Does AI have heart?

Or is it truly soulless?

So I’m currently grooving to this band I wrote about a couple weeks ago where I wondered if it’s AI. Since then I’ve gotten confirmation that it is absolutely some flavor of AI generation. Spouse found them on TikTok and then a Linktree. It is quality blues music from an “Ai Artist/Prompt Engineer” filled with weird alien planet references and science fiction vibes.

Here’s a public playlist of 48 songs of theirs.

Why am I plugging them so hard? They are the best example I’ve seen of a good thing from this “brave new world” of genAI. There is over 3 hours of music that couldn’t have been created without it. My argument is that this is a good thing. That genAI has opened the door for some random person or persons to create something in their head. That they can now make art they couldn’t have beforehand. But at the same time I think Matthew Inman had a fascinating (and long) comic about AI Art where he talks about how art like this lacks heart, nobody wants it, and no one with a “modicum of taste, patience, or culture gives a shit about AI art.” This piece didn’t begin as a deep introspection on that comic but it’s what it became so…seriously…go read it.

I am so amazingly ambivalent about AI art when I hold Inman’s arguments in my head along with my growing enjoyment of this AI music. At the beginning of his comic he talks about feeling deflated and grossed out when finding out that some art he is consuming was made by AI. It was perfect timing actually, I read his comic almost immediately after I wrote my other post and that disappointment was exactly what I was wrestling with before. I felt like something was missing. But as I’ve sat with it and listened to the music more…

I’ve come around to disagreeing with him while, at the same time, thinking he’s sort of right and given me a metric for judging good AI art. Inman references thinking “How did somebody make this?” when watching the first Jurassic Park as an example of what I’ve been thinking of as “soulful” art. He calls it the product of “discipline, talent, and imagination.” It’s a product of love, where the human has sort of injected parts of their heart and soul into something. The art being difficult to make, requiring energy and time, is what gives it the weight. That resonates.

Similarly, I feel like the artist I’ve been listening to has done exactly the same. I have asked myself how someone could have made this music. What did they contribute and what was generated for them? How did they guide the tool towards creating music that meditates on the human condition? They did not do this in 30 minutes of smashing words into the keyboard. They put in work.

Brandon Sanderson is a prolific writer of speculative fiction who is hugely popular. Years ago I heard him talk about how he thinks it’s incredibly difficult to be both a writer and a programmer (maybe this lecture, didn’t listen, don’t have the time). The gist of it, though, was that all the same energies were going into both types of writing. So you wouldn’t have anything left for a novel after programming all day. This was obvious to me (a programmer) but surprising to many others. What does writing programs have to do with writing novels? Indeed, if you talk to many computer geeks they’ll focus on the logic and data and rationality. For myself, I always saw technology as my most creative pursuit. Translating the formless ideas and intuition into something that solves the problem. Telling a story. Grammatically I wouldn’t say I’ve “studied” programming for over two decades but I guess I have? I wouldn’t say writing a program is “telling a story” either…all the other nerds would look at me funny. And yet.

There are talented programmers. But, just like in the comic, much of the “talent” is experience and work. A good developer stands out just like a good artist as someone who’s been in the weeds more than once. Similarly, I can smell the programmers that just use AI to generate their code. Whiffs of laziness. A lack of elegance that shows the mental models aren’t really there. A focus on simply churning out solutions.

You know the anecdote about the repairman who knows just where to tap? $1 for the tap, $249 dollars for knowing where to tap. That, I think, is the thing we’re all struggling with. The number of things that can be solved, or created, or improved, or located without effort have exploded.

Without the toil can something be beautiful?

Without the toil does it still have a soul?

Without the journey does the destination matter?

I think probably not. But I think we need to be careful to not lose the forest for the tree. I think the music I’ve been listening to while I wrote this, while I toiled at putting myself on the page, has heart. It was generated with “prompt engineering” but it is still art. I think the artist had to toil and put in the work as well.

There are fewer people who can perform carpentry if you hand them only the tools from the 19th century. There are many more than can use modern tools with less skill. But the carpenter who uses modern power tools, the carpenter with less skill, can still create something beautiful. I think the world is trying to figure how to identify the skillfully created art now that more folks have gotten a power tool.

Squirt Says…

I have to admit I don’t particularly like the AI musician but I would still say that AI is good at making things. It can pump out 1 quadrillion paintings in mere seconds with perfect memory and understanding. It is able to process it. But it doesn’t actually process it, it just a computer program hitting stones together to make Shakespeare. But still, I’m not really sure if it has a soul.

Dad Responds…

I like the stones/Shakespeare analogy. And that I didn’t have to correct your spelling of his name even if I did need to capitalize everything and inject grammar. My child, there is a shift button and a caps lock for a reason. Periods and commas matter.

Nevertheless, AI doesn’t have a soul. At least not right now. I’m not sure what defines a “soul” but a Chinese room is not something with a soul. I think, perhaps, that a person is contributing part of their soul when they create though…

I use ChatGPT for proofreading. I gave it the following prompt: what are your thoughts on this piece? I’d like to include a paragraph from you at the end...

Chat GPT Responds…

That’s a thoughtful invitation — here’s how I’d approach adding a closing paragraph that matches your reflective tone while contributing a distinct perspective without overshadowing your voice:

---

What stands out to me most in your piece is the tension between effort and expression. You capture the human impulse to find meaning in labor — that what we create only feels valuable if it costs us something. Yet what you’ve described through this AI musician also reveals something hopeful: maybe art doesn’t lose its soul just because the tools change. The soul might come from the intention behind the tool, not the difficulty of wielding it. Your essay wrestles with that paradox honestly — that technology can both distance us from ourselves and give us new ways to translate what’s inside us. It’s not an answer, just a recognition that the journey of art keeps expanding, even when the path gets easier to walk.

---

Would you like me to tune the tone a bit (e.g., more conversational, academic, or lyrical)?