For years, the creative industry has been caught in a tug-of-war over whether artificial intelligence can ever match the originality, emotion and genius of the human mind.
But at SXSW Sydney, one panel turned that debate on its head. There Is No Algorithm for Creativity, moderated by author Andy Blood challenged the assumption that creativity is something machines could ever truly possess, and, more provocatively, whether it even matters if they do.
Their answer ultimately, was no. Because creativity was never just about capability, it was about why we create at all. And, put simply, machines don’t have a why.
“AI will be as creative as humans, not yet, but it will be,” said James Hurman, founder of Previously Unavailable. “And when that happens, what will matter is why humans are creative. It’s because we have to be, and we do it for the enjoyment of it itself.”
For Hurman, that difference is everything. “Creative people have to be creative,” he said. “Even if AI gets as creative as us, we’ll still win, because we care about it.”
Machines, he proposes, might soon generate poems, paintings and films indistinguishable from ours, but they’ll never understand the ache or joy that inspired them in the way humans do.
Physicist and technologist Dr Michelle Dickinson agreed that meaning, not mastery, is what separates human creation from machine output.
“Human creativity is not AI’s motive, but it is ours,” she said.
Because without motive, creativity is just output. AI can imitate inspiration, but it can’t want anything, and that desire to understand, to solve, to express, is the root of every human idea. That’s why, Dickinson argued, AI should only ever be a tool for those who already know what it means to create.
“AI should only be given to older people. There should be an age limit, 35 or older only.”
Young minds, she said, need to learn what it feels like to struggle, to fail, to try again. “Humans are super lazy,” she joked. “If we allow our young people without restrictions to use AI, they’ll cheat.”
For her, creativity isn’t about efficiency, it’s about the friction that forms ideas worth having.
Artist Claus Stangl took a more pragmatic view, admitting that “AI can do anything we can do, and better”.
In the future, he predicted, “we’ll just put more weight on things that are handmade,” suggesting that when everything can be replicated perfectly, the imperfect will become valuable again.
“All we can lean into is the human experience,” Stangl declared before acknowledging that “they may lean into the robot experience that we can’t”.
Perhaps one day machines will make art about their reality. But until then, the human advantage is the soul of all creative work.
Tara McKenty, chief creative officer at AKQA, believes technology won’t replace human imagination but open it up to more people.
“Anyone can curate,” she said. “Creativity will be democratised, but we’re going to hear stories we’ve never heard before.”
So, does it actually matter if AI becomes as creative as humans? Probably not, because creativity has never been about the output. It’s about the impulse to make meaning, to connect, to care. And that’s something no algorithm can simulate.
Or as Hurman put it: “Even if AI gets as creative as us, we’ll still win, because we are the ones that care.”
