Exploring the Paradox of Creation: Insights from François Pachet

by FreD Martin Expert AI & Music

After last year’s ia-date on music and AI, let’s return with this pioneer in AI and music to share a timely perspective on the evolving relationship between artists, technology, and creativity in the age of artificial intelligence—a point of situation as we close the year 2025.

How do artists experience the tension between wanting their work to be widely shared and wanting to protect it from being copied or used by AI?

Artists today face a profound and increasingly complex paradox: they want their creations to be heard, shared, and experienced by as many people as possible, but they also want to keep their work uniquely theirs, resisting the idea that it could be copied or used to train algorithms that mimic their style. This desire for universality without interchangeability is an old dream, but it’s also an impossibility. An artwork, by its nature, escapes its creator. Once it’s shared, it lives in the hands of others—reinterpreted, transformed, and made their own. The act of creation is, in a way, a loss: giving form means letting go. The digital age has removed the friction that once protected artists, making their work more accessible but also more vulnerable to dilution and imitation by AI, which doesn’t just copy but absorbs and statistically models entire styles and voices. This shift has made artists feel both more visible and more exposed, as their influence spreads rapidly but their control diminishes.

Historically, artists have always grappled with the tension between sharing and protecting their work. In the analog era, the physicality of artworks, the rarity of copies, and the distance between creators and audiences provided a sense of control. The digital revolution, however, has changed everything. Today, an artwork can be reproduced perfectly, distributed instantly, and transformed endlessly. This has led to a new kind of anxiety among artists: the fear of being “dissolved” in the vast ocean of digital content, where their unique voice risks being lost or diluted. The rise of AI has only intensified this anxiety, as algorithms can now learn from vast datasets of creative works, generating new pieces that mimic the styles of individual artists or entire movements. This raises fundamental questions about authorship, originality, and the value of human creativity in a world where machines can produce art at scale.

What does the rise of AI reveal about the nature of creativity and artistic influence?

AI pushes this paradox to its breaking point. It doesn’t just copy an artwork; it absorbs the essence of a style, the principle of variation, making the original artist feel peripheral to their own influence. The digital world amplifies the circulation of ideas, blurring the lines between original and copy, inspiration and plagiarism. What AI reveals is not a betrayal, but a truth: every artwork belongs to a larger language, and every creator is part of a vast network of anonymous influences. The history of music, for example, is a story of motifs, voices, and melodies traveling, responding, and finding each other across time and space. What we call “style” is just a temporary crystallization in this collective flow of creativity. The digital era, and especially AI, accelerates this process, making it impossible to maintain a strict boundary between the individual and the collective. The artist’s voice becomes part of a much larger conversation, where the distinction between creator and influencer is increasingly fluid.

AI has also transformed the creative process itself. Generative AI tools, such as text-to-image models and music composition algorithms, allow artists to explore new ideas, experiment with different styles, and produce work more efficiently. These tools can generate an infinite number of ideas, combinations, and patterns that would never occur to the human mind, opening up a whole new world of possibilities for musicians, artists, and writers to explore and express their artistic abilities. However, this also raises questions about the role of the artist in the creative process. Are artists still the sole authors of their work, or are they now collaborators with machines? How do we define creativity when machines can produce art that is indistinguishable from human-made work? These questions challenge traditional notions of authorship and originality, and force us to rethink what it means to be a creator in the age of AI.

What is the real challenge for artists and society in this new era?

The real challenge is not simply about protecting works or enforcing rights, but about rethinking recognition. How can we acknowledge the singularity of an artist’s gesture within a process that is, by nature, collective? How can we preserve the memory of the creative act without hindering its propagation? The question is no longer “Can we copy?” but “Can we still be heard without being dissolved?” The answer lies in finding new ways to recognize and value the unique contribution of each creator, even as their work becomes part of a much larger, ever-evolving network. This requires a shift in mindset—from seeing art as a fixed object to seeing it as a dynamic process, and from protecting ownership to fostering participation. The future of creativity may depend on our ability to celebrate both the individual and the collective, the unique and the universal.

One of the key challenges is to develop new models of recognition and reward that reflect the realities of the digital age. Traditional copyright laws and intellectual property frameworks were designed for a world where artworks were physical objects, and their distribution was limited by physical constraints. In the digital world, these frameworks are no longer sufficient. We need new approaches that balance the rights of creators with the needs of society, and that recognize the value of both individual and collective contributions to the creative process. This could involve new forms of attribution, new models of compensation, and new ways of measuring the impact and value of creative work.

Another challenge is to foster a culture of collaboration and co-creation, where artists, technologists, and audiences work together to shape the future of creativity. This requires a willingness to embrace new technologies, to experiment with new forms of expression, and to engage in ongoing dialogue about the role of art in society. It also requires a commitment to ethical principles, such as transparency, fairness, and respect for the rights and contributions of all participants in the creative process.

How can artists and society adapt to the changing landscape of creativity?

Adapting to the changing landscape of creativity requires a combination of technological innovation, cultural change, and policy reform. Artists need to embrace new tools and technologies, and to develop new skills and competencies that enable them to thrive in the digital age. This includes not only technical skills, such as proficiency with AI tools and digital platforms, but also creative skills, such as the ability to generate and filter ideas, to collaborate with machines, and to navigate the complexities of the digital ecosystem.

Society, on the other hand, needs to create an environment that supports and encourages creativity in all its forms. This includes investing in education and training programs that equip artists with the skills they need to succeed in the digital age, and supporting initiatives that promote collaboration and co-creation between artists, technologists, and audiences. It also includes developing policies and frameworks that protect the rights and interests of creators, while also promoting the free flow of ideas and the democratization of creativity.

What are the ethical implications of AI in the creative process?

The rise of AI in the creative process raises a number of ethical questions and challenges. One of the most pressing is the issue of authorship and originality. When a machine generates an artwork, who is the author? Is it the artist who created the algorithm, the artist who provided the input, or the machine itself? These questions challenge traditional notions of authorship and originality, and force us to rethink what it means to be a creator in the age of AI.

Another ethical issue is the potential for AI to perpetuate or amplify existing biases and inequalities in the creative industry. For example, if AI tools are trained on datasets that are biased or unrepresentative, they may produce artworks that reflect and reinforce these biases. This raises questions about the fairness and inclusivity of AI-generated art, and the need for transparency and accountability in the development and use of AI tools.

Finally, there is the question of the impact of AI on the value and meaning of art. If machines can produce art at scale, what happens to the value of human creativity? Does the democratization of art through AI lead to a devaluation of artistic skill and originality, or does it open up new possibilities for creativity and expression? These questions require ongoing dialogue and reflection, and a commitment to ethical principles in the development and use of AI in the creative process.

Key Takeaways

• The artwork escapes its creator : Once shared, an artwork lives beyond its author, transforming and circulating in new ways. Digital technologies and AI amplify this phenomenon, making it harder to protect originality while accelerating the spread of creative ideas.
• AI absorbs and models style, not just copies : Artificial intelligence does not simply reproduce an artwork; it extracts the principles of variation, deconstructs voices, and makes the artist peripheral to their own influence. This challenges traditional notions of authorship and originality.
• The challenge is to rethink recognition : The real issue is no longer about protecting rights, but about finding new forms of recognition that value the uniqueness of the creative gesture while embracing the collective and collaborative nature of creation in the digital age.