AI and our Obsession with Authenticity
Years ago, a family friend of ours was a talented picture framer, highly regarded both for his artistic sensibility and technical precision. One day, he unexpectedly discovered that an artist he greatly admired was using a projector to trace outlines onto her canvases. He felt deeply offended and embarrassed to be associated with her, believing that no genuine artist would rely on such tools and that this “secret” tainted anyone connected to her.
However, I would argue that most people who purchased her paintings were not doing so because of admiration for her freehand skills but because they found her artwork visually pleasing. She simply used available tools to achieve the visual tone and composition she intended.
Authenticity has its value when determining an object’s significance, but its importance is often overstated. Our assumptions about authenticity frequently lead us to give undue weight to perceptions rather than substance. A prime example of this misguided faith lies in photography. With the rise of computer-generated imagery and AI, concerns have grown about photos being used to deceive. Yet photographs have never been inherently trustworthy; the first widely recognized fake photo, “Self Portrait of a Drowned Man,” appeared in the 1840s—just one year after photography’s official recognition as an art form. AI has merely amplified our awareness of an issue that has always required scrutiny.
Returning to our artist friend, most people do not truly care if a painting is created freehand or with the assistance of tools. They pay for the art itself, not the process behind it. We tend to ignore the creation process selectively, only highlighting it when it supports our decision to discount artwork, undermine profound insights, or devalue certain information. Politicians rarely write their own speeches, CEOs routinely delegate memo writing, and countless celebrities use ghostwriters. Yet, when average people use AI—an increasingly common and cost-effective tool—they face disproportionate scrutiny.
People’s frustration with AI stems not from fundamental changes in the world but from insecurity. Many individuals perceive themselves as uniquely talented, hardworking, or knowledgeable, and AI threatens that self-image. This reaction is nothing new; every technological advancement has provoked similar responses. Those who mastered impeccable penmanship felt undermined by the typewriter. Skilled typists saw their value diminished with the introduction of word processors. Users of spellcheck and grammar-check tools benefited immediately from no longer having to vigilantly avoid errors. Now, with AI, someone who struggles to articulate thoughts clearly can produce writing comparable to that of lifelong language experts.
Similarly, engineers once faced ridicule for abandoning slide rules in favor of calculators and later computers. Although exceptional talent may never be fully replicated by AI or any other tool, such extraordinary skill levels aren’t always necessary. Most gaps in skill can be compensated for through collaboration and teamwork, enabling collective achievements far greater than any individual effort. History consistently demonstrates that ridiculing or discounting individuals for leveraging available tools to reach their goals places critics on the wrong side of progress.