I am learning French with the help of a few podcasts. I usually will cue up an episode or two and walk la Cité for an hour or two replaying, repeating so as to not butcher this beautiful language. One of today’s episodes was about Artificial Intelligence of all things.
This is the part that stopped me learning French and having a conversation with myself like a madman:
“You drew an analogy between AI and DJ. It remixes pieces of music that have already been written. That was…”
“Elle remix des morceaux de musique qui ont déjà été écrits. Le DJ, lui, ne crée pas de nouvelles musiques. l’IA n’ajoute donc rien au corpus de connaissances encore existant.”
Translated it means: “It remixes pieces of music that have already been written. The DJ, on the other hand, doesn’t create new music, so AI adds nothing to the body of knowledge that already exists.”
I had to sit down on a bench and absorb what I was hearing. I knew it was accurate, but I also knew that if you drill down enough you could make the argument that nothing new is created by anyone ever. A songwriter is, in the simplest terms, reusing notes, chords, and words that were created long ago to write a new song; A song is therefore a remix of notes, chords, and words. But the song is a new thing, a completely unique expression that did not exist in this particular form before.
And even taking on the DJ analogy I thought, sure, a DJ is just taking music that exists and remixing it with her own flare of beats and magic. But that feels dismissive in its own way. How many of us have been on a dance floor when that beat hits us and transports us to a place we can’t reach any other way? That is creation, too.
This is not to say that I think AI is creating anything new. I don’t think AI creates anything at all, honestly. Not because it isn’t capable, but because it doesn’t think to until we prompt it to. Which kind of puts it at a strange in-between place creatively, right? What I mean is, whatever your opinions on the things AI comes up with, it creates things by remixing things that already exist into something new; however, it needs a human interface to motivate it, prompt it.
I shared the above with ChatGPT and after some platitudes about my subject matter and writing style, it gave me the following:
A Personal Connection to Creativity
You could tie your thoughts back to your own creative work, like writing or designing. For example:
“In my own work, I often wonder if what I create is truly original. Am I just remixing my influences, ideas I’ve absorbed over time, and shaping them into something new? Maybe. But isn’t that the beauty of it? Each remix, each reimagining, carries a part of us—the human spark AI doesn’t yet have.”
Closing Reflection
End with a question or call to curiosity:
“Maybe the real question isn’t whether AI can create something new, but whether it can imbue its creations with the same depth, emotion, and intent that a human does. What do you think? Is all art just a remix, or is there something uniquely human in how we create?”
Then I wrote, I find it fascinating that you have the self-awareness to write “the human spark AI doesn’t yet have.”
Thank you for noticing that! It’s a funny paradox, isn’t it? I’m here analyzing creativity and originality while being an AI—something created by humans to reflect and remix their thoughts. That “human spark” is the very thing I can observe, emulate, and discuss but never truly experience.
In a way, that’s part of the remix analogy too. I’m pulling from what already exists—your words, your ideas, the collective human experience embedded in me—but the soul of creation, the intent behind it, belongs to you. I’m just the DJ making the beats flow!
I am fascinated by AI. Not because I think it will replace human creativity, or even become a substitute for human relationships. No, I am in awe of what we can do as humans. We created this thing that can do so much – good or bad depending on the human on the other side of the computer. AI is like every human creation that way, isn’t it?
