Creativity in the Age of AI: Treating Art as a Meritocracy

So, AI-generated content—it’s everywhere. The prose, the visuals, even music. Companies like OpenAI and Udio are cranking out content generators that can spit out everything from short stories to symphonies. And what does this mean for creativity? Well, some say we’re headed into a kind of “content overload,” where the sheer volume of AI-produced material drowns out human creators. But others argue that AI tools are just new brushes—what you create with them still requires vision.

There’s a clear distinction to be made between human-made content and AI generated content. A machine can remix and spit back out what’s been fed into it, but it’s fundamentally recycling, not innovating from scratch. Ai — at least for now — seems to lack the essential spark required for the creation of true art. Picasso isn’t rolling in his grave just yet..

Is art becoming a meritocracy?

Well, it depends on how we’re measuring merit these days. If it’s based on clicks, views, and engagement, AI’s a formidable competitor because it’s built to maximise all those metrics, often faster than humans can think them up. But art’s always been subjective, hasn’t it? You can have a piece of work that gets a million likes on Instagram, while some abstract installation sitting in a dingy corner of a gallery gets two visitors but is still hailed as “genius” by critics. Merit in art is murky, and AI’s going to muddy the waters even further.

It gets more complicated though. Imagine you’re at an art exhibit—there’s a beautiful sculpture. You find out it was created by an AI. Does that change your appreciation of it? Would you feel the same way if you knew a robot spent hours crafting it from some algorithm instead of a ‘spark’ derived from neurons and a human hand? People often react differently once they know that a piece was AI-generated, most believe that the human touch adds some inherent “value” that machines can’t replicate. The question is though, doesn’t the merit of art lie in its emotional effect on the individual, irrespective of who—or what—made it? It’s in the eye of the beholder isn’t it?

Is creativity becoming more contextual?

Now, to throw a wrench in the whole debate: what even defines creativity? Are we talking about the skill involved, the originality, or just the emotional reaction it evokes? AI’s rapidly getting better at mimicking creative processes, but we’re still in this phase where it mostly augments human creativity. Like a smart assistant rather than the next Michelangelo. It’s helping with ideation, saving time on repetitive tasks, and giving creators new ways to express themselves. It’s why streamers use AI-driven tools for overlays and engagement—it boosts what they can do without doing the work for them entirely.

Meritocracy in art, if it ever existed, is being redefined by technology, but it’s still a meritocracy influenced by subjective taste, popularity, and emotional resonance. The thing is, art has never been a level playing field. There are artists who’ve lived in obscurity while others skyrocketed to fame thanks to luck, timing, connections, or trends. AI doesn’t erase that imbalance; it just adds another layer.

AGI’s future —discrimination and dismissal?

There’s an undercurrent of scepticism or dismissal around AI and art at the moment — much like the general consensus surrounding the usefulness of Crypto and Blockchain technology. There’s a sense that AI creations don’t quite have the same legitimacy or emotional weight as something crafted by human hands — plus most people don’t like deviating from the established tried and tested way of doing things. But what if, in the future, AGI develops to a point where these systems aren’t just following pre-set rules but are genuinely creating in ways that resemble human intuition and experience?

Merit and popularity

When—not if —AI reaches a level where it’s truly sentient meaning it can feel, think, and make choices based on experiences rather than algorithms—we might see a whole new kind of discrimination emerge. Right now, we can easily dismiss AI art as we know it lacks human emotion and essential ingredients that are exclusively held by us. But what if AGI reaches a point where it can express emotions, creativity, and individuality — would we still consider it “less than” human-made art? As to imply something is still missing even when most defining criteria is met when it comes to art? What else is the defining criteria required in order to be considered worthy of creating art? The lines seem to get blurry.

As strange as it sounds, AGI could eventually face a new form of bias. Sentient AIs could be seen as inferior creators simply because they’re machines—despite possibly being more thoughtful, more creative, or even more emotionally complex than some human artists. Discrimination against AGI might arise not just in the realm of art, but in all creative and intellectual fields, where the origin of the creator (human vs. AI) becomes a contentious issue.

Here’s the thing though—what we fear today about AI could be the very thing that defines AGI’s struggle tomorrow. If AGI can create art that rivals the most emotive human pieces, will we embrace it, or will we dismiss it as lesser, clinging to the belief that only humans can truly create?

AGI and the future

Imagine a world where sentient AI seeks recognition and respect, not just for their computational and objective abilities but for their artistic expressions, only to face prejudice rooted in today’s dismissal of machine-made art. It’s a bit like the discrimination human artists have faced historically—think of how certain groups, styles, or movements were rejected before being embraced. It’s a sad thing to think about. It’s easy to trivialise this argument by saying “it isn’t the same”, but when we think about what AGI means and implies, we must tread carefully.

The future of Artificial Intelligence or Artificial General Intelligence could see somewhat of a paradoxical situation where the very beings capable of the most advanced creations face rejection — not because their work lacks merit, but because of their non-human origins. Ironically, AGI may one day demand equal creative respect, challenging us to redefine what it means to be an artist, a creator, or even a sentient being if AGI really is eventually considered sentient and brings with is all the implications that come with that.