AI Versus Innate Human Creativity with Author, Artist and Educator Dominick Domingo

PLEASE Help FUND Season 3—Time is of the essence and no amount is too small! Contribute HERE: https://throne.com/language_of_the_soul

The battle to preserve our humanity will be fought not on a tangible battlefield, but in the realm of story and creative expression. This exploration delves far beyond typical conversations about the legislation of proper compensation, job replacement or intellectual property infringement, to the profound implications of AI's potential impact on human creativity—examining what's truly at stake.          

Guest BIO

Dominick Domingo is a former Disney Feature Animation artist who Visually Developed and painted backgrounds on Lion King, Pocahontas, Hunchback, Tarzan  and Little Match Girl and One By One. His live-action films won awards in festivals and Original Screenplay credits led to a career in the literary realm. His literary fiction and Narrative Nonfiction have been included in anthologies, winning  awards like Craft Literary and Writer’s Digest. Dominick’s YA trilogy, The Nameless Prince, maintains five stars on B&N and Amazon since launching in 2012. Dominick’s experience in a broad range of formats and genres—all storytelling—has gifted him perspective on the ‘rules’ of each—the various ways storytelling touches hearts and minds. Dominick founded the Entertainment Track at his alma mater, Art Center. Twenty years of classroom experience have deepened his understanding of both the Creative Process and the Artistic Journey. All he's learned in the trenches informs his  latest book,  Language of the Soul.

LOTS One-time Donation
Your donation, however big or small, will help us build our platform. Click Here to Donate!

Patreon
As a patron, you're joining a community of like-minded individuals passionate about the stories.

Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.

Transcript

Speaker 1 0:45

Hey guys, welcome to Language of the Soul podcast. Thanks so much for tuning in. We have a very special mini episode today about AI. I successfully avoided it in my own life. I kind of had a wait and see attitude about it for a while. I don't know that I even have developed a policy on it as yet, but my views on it are constantly evolving. So I avoided it pretty much. On the podcast and I think Virginia would agree with me We've successfully circumvented the conversation because, frankly, I find it tedious and tiresome, for reasons that I'll go into in the episode which you're going to hear in mere seconds.

AI and Creativity in 2025

Speaker 1 1:27

But you know, we did have one great guest on, ryan Chenier, who had a lot to say about it. It was very eye-opening and educating, educating, educational. And then, separate from that, we had Dave Zabosky, a dear friend of mine from a million years ago at Disney. We interned together and then he was an animator there during the same 11 years during which I worked on all those iconic films. So very dear friend, but he was at the forefront of a company called Lytro which was spearheading an effort to legislate the wild, wild west that is the boogeyman of AI, and it was the most ethical way at that point of making sure artists were properly compensated for their intellectual properties. So we did touch briefly on it there. But I think it's a vast topic and you'll see in the episode I tell Virginia, like you see, what I just can't talk about AI without preaching. I think it's a long, nuanced conversation. I like to do it justice and not speak about it superficially and frankly my Italian side comes out. I'm just too passionate about the implications of it. I do think this is a great episode. I guess I'm misspeaking here a little bit. We went ahead and did an episode with an author who embarked on a project called Author vs AI. So because we were having her on, I took the time to gather my thoughts together and not really come up with a policy but once and for all to just take everything I was feeling viscerally about it and put it into words. So that was all done in preparation for the interview. I didn't share it with her, but I'm going to share it here and now because I put the time in. It's not the best writing I've ever done, but I'm proud of the sentiment behind it. I could use probably a little editing, but I'm going to share it anyway and enjoy. Okay. Ai and creativity In 2025,.

Speaker 1 3:21

Ai is the boogeyman du jour. It's looming presence in our lives, not to mention the future it promises, tasks us all with either catastrophizing about the threat AI poses or viewing it as nothing more than a tool we can somehow make friends with. Whether viewed as benevolent or the root of all evil, artificial intelligence seems poised as the perfect distraction from encroaching fascism. The truth is, the two may not be such strange bedfellows. They may in fact be in cahoots.

Speaker 1 3:52

According to the futurists among us, the roadway in which even creatives address the ethics of AI, the threats and opportunities it represents, tend to be superficial. In my estimation, ethical concerns like credit and compensation dominate the cultural conversation, along with watermarking and other measures to protect intellectual property against unauthorized usage. Some artists virtue signal by putting their role with the punch's progressiveness on display, citing how fear of change is nothing new. Nor is doom speaking. After all, the lucigraph was demonized in its infancy. The rhetoric goes. Then the godforsaken airbrush, and then Photoshop. A few decades later, all were seen as the beginning of the end.

