Thomas Bangalter, one half of the electronic duo Daft Punk until their 2021 disbandment, said in a recent interview with Chanel that he would never use artificial intelligence in his creative work. His reasoning centers on a fundamental mismatch between how AI operates and how he experiences the creative process.
Bangalter framed his argument around the role of language in AI tools. "My relationship to creation and my relationship to art is mostly happening at a deeper level, which does not express itself through words," he said. "That's probably why I'm not really interested in the creative usage of artificial intelligence for many reasons."
Why prompting misses the point
The most common way people interact with generative AI today is through prompts - typed or spoken instructions. For Bangalter, that reliance on verbal expression is exactly what makes the tool unsuitable for genuine creativity. "The main one probably is because it goes through a verbal expression which is prompting, and I feel really the most interesting part of the creative process is happening not at all on an intellectual level or on an expressive level," he said.
He described that elusive stage as "understanding your feelings" - something that happens before words, often in a place where language fails. "So I like this idea when I was taking some time to answer you that I'm actually at a loss of words because it's exactly that thing that I'm trying to, to feel," he added.
AI in the arts: a growing tension
The music and art industries are already grappling with AI's expanding role. Tools that generate images, write lyrics, or compose songs are becoming more accessible, and the market for AI services is projected to reach $3.6 trillion within seven years. Yet a significant portion of the public still values human-made work - whether that's artisan crafts, farm-to-table food, or music made without algorithmic help.
Bangalter's stance puts him in a camp that sees the irreplaceable value of human intuition. For professionals in creative fields, his reasoning offers a clear argument for why relying solely on AI could undermine the very thing that makes art resonate. Generative Art platforms might produce output, but the output is only as meaningful as the prompt - and the prompt is already a step removed from the messy, pre-verbal process of feeling.
Why this matters for creatives
The debate isn't about whether AI can produce things that look or sound like art. It can. The real question, as Bangalter frames it, is whether using AI cuts off access to the part of creativity that happens before you can put it into words. For musicians, writers, designers, and other creatives, the choice to embrace or reject AI in their process may come down to what they value more: efficiency or depth. Understanding that tradeoff is essential for anyone building a career around original work. Resources like AI for Creatives can help professionals navigate that decision by showing how tools work in practice - without assuming they replace the human element.
Your membership also unlocks:
