It's hardly the first-time technology has been cast as the villain. Just rewind to the 1980s and ask The Terminator. Back in 1984, we were already imagining a robot hitman sent from 2029 (uncomfortably close now) to stop the birth of the one person who could save humanity from an AI apocalypse. And who could forget Video Killed the Radio Star? Long before ChatGPT entered the chat, we were convinced that each new gadget spelled doom for the last. The video may have killed the radio only to be eaten up by the Internet.
The closing down of many MTV channels next month is indeed an end of an era. Very sad indeed for my generation. For those, like me, who spent their teens waiting to discover the latest music video, and watching the countdown charts, this dose of popular culture was part of our youth. The pulling of the plug is a move reflecting viewership and media habits shifting online. This leads me to another, often perceived predator, eating up life as we know it: Artificial intelligence.
Today's piece takes a slightly more academic tone, shaped by the growing momentum to position AI at the core of our industries, strategies, and national ambitions. This development raises important questions about how such AI tools may transform the way we work, how we think, write, create, and measure effort. I would add it transforms the way we see the world, the way we make sense of things around us and how we make up our mind on something. Why is that? Because AI tends to echo whatever is already dominant and viral, presenting it as universal truth. An algorithmic culture, where visibility is dictated less by cultural value and more by corporate logic.
As AI-generated texts, images and music flood the cultural space, I've turned to sociological research to make sense of it, including in my latest three peer-reviewed publications on AI and its impact on the arts (open access articles). On the ground, I'm currently leading an ongoing study with Culture Venture and supported by Arts Council Malta, on how AI is impacting the livelihoods of artists. It is also worth mentioning, last week's excellent MEIA conference which brought these realities into sharp focus, and I was pleased to contribute as a speaker on the subject.
In brief it can be said that AI's rise in artistic practice has sparked two opposite reactions. On one side, AI is a brilliant creative sidekick, helping artists brainstorm, sketch, edit, spot patterns, and even challenge their own habits. It puts powerful tools into the hands of anyone with curiosity and a Wi-Fi signal. Creativity has never been so democratised. More than that, one budget measure offers free ChatGPT subscriptions to anyone willing to sit through training.
On the other side, the tidal wave of AI content risks washing away originality. Algorithms can churn out infinite copies, flooding the cultural sphere with polished fluff language but little substance. And for marginalised communities, there's an added layer of AI risking turning collective cultural expressions into generic training data.
Meanwhile, the real predator is eating into the labour force. Writers, editors, translators, and illustrators are seeing fees drop and commissions shrink as AI becomes the cheaper alternative. Early-career creatives are hit hardest. Junior roles are disappearing, replaced by algorithms that don't need sick leave or coffee breaks. The apprenticeship model that once shaped cultural professions is eroding.
Then comes the thorny issue of authorship. AI systems are trained on vast datasets containing copyrighted texts, photos and artworks, often without consent or payment. These models then produce content that competes with the very artists they learned from. Courts are struggling to define who "owns" an image generated from a three-word prompt.
But here's the twist: the biggest danger isn't AI at all. It's our misunderstanding of it. We overestimate what AI can do and underestimate its social impact. Thus, continuous social impact assessments are inevitable to understand the perceived impact.
The conversation goes far beyond becoming more efficient in our work. It touches on the quality that lies between polished sentences, the nuance behind ideas, and the meaning that emerges through human intention. Just as radio presenters remains valued for their unique contribution, even as video and digital formats evolve around them, AI should be treated as a complement, not a replacement. It can support the creative process, but it cannot replicate the depth, context, the meanings and feelings that define human expression.
Prof. Valerie Visanich is an Associate Professor in Sociology