Speaker 1 4:38

In their day, conservative purists maintain an all-or-nothing stance, ostracizing any artist who merely flirts with the it's-just-a-tool policy. To these holdouts. An artist is either on the right side of history or the wrong one. The vehemence is more than shaming. It's as divisive as well. Everything else in 2025. The thing is all the rhetoric is superficial.

Speaker 1 4:59

The conversation misses the mark. What's at stake is much more dire than the usual suspects above. Adapt or die, they say. I get it. Even as a Scorpio with a nostalgic streak and major attachment issues, I have a judicious mind that thrives on intellectual curiosity and plasticity. Still, when the topic of AI comes up, I find myself digging in heels and embracing my inner dinosaur. The thing is, the tiresome conversation always ends up at the same philosophical dead end. You can't stop the march of technology.

Speaker 1 5:35

More to the point, what's important to me about this awkward impasse is the epitome of a circular conversation. Let me explain. I've long observed that when discussing social issues or anything really, with a devout Christian or insert religion here, there is no meta-view to be had. Inherent biases are built into the conversation, requiring one to speak on the terms of the religious zealot, not those of a normal person who has resisted drinking the Kool-Aid, to embrace their foregone conclusions or change the subject. And here I find myself, that dinosaur, preaching what must be preserved in the face of AI, as if the values I grew up on had some kind of currency in 2025. I see no other way to discuss AI without presuming that the elitist and perhaps romantic notions around creative innovation, once espoused by art schools, still hold water, that the philosophical level of the conversation makes for more than just the adorably archaic ramblings of an artsy-archy bunker. The thing is, from proponents to holdouts, few seem to key in on what's really at stake, ethically and philosophically. Let's be honest, the mainstream was a bit slow to the party on the topic of AI.

What's At Stake for Writers

Speaker 1 6:49

The recent writers' and actors' strikes placed the controversy front and center in the media and in the cultural dialectic. Overnight, many were forced either to catastrophize or dismiss the topic entirely by embracing denial. We'd long been told our labor force would be replaced by robots. We were fine with that, as long as they took the menial jobs, not the sexy ones. During the strike negotiations, the higher-ups at major studios publicly stated in no uncertain terms that y'all are a dime a dozen. We can use AI to create scripts. What better way to devalue the currency of dissidents? On hearing the dismissive claim, my first thought was wrong. You can cobble together old, tired tropes by scraping what's come before and create quote-unquote scripts. Perhaps Content, but not story. Not story in all its power to transform the individual and, through the ripple effect, society at large. Not story with a capital S that functions in culture the way it has from the beginning, from oral tradition around the campfire to the latest greatest effects, driven action, adventure, flick story has been the means by which our noosphere, the realm of ideas, evolves, period.

Speaker 1 8:05

I listened to all the road objections during the strikes. Actors and writers were invested in the ethics of replacing human jobs with cost-cutting technology. They feared finding themselves out of work. Actors who had spent a lifetime curating and protecting their brands were up in arms about unauthorized replication of their likenesses. Pearls were being clutched everywhere, predictably about the almighty dollar. But the conversation runs much deeper. For me, as someone who once had it all in the career department but now cannot get arrested, I could not give a single fuck about protecting privilege. What we must protect and preserve is our humanity. It's nothing less than that. Those who are capable of discussing the impact of AI on creative innovation can generalize about what constitutes the elusive human touch, but the inability to pinpoint precise ingredients is, in part, what reduces objections to a simple fear of change.

Speaker 1 9:04

For the purposes of properly preaching, I heretofore suspend my judicious nature and unabashedly embrace circular logic. Starting now, when discussing the threat or opportunity posed by AI, I will be focusing on the creative realm. In the same way, I am all for the automation of manual labor, freeing us up for more creativity. I am all for efficiency. When it comes to data, I can say from personal experience that when human error is extracted, along with bias, accurate diagnoses abound in healthcare. I cannot count the times that sheer burnout on the part of a medical professional has forced me to not just be my own advocate, but my own physician. These productive uses of AI aside, I will focus on the threat AI poses to creative innovation and, by extension, to our humanity, or so goes the inference. To clearly make my case, I will not attempt to sweep up all creative efforts in a single net. I will speak solely about AI writing versus what it is to be a true author. I will compare AI-generated content to the transformative literature.

