Don’t let AI take over our human creative expression

Over three years ago, I penned a piece titled "How Hong Kong can play a role in preventing AI Armageddon," expressing my apprehensions about the potential existential risk of artificial intelligence. Numerous articles have since been published on the subject, and I will focus on a more subtle yet significant issue: the encroachment of AI on our humanity by replacing us in our creative expressions, making it increasingly difficult to differentiate between what is truly human and what is generated by algorithms.

As a scientist, my approach is to evaluate societal changes through a scientific lens. Today, we are experiencing a profound and ironic technological inversion in the realm of AI. The initial promise of AI was one of liberation from mundane tasks, leaving humans free to devote their time to the pursuit of arts, culture, and other uniquely human endeavors like painting, poetry, prose, performance, music, and mime.

Instead, AI appears to be invading the very spaces once reserved for the human spirit. Generative AI platforms are now producing thousands of artworks, sonnets, musical compositions, and novels in mere moments. During our international astronomy conference in May 2026, one of my team members utilized AI to compose new songs for each major science theme, producing results that were surprisingly impressive.

Consequently, AI is being employed to write poetry, create masterpieces, and even draft scientific papers, ingesting past work in the field and generating passable papers. The speed and efficiency with which AI accomplishes these tasks leaves many current scientists demoralized and threatening to their careers. Moreover, AI's ability to replicate classical masters or styles poses a significant cultural and human significance for creative industries.

As we witness AI capable of mimicking any classical master or style, it devalues the years of technical discipline and innate talent required in any medium or the time needed to develop innate talent that AI can render obsolete or second-rate in mere seconds. The cost to us of this automated artistic and philosophical appropriation of human experience by algorithms remains to be seen.

When we view a painting or read a novel, we form an emotional connection to another human mind sharing a personal story. If we allow generative AI to dominate our creative expressions, what does it mean for our human spirit and soul? If we cannot compete with AI creations, what purpose does it serve? Does it even matter if AI music evokes tears or an AI poem deeply moves us?

Can the unique human element and narrative be truly replaced? These are profound philosophical inquiries. Reflecting on the media landscape and the impact of AI-generated text on public opinion, I find myself both intrigued and increasingly uneasy. The ability of AI to generate articles and commentary raises concerns about the industrialization of previously human opinion.

It is crucial that we actively decide whether to relinquish the grandest expressions of our humanity to the cold efficiency of AI. While machines excel at calculations, optimizations, and managing databases, it is essential that we, as flawed humans with our joys, sorrows, and triumphs, continue to craft the stories, compose the music, and paint the canvases that define our humanity.

If we cede our creativity to AI, we might inadvertently imprison our souls, losing the essence of what makes us truly human.