For years, we’ve told ourselves that creativity was safe, and that no algorithm could replicate the human touch—well, we were wrong.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer just a tech experiment; it’s rewriting the creative world. Once confined to labs, AI tools can now generate art, music, and writing in seconds, often using real artists’ work without permission. As Ontario’s already fragile arts sector struggles for funding, this unchecked rise of AI art threatens artists’ livelihoods, snowballing into a crisis for our creative industries.
AI art isn’t magic and is built on the work of real people. Generative models such as ChatGPT learn by scraping together a myriad of media–art, music, text. AI companies often claim to train their AI models to be ‘fair use’ under copyright law, but its legality is dubious at best, since much of the art used in training datasets is taken from unconsenting artists. The more realistic AI becomes, the more it threatens to replace the nuance and subtlety that make human artwork meaningful.
In the last year, the Ontario government has done little to support its creative and cultural industries, which bring in close to $26.4 billion for the province’s GDP and support almost 300,000 jobs annually. Instead, Ontario’s government shaved the “arts sector support” down to $6.5 million, almost one-third of the original $18.5 million, and eliminated the Indigenous Culture Fund entirely.
The illusion that art is beyond the scope of an AI bot’s creation is quickly fading. Major publications, like Vogue, that once celebrated the importance of human creativity, are now featuring models in sprawling magazine spreads, where the fine print reads, “produced on AI.”
According to a report published by Canadian Artists’ Representation (CARFAC‑RAAV), almost 82 per cent of visual artists who responded to their survey were “concerned” or “very concerned” that their artwork was being used without consent to train generative AI art models.
Essentially, AI’s trained on the creativity of humans and then used to compete against the same humans. It’s exploitation disguised as innovation.
While it may not be noticeable, generative art is directly harming creatives. A survey conducted by Observatory for the Societal Impacts of AI and Digital Technology (OBVIA) noted that in the Canadian creative and cultural industries, data from the music sector suggests that AI may be responsible for income losses of up to 27 per cent for creators, and up to 21 per cent in the audiovisual sector.
Beyond the economic impact, there’s a deeper cultural cost. When brands use AI to create models or visuals, they’re contributing to the creation of a sanitized version of art—one without flaws, diversity, or individuality.
When used responsibly, AI can help artists experiment with new mediums, streamline production, and make creative tools more accessible. The key is consent, credit, compensation, and ensuring that AI supports artists rather than stealing from them. We should be building systems where technology amplifies human creativity, not replaces it.
If we allow machines to further penetrate our creative world, we risk a future of hollow creativity. In today’s digital age, protecting human art is a necessity, not nostalgia. The choice is ours: let AI serve our reality or let it push away the very people who give it life.
Ananya Sharma is a 2nd-year Life Sciences student and one of The Journal’s Business, Science, and Technology Editors
Tags
Art, artificial intelligence, ChatGPT, Signed Editorial
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.