
I find AI writing offensive in the fact that it is just plainly not good. I found this particular instance excessively offensive because AI does not have the capability to be sensitive. In lacking humanity and love, AI lacks compassion and empathy. Any poem, novel, or essay written by AI will be devoid of what has made writing an essential aspect of human culture.Â
Shy Girl wasnât able to achieve any of its goals because it cannot feel. It cannot feel the pain, or the triumph, it fails to describe. It cannot feel pride in telling a story that people will connect with; it cannot feel the generational abuses that informed the generator prompt and should have further informed the novel throughout.Â
If you canât write, donât. If you canât paint, donât. At the risk of sounding like a grumpy, GenZ iteration of Fran Lebowitz (who is problematic in her own right), not everybody can have talent. AI is not a shortcut past the hard work and discipline it takes to be a creative, and it cannot inject creativity where it is not already extant.Â
Just as AI cannot replicate love, it cannot imitate neurodivergence which is, in many cases, the true source of creativity. It could never see the world through a neurodivergent lens which is indescribable and indefinable.Â
Iâm tired of having AI shoved in my face. From the AI-summary at the top of every Google search to the hundreds of billboards on my way home from the airport, itâs inescapable. It's ugly and exhausting and cringe. Not chic at all.Â
Art is humanityâs first pastime, still visible on cave walls and carved into history. Thinking is our speciesâ greatest achievement, shown in centuries worth of deference to the ancient philosophers. Creating from the human brain is what makes us human. Why should we take that away from ourselves?