Speaker 1 10:13

Authors have traditionally contributed to the collective and the role it has served in culture. Suffice it to say I've been reading a lot of manuscripts lately Too many. As an audible narrator. I read manuscripts for both auditions and paid jobs. In prepping for Language of the Soul podcast, I often read entire manuscripts in advance of interviewing authors. Call me Lucy in the candy shop.

Speaker 1 10:37

Frankly, I find myself wanting to limit my intake of anything I cannot peg as literary fiction. The way I understand it, most of what is published of late is generic and homogenous, at best, lacking in both style and voice, and editors are making sure of it. What's making its way to print is vastly different from the literature I was exposed to, or forced to read, as the case may be, in school. By comparison, it is derivative and reductive. The voiceless, style-free mimicry editors seem hell-bent on promulgating in genre fiction bears a striking resemblance to internet content AI-generated gobbledygook with nothing to say, with no point of view. But what came first, the hackneyed chicken or the uninspired egg?

The Human Touch in Literature

Speaker 1 11:23

It's easy to assume that, growing up Gen C content creators never put down their devices long enough to read a book. But what about the literary editors and publishers at legitimate, reputable imprints? Shouldn't they be the keepers of literary value? The answer would seem to be no, that style, flair and voice are a thing of the past. I for one, am not buying it. A strong voice is never obsolete. What's missing in all the vapid content? What constitutes the human touch that seems to be in danger of extinction? Using AI as a tool, a notion creatives are beginning to reject as a cop-out, is more palatable in certain circles, implying that strong driving concepts still belong to the domain of creative visionaries. But the content generated is another matter when one points out the shortcomings of AI, from homogenous output to AI hallucinations, fake news or a botched finger count, proponents of AI have prepared arguments on the tips of their tongues. It's getting there, they say, as far back as the late 90s, around the time the public was introduced to virtual reality with the film Lawnmower man.

Speaker 1 12:36

I found myself playing devil's advocate in tiresome debates in the teacher's lounge at Art Center College of Design. When I proposed that nuance, humor and spontaneity were sorely lacking. The retort was oh, spontaneity can be programmed. Flash forward to 2025, and the technology still ain't there. Still lost on AI are intellectual nuances like inference, sarcasm, innuendo, irony, absurdity and, most elusive of all, humor Humor.

Speaker 1 13:06

If Gen Zers, who've spent their childhoods glued to a device unable to discern facial cues or nonverbal communication, lack the life skills to grasp inference or humor requiring a social media ticker to explain human behavior to them. Why would the interwebs AI is scraping be able to grasp it? After all, the internet represents the collective psyche of the status quo, if not the lowest common denominator. Sure, ai can be trained on specific models, even elite ones, but the subjectivity still lacks when it comes to the human touch at stake. I just wrote a 374-page book reconciling semantics, finding the common ground between rational and empirical views of creative expression and innovation and, more importantly, their role in human evolution. And here is where I begin spouting off my circular logic. As promised, I simply don't have the word count here to empirically justify my contentions, but I encourage you to read my book Language of the Soul. How's that for a shameless plug.

Speaker 1 14:13

It is well known that a gene pool will peter out if random variations are not introduced, often via the stranger. I find this the perfect metaphor for discussing ideas. Without new, novel thought forms and paradigms to upend the old, the human race, will find ourselves unadaptable to change, in danger of extinction. Another apt metaphor is this as an instructor at my alma mater, the aforementioned world-renowned design college, the work on display in the gallery has long been accused of conforming to a single mold. Students become minions who reflect the influence of instructors, especially those professors intent to leave a legacy. Come time to submit for scholarship, students assume they'll be rewarded for squelching their own sensibilities in favor of the brand of the day, and they're not wrong.

Speaker 1 15:04

However, in this climate, where do the new voices come from? Where does the next generation of creative genius germinate? If literary editors and publishers continue robbing authors of voice and if content-creating hacks continue using AI to crank out cookie-cutter gruel, what does the future hold? Hint, it's grim. One thing is sure the new ideas that become our salvation do not derive from the cesspool known as the status quo. Sure, hegel's dialectic suggests we obey a never-ending merging of thesis and antithesis into the synthesis that will best promote our survival. This ideological dialectic is as crucial to our proliferation as that of our biology. But again, where does the burgeoning genius of each new generation come from?

