Every now and then I watch a presentation about AI that actually adds something to the discussion. Jack Conte’s recent talk at SXSW is definitely one of those. Conte is not only the CEO and co-founder of Patreon, but also a musician and filmmaker himself, which probably explains why his presentation feels so personal. And passionate. Very passionate.
His SXSW session took place in Austin in March 2026, and the video has since been published as The future of creativity on the internet in a world with AI. Conte clearly struggles with AI himself. He is excited about what the technology could make possible, but at the same time angry about what is happening to artists and their work. That conflict is exactly what makes his presentation so interesting.
We have been here before
Conte spends quite a bit of time looking back at previous technological changes. Film initially copied theatre. Recorded music disrupted musicians playing live in cinemas. Synthesizers created fears that orchestras and musicians would become unnecessary. New technology repeatedly destroys existing business models, after which artists start figuring out what they can do with the new technology that simply wasn’t possible before.
He believes generative AI is currently going through a similar phase. Much of what we now see is what he describes as AI “slop”: technology being used mainly to imitate things we already know. Generate another picture. Another song. Another video. Another piece of text. Faster, cheaper and in almost unlimited quantities.
I think that distinction is important.
The debate about AI and creativity has become incredibly black and white. On one side are people who want nothing to do with AI-generated music, images or text because a human didn’t make it in the traditional sense. On the other side are people who seem determined to use AI for virtually everything.
I don’t find either position particularly useful.
Making more isn’t necessarily creating more
I use AI myself, including when writing. So obviously I don’t believe that using AI automatically makes something worthless. But there is a big difference between using AI as a creative tool and simply switching on some sort of content machine that produces hundreds of songs, articles or images because you hope to make money from the volume.
That doesn’t particularly interest me. What does interest me is someone taking these new tools and trying to do something genuinely new with them.
This is also where Conte makes an interesting point about creativity. Today’s AI models have learned from enormous amounts of existing human work. They are extraordinarily good at recognising patterns and recombining what already exists. That can produce impressive results, but it is fundamentally different from a human artist deliberately taking a creative risk, developing an unusual idea or deciding to make something nobody asked for.
Conte puts a lot of emphasis on precisely that human element. Art, in his view, is connected to difficulty, scarcity, risk and the person behind the work. We don’t just listen to music because certain sounds have been arranged correctly. We are also interested in the person who made it and what that person was trying to express.
Use AI to make your ideas possible
That is a much more useful way to look at AI and creativity. Don’t ask AI to come up with as much stuff as possible. Come up with ideas yourself and see whether AI can help you realise ideas that previously would have been too difficult, expensive or perhaps even impossible.
That applies to music, photography and video, but just as much to writing. AI can help me research, experiment, restructure, translate, challenge an argument or try a completely different approach. But there still has to be an idea. A reason for creating something.
That is why I like the double feeling in Conte’s presentation so much. He doesn’t pretend everything about AI is wonderful. Far from it. He is highly critical of how creators have been treated, including the use of their work for AI training without permission, attribution or compensation. At the same time, he refuses to conclude that the technology itself can therefore bring nothing worthwhile to art.
That middle ground is where this discussion becomes much more interesting to me. AI can produce more. Much, much more. But producing more isn’t the same thing as having a new idea. And perhaps the artists, musicians and writers who understand that difference will eventually do the most interesting things with AI.