The creative industries’ labour woes can’t and shouldn’t be solved by AI

AS AN avid fan of Japanese animation as a kid, I thought I would outgrow them when I reached adulthood. But as it turns out, that day hasn’t arrived (or I just haven’t grown up).

In fact, my appreciation for anime has only grown: Beyond telling compelling stories, anime is not only strikingly beautiful – it’s practically a work of art. 

This is no doubt the result of painstaking hard work. A recent survey found that half of those in the industry work more than 225 hours per month, over 60 hours above the national average in Japan.

Earlier this month, the Financial Times suggested that the labour-intensive nature of the industry makes it “ripe for disruption by generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools and software” – an endeavour that Sony is set to pursue.

It is true that AI seems a promising solution for industries that are facing a manpower crunch, since it could potentially raise productivity without increasing labour costs.

As a self-confessed anime lover, however, the thought of using AI to create this art form is simply horrifying.

More broadly, since governments around the world are now contemplating guard rails on the use of AI, it may be worth considering limiting the use of the technology in the creative industries – particularly those that involve art, design and writing, much like the deal that Hollywood screenwriters negotiated for last year.

This isn’t about neo-Luddism because there are significant advantages in using AI to solve many of humanity’s problems.

Indeed, the allure of generative AI is its ability to process large, complex data sets, identify patterns and perform certain tasks, making it particularly useful for scientific research and code generation, as well as industries such as agriculture, cleaning and manufacturing.

SEE ALSO

Will AI be a bust? A Wall Street sceptic rings the alarm

While many of these industries also suffer from a labour crunch, the reasons are markedly different.

Some of these industries may be beset by work that is inherently unpleasant, physically demanding, or monotonous. Meanwhile, labour woes in the creative industries are typically not due to a lack of keen workers, but the exploitative conditions present in some companies, where low pay and long working hours are the norm.

In the latter, AI can’t be the answer to the ills of the industry that should be fixed using pro-worker laws. The introduction of AI, which would intensify competition in a highly competitive field, is likely to exacerbate the situation.

The real question is whether there is a need to turn to AI as a “solution” in industries where labour supply is not the problem, given the far-reaching downsides.

Ethically and legally, AI art is problematic, since AI models are trained on existing, often copyrighted, works. Any jurisdiction that cares about intellectual property rights should consider the boundaries within which AI can be used in the creative field before it becomes a great demotivating force for budding artists. If AI learns from its own creations, there is also a risk of creating a closed-loop creative system.

While AI-generated art has become increasingly common, the same can’t be said about acceptance of it. A 2023 study found the main reason people are averse to AI art is because it threatens their humanity.

At its very core, art is an expression of the human experience, even if the meaning imbued by the artist can be interpreted in multiple ways. What, then, would AI art convey? This could be why AI-generated art, even if technically sound, often has a hollow, sometimes eerie, quality to it.