Speaker 1 15:53

Why does the phenomenon of cutting-edge thought forms recur ad infinitum? Surely it's not just the inclination of youth to imagine they're the first to see outside the box and thereby reinvent the wheel. It's the unique subjective gifts of individuals with a direct line to collective consciousness, those prophets and visionaries who receive non-local, energetic communication in the form of the proverbial lightning strike of inspiration. The thing is that very inspiration comes from collective intelligence, because it knows what's needed in the proliferation of the species. It's nothing less than that, model training aside.

Speaker 1 16:31

The content AI tends to generate is generic and homogenous by definition. By contrast, a great writer traditionally demonstrates flair, style and a strong voice. All of these attributes are subjective, incorporating the unique sensibilities and aesthetic tastes of the individual. A great writer who has devoted their life to the pursuit becomes a master at speaking cerebrally to the head, viscerally to the gut or emotionally to the heart. They become a master of cultural relativism. Over time, they know what will resonate universally and what will ring too personal or subjective to be relatable. In the Ultimate Irony, it's said that the more personal a writer can make resonate universally and what will ring too personal or subjective to be relatable. In the Ultimate Irony, it's said that the more personal a writer can make a passage or a work, the more universally it will land with a readership. This is the alchemy that cannot be taught or bottled. Without waxing overly romantic, many would agree that when a writer takes the lifelong chemin artistique seriously as a calling, a lifetime of observing the human condition renders them a live wire primed for inspiration. When that elusive inspiration strikes, preparation meets opportunity and the floodgates open.

Speaker 1 17:43

Personally, I parse between style and voice in all art forms, but let's stick to the literary realm. For our purposes here, the style of a writer is primarily a product of craft or technique, from word choice and juxtaposition to rhythm or alliteration, from sparse poetic simplicity to dense, ornate prose. Narrative voice, literary device, structure and even editorial inclusion or omission may play a part. Then there's thematic content and use of motif. Totally separate but more germane to what's at stake is voice, not the narrative voice of a given work, third-person omniscient, for example but artistic voice. This mysterious fingerprint is a product of everything from one's inborn sense of aesthetics to one's worldview and emotional imprint. It's a product of their unique subjective life experience, fond attachments and affinities, as well as emotional scars and psychological baggage. Most importantly, when fused with the universe's call to create, this subjective experience communicates universals through a subjective lens of experience that resonates with authenticity. As yet, none of the above can be simulated.

Speaker 1 18:59

Throughout modern history, most art schools have promoted similar tenets to do with what constitutes artistic merit For one. Artistic integrity and literary value tend to hinge on resisting didactic agenda lest a work lapse into the realm of propaganda In the same way that AI hallucinates. Finger count in fake news. Remember Societal norms, mores and even political agenda can surreptitiously color the content. Also known as noise, ai is capable of regurgitating from the collective.

Speaker 1 19:32

It's said in many circles that sentimentality is death to literary value, that attachment to outcome should be subservient to process and the execution of an inspired concept. There is a direct through-line from life experience to emotional catharsis, via the creative process to the completion of the circuit, when the patron, reader or audience, for example, experiences that same catharsis. Any and all of these oft-romanticized, elitist views on art, creative innovation and creative expression can be debated. I often challenge them myself as they assign too much self-importance to self-professed creative geniuses. I soften some of the tenets by clarifying there is nothing special about those who wrangle inspiration beyond their commitment to doing so.

Preserving Story Against Fascism

Speaker 1 20:18

We all have access to the miraculous machinations of the creative process. Whether you embrace or categorically reject traditional notions of what constitutes artistic merit or true creative innovation, it's fair to say that, like all conventional wisdoms, they are informed by eons of human experience. The question becomes have we evolved to the point we must retire all of our mindsets, thoughtforms and paradigms which of them still serve our survival and proliferation, thought forms and paradigms which of them still serve our survival and proliferation and which are limiting tropes that hinder our march toward human potential, like a ball and chain which should be taken out to the field and shot. Consider this there is a push toward plant-based or vegan food sources, but we still have our canine teeth, along with movements like transhumanism, the anticipated normalization of human implantation and augmentation with technology. Many seem quick to abandon traditional indicators of our humanity, but I am not convinced. The human condition, its temperament and disposition, has evolved to the point we can shirk the past entirely. So my resistance is a call to action, a cautionary tale about the value of our humanity. It's my contention that without evolving our thought forms and ideas neck and neck with our biology, we are doomed to extinction. Creative innovation and story in particular, not titillating noise meant to divert, not propaganda to control the populace, and certainly not vapid consumerist content meant to push product for the almighty dollar, will always remain the means by which we transform. It will always have a place in our dialectic, and scraping what has come before will never result in new, novel paradigms crucial to that evolution.

Speaker 1 22:09

As unpopular as the sentiment has become, I must sing it from the rooftops. Ai is a tool and nothing more. It's best used for menial tasks and data processing. Solid concepts must always drive their own execution, especially if AI is employed as a tool in any capacity. And, most important of all, those strong, innovative concepts must derive from the lightning strike of true inspiration, for it comes from the universe itself. In all its wisdom, it knows what's needed next.

Speaker 1 22:43

Alas, where and how do feelings factor into this conversation? Technology is famous for emotional deficit. A news story during the first Trump administration exposed the destruction of two AI bots in China for bashing communism. It was a comical reminder that AI can supersede the pleasure principle and zero in on what's ethical. Similarly, however, the assertion has been made that well-intended socialist ideas fail when principle prevails over human empathy and compassion. Dr Spock showed us the downside of logic minus heart. Proponents of AI will claim empathy and compassion can be programmed. I'm not convinced. Nor am I convinced that the database of Jungian archetypes humans can access effortlessly in our collective cellular memory is available to AI.

Speaker 1 23:34

Our responses to formal properties and the generalization of them into symbols has been perfected over millennia for survival by our highly sophisticated limbic systems. Those innate responses become mapped on our worldviews and value systems, transcendent of language. In other words, we dreamt in images before the advent of language, and those images remain the language of the soul. When an artist draws on this vast reservoir, resonance results, ai's attempts to fake resonance or non-linear poetic randomness and absurdity are comical at best, awkward juxtapositions of meaningless gobbledygook, sometimes quite convincing gobbledygook. The result is akin to the strangely poetic lovechild of kitchen magnet poetry and a scrabble board. What's missing is a driving force behind the form, a force only a human soul can wrangle.

Speaker 1 24:34

Creativists like Rene Urbanovich, evan McDermott and Dave Zabosky are passionate about the role of love in the creative process. Love of craft is essential, according to them, fueling every stroke of a brush and every peck of a key, but affinity for the material itself, attachment and connection, and longing and grief infuse the life and authenticity that transcends the creative process and speaks to patrons. If there's one thing I'm sure of, it's this it will be a long while before a circuit board is capable of feeling love. I'm far from a one-man holdout for the preservation of our humanity. I'm part of a movement, a movement that, yes, includes romantics who love the tactile, sensual feel of a well-bound novel or the smell of a bookstore, but, more importantly, those who can read the fascist writing on the wall. But, more importantly, those who can read the fascist writing on the wall.

Speaker 1 25:27

Story has always been the antidote to fascism, and robbing the masses of their stories has always been the currency of authoritarian regimes. Our humanity is worth preserving, and the pen is mightier than the sword. Selling out what makes us uniquely human in favor of transhumanism is a fever dream for those who seek to control the masses, not to mention a thinly disguised version of ethnic cleansing and eugenics. The thing is, it's all by design. In case fighting for our individualism and personal liberty seems naive or unattainable, consider this For many decades, smoking was permissible anytime, anywhere.

Calls to Join the Movement

Speaker 1 26:09

In the 70s, every burgundy drape of every hotel room smelled of smoke. Now it's an unsavory prospect. At best, norms do evolve, though slower than many of us would like. A few years from now, we can only hope that yapping into a cell phone in public, describing one's shanker or otherwise sharing dirty laundry, will be uncouth, as will using AI irresponsibly, with a full understanding of its erosive effects on society and its power to snuff out our humanity altogether. Let's nip this one in the bud, okay, thanks so much for listening, guys, and I hope you got something out of it. I think we're all formulating our thoughts on it, if not our policies, and sharing them with one another, I think is crucial. It does feel like a movement. It feels like kindred spirits who really are invested in our humanity and care to preserve it. I hope you'll join us and remember life is story and we can get our hands in the clay, individually and collectively. We can write a new story. See you next